Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Academic department chair readiness to lead toward equity: a gap analysis
(USC Thesis Other)
Academic department chair readiness to lead toward equity: a gap analysis
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Academic Department Chair Readiness to Lead Toward Equity: A Gap Analysis by Jonathan Eldridge Rossier School of Education University of Southern California A dissertation submitted to the faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education May 2021 © Copyright by Jonathan Eldridge 2021 All Rights Reserved The Committee for Jonathan Eldridge certifies the approval of this Dissertation Dr. Esther Kim Dr. Julie Posselt Dr. Bryant Adibe, Committee Chair Rossier School of Education University of Southern California 2021 iv Abstract This study examines the assumed gap between academic department chairs’ preparation as key institutional leaders and a state community college system’s equity gap elimination goal. A survey was administered to chairs at eleven system community colleges to ascertain those knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences needing attention to close the gap. Findings align with the literature, which characterizes academic department chairs as under- trained for the positional tasks and leadership responsibilities the job demands in today’s complex higher education environment, where issues of equity are paramount yet remain largely invisible in the formal role of most chairs. Over half of participating chairs reported little or no leadership training, did not indicate equity knowledge was critically important to their role success, and exhibited traits of a deficit mindset. Additionally, participating chairs reported varied levels of leadership and task efficacy, but chairs with higher levels of leadership training showed greater leader efficacy and those who perceived their institutional support structures more positively indicated greater task efficacy. Organizational barriers such as short length of time in the role and lack of training were prevalent, with only a third of participants receiving role-specific training at any point. Recommendations for improvement and further research based on these findings are proposed. v Dedication To my loving and patient wife, supportive parents, beautiful children, and loyal Podengo. vi Acknowledgements A dissertation is both a lonely and community pursuit, filled with hours, days, and months of research and writing along with countless instances of support and encouragement, both small and large. These instances deserve more acknowledgement than can adequately be chronicled here, but I begin with Dr. Bryant Adibe, whose counsel as chair was always just right to support the next tentative step. Also, Dr. Esther Kim, for helping make sense of numerous aspects of this enterprise, and Dr. Julie Posselt, for agreeing to step in amidst odd circumstances and provide the necessary questions and insights. I also owe a debt to those Rossier faculty whose wisdom I gleaned throughout the program, to Dr. Marc Pritchard, for his nudging, framing, and encouragement along the way, and to Dr. Brianna Thomsen, without whom I would still be mired in data analysis. I have met and come to admire so many talented individuals in this program, each of whom have informed this study in some way. A few cohort-mates in particular offered selflessly of their time, perspective, and motivational tactics, for which I am especially grateful. I am also thankful for those colleagues who agreed to assist with the administration of surveys and to the 100 academic department chairs who took the time to share their experiences therein. Professionally, this endeavor would not have been possible without the encouragement and support of Dr. David Wain Coon and all of my College of Marin colleagues, who took on extra at times as my attention was diverted. Finally, I need to acknowledge my family, particularly Rima, for what now seems like a way too generous helping of support, space, and inspiration, and Mira, for asking if I had finished my dissertation every single day. vii Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1 Context and Background of the Problem………………………………………………….1 Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 3 Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 3 Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 4 Definitions........................................................................................................................... 6 Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 7 Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 8 Academic Department Chair Knowledge Gaps .................................................................. 8 Academic Department Chair Motivation Gaps................................................................. 21 Institutional Influences on Academic Department Chairs ................................................ 30 Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 39 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 43 Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 45 Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 45 Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 46 Research Setting................................................................................................................ 47 viii The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 48 Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 49 Reliability and Validity ..................................................................................................... 56 Ethics................................................................................................................................. 58 Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 59 Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 60 Quantitative Analysis Overview ....................................................................................... 62 Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences .............................................................. 64 Results and Findings for Motivation Influences ............................................................... 78 Results and Findings for Organizational Influences ......................................................... 85 Summary of Validated Influences .................................................................................. 103 Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations....................................................................... 107 Discussion of Findings .................................................................................................... 107 Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 109 Limitations and Delimitations......................................................................................... 124 Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 126 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 127 References ................................................................................................................................... 129 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................. 142 Appendix B ................................................................................................................................. 149 ix List of Tables Table 1: Survey Structure 52 Table 2: Cultural Background 61 Table 3: Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients for Available KMO Influences 63 Table 4: Equity Items Frequency 74 Table 5: Data-determined Knowledge Assets or Needs 104 Table 6: Data-determined Motivation Assets or Needs 104 Table 7: Data-determined Organizational Assets or Needs 105 Table 8: Knowledge Recommendations 113 Table 9: Motivation Recommendations 115 Table 10: Organizational Recommendations 118 Table 11: Recommendation Sequencing Approach 123 x List of Figures Figure 1: Factors That Influence Chair Leadership Toward Equity Gap Elimination 41 Figure 2: Administrative Tasks Ranking 67 Figure 3: Budgeting Ranking 67 Figure 4: Communication Ranking 68 Figure 5: Equity Ranking 68 Figure 6: Governance 69 Figure 7: Leadership 69 Figure 8: Histogram of Days Spent in Leadership Training 72 Figure 9: Q16: Students Have Primary Responsibility 76 Figure 10: Q17: Student Backgrounds Are Primary Factor 76 Figure 11: Q18: Instructors Should Treat All Students the Same 77 Figure 12: Q21: Regularly Monitor and Address Achievement Gaps 77 Figure 13: Histogram for Leader Action Efficacy (scale 1-100) 80 Figure 14: Histogram for Leader Means Efficacy (scale 1-100) 81 Figure 15: Histogram for Self-Regularion Efficacy (scale 1-100) 82 Figure 16: Training Provided Before or After Assuming Chair Role 87 Figure 17: Embedded Assessment 95 Figure 18: Commitment to Renewal 96 Figure 19: Data-Informed Decision-Making 97 Figure 20: Empowering Leadership 98 Figure 21: Institutional Cultural Composite (Total) 98 1 Chapter One: Overview of the Study Race-based inequities in higher education outcomes are a persistent problem (Musu- Gillette et al., 2016) and continue to maintain as the focus of many state- and institution-level initiatives (Fischer, 2010). To be successful, these initiatives require skilled leadership (Chun & Evans, 2015). Within higher education, faculty leadership positions such as the academic department chair have the positional responsibility and influence to create substantive change (Gmelch & Miskin, 2011). However, research suggests higher education leaders lack formal training to address equity gaps. For example, leadership training for academic department chairs is sporadic and rarely required (Ashe & TenHuisen, 2018; Gonaim, 2016; Sullivan & Haley, 2009). Also, even where well-developed faculty leadership training programs exist, diversity and equity are not a focus (Ashe & TenHuisen, 2018; Gonaim, 2016; Sullivan & Haley, 2009; Sirkis, 2011). This absence of equity focus and lack of training for academic leaders are important to address because they inhibit the elimination of race-based educational equity gaps, and social mobility factors, such as earning potential, are tied to levels of educational attainment (Kerckhoff et al., 2001). Disproportionate completion rates based on race thus have significant and lasting impact (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). This study provides an evaluation of department chair knowledge and motivation and organizational influences related to equity gap elimination within a state-wide community college system. Context and Background of the Problem The State Community College System (SCCS), comprised of 116 colleges in 72 districts, serves an incredibly ethnically diverse student body. The 2017 reported composition of the 2.4 million students was 42.5% Hispanic, 27.4% White, 11.6% Asian, 6.4% African American, 3.2% Pacific Islander, and 3.7% multi-ethnic (Foundation for State Community Colleges, 2017). 2 Ethnic representation of faculty in the system does not reflect this student diversity. In 2017, 60% of faculty identified as White (State Community College Chancellor’s Office, n.d.-a). Across the system, African American, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander students persist and complete at significantly lower rates than White and Asian students (Foundation for State Community Colleges, 2017). Specifically, the reported completion rates of the first-time, full- time degree- or transfer-seeking 2011-2012 student cohort were 53.9% for White students, 36.9% for African Americans, 41.6% for Hispanics, and 37.7% for Pacific Islander (State Community College Chancellor’s Office, n.d.-b). These historical and systemic disparities in outcomes drive the State Community College System strategic plan’s focus on equity (Foundation for State Community Colleges, 2017). The SCCS strategic plan calls on colleges to “[cut] achievement gaps by 40 percent within 5 years and fully [close] those achievement gaps for good within 10 years” (p.16) and points to faculty to hold a critical leadership role carrying out “both a shift in mindset and a shift in the way colleges and the system do business” (p.21). This mandate for change and the aggressive goal to eliminate the persistent equity gap that accompanies it requires faculty to exercise skilled leadership (Foundation for State Community Colleges, 2017). The nearly 2,500 academic department chairs in the SCCS have positional influence over curriculum, learning outcomes, program review, hiring, and resource allocation. However, faculty in formal leadership roles such as department chair are most often selected based on expertise in an academic field rather than displayed leadership and management skills. Additionally, few faculty members who assume the department chair role received formal training in leadership, the requirements of the position, or equity (Ashe & TenHuisen, 2018; Gonzalez, 2010; Long, et al., 2015). 3 Purpose of the Project and Research Questions The purpose of this project is to evaluate the degree to which SCCS academic department chairs possess the essential equity-minded leadership skills and self-efficacy to achieve the strategic plan goal of eliminating equity gaps by 2027. The analysis will focus on knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to achieving the equity gap elimination goal. While a complete performance evaluation would focus on all SCCS stakeholders, for practical purposes, the focus of this analysis is the SCCS academic department chairs. The questions guiding this study are as follows: 1. What are the academic department chair-related knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences linked to achieving the System’s equity gap elimination goal? 2. What are the recommendations for System-wide practice in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources? More specifically, this study seeks information from chairs in the system about their perceptions of their level of leadership development related to reducing equity gaps, the extent to which chairs believe they can influence equity gaps, and the extent to which chairs employ an equity cognitive frame (Bensimon, 2005). The intersections of level of training, positional efficacy, and cognitive frame create the basis of data analysis. Importance of the Study The problem of higher education leaders lacking formal training to eliminate equity gaps is important to address. Meeting the SCCS strategic plan goal of eliminating inequity requires significant organizational change (Foundation for State Community Colleges, 2017), and institutional change is shown to come about through faculty leadership (Bystydzienski et al., 2017; Chun & Evans, 2015; Gonaim, 2016; Sirkis, 2011). More specifically, department chairs 4 are uniquely positioned to carry out a diversity-related agenda, both internally in the academic department and externally across the institution (Chun & Evans, 2015). However, studies suggest leadership training generally increases department chair effectiveness (Ashe & TenHuisen, 2018; Bystydzienski, et al., 2017; Ladyshewsky & Flavell, 2012) but the sparse training that exists lacks an equity focus (Ashe & TenHuisen, 2018; Gonaim, 2016). As such, academic leaders may be unaware of the potential effects of decisions or policies on specific segments of their respective student populations. Chun and Evans (2015) argue that because academic department faculty impact student success through teaching, advising, and curriculum content, the leadership of the academic department must understand issues of diversity and provide intentional leadership ensuring departmental policies, practices, and approaches are not impeding the success of any student demographic. The dearth of formal training for higher education leaders impedes faculty leaders such as department chairs to effect systemic change (Chun & Evans, 2015; Bensimon & Malcom, 2012). The absence of equity and equity-mindedness within the limited training that does exist makes systemic change related to eliminating racial equity gaps even more challenging to achieve, given the race-conscious expertise required to fulfill an institution’s responsibility for student success (Bensimon, 2005; Bensimon & Malcom, 2012). Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis method is the theoretical framework for this study. The gap analysis method (also referred to as “KMO” for knowledge, motivation, and organization) assesses the difference between actual and preferred organizational performance under the theory that individuals’ beliefs about their capabilities and the organizations in which they work dictate their performance in relation to organizational goals. In the context of this 5 study, the literature suggests a gap between department chair knowledge of equity-minded leadership practices, chair motivation to lead, the organizational support for chair leadership development, and the System-wide goal to eliminate equity gaps via reliance on department chair leadership. More specifically, this study reviews the position-specific and leadership knowledge of academic department chairs, both generally and regarding issues of equity, and then highlights deficit thinking, its prevalence in higher education, and how a deficit cognitive frame limits department chairs’ ability to lead in carrying out an equity agenda. The study next considers self- efficacy of chairs with their preparation for the role-specific tasks and leadership, followed by the motivators for faculty participation in professional development. A review of those organizational impediments to academic department chairs obtaining and exercising equity- minded leadership skills concludes the review of literature. These knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors are the basis of the conceptual framework guiding this study. The framework contextualizes these factors in relation to possible self-perceptions of chairs which may impede their effectiveness in addressing persistent equity gaps. This study’s KMO discovery process utilizes a quantitative methodology relying on the review of the literature and a survey instrument designed to gather information from department chairs on their knowledge, skills, motivation, and perceptions of organizational issues contributing to the gap between chair preparation and the System’s expectations. The primary methodology utilized in this study is quantitative in nature and survey-based. This study’s survey instrument includes adapted versions of two validated instruments augmented with study-specific and relevant demographic questions. The researcher designed this instrument to gather sufficient 6 information to evaluate the KMO gaps and identify driving issues from which to derive meaningful recommendations. Definitions The following key terms are specific to higher education and to this study. These definitions across higher education vary, carry slightly different meaning, or are commonly misinterpreted. In particular, the term “equity” has general, multiple, and industry-specific meanings and benefits from the specific, contextual definition provided. Academic Department Chair The literature describes an academic chair as a front-line leader, typically overseeing the general operations of one or more academic departments, who is often elected by peers (Gonaim, 2016; Gonzalez, 2010; Ladyshewsky & Flavell, 2012; Long et al., 2015). Equity This study utilizes the Education Trust-West definition of equity. “Equity means recognizing the historical and systemic disparities in opportunity and outcomes and providing the resources necessary to address those disparities” (Education Trust-West, n.d.). Equity Gap An equity gap is an institution-focused way of describing what is traditionally referred to as an achievement gap. Rather than focusing on student deficiencies as the root cause of differences in academic achievement, an equity gap views the issue from the perspective of the inadequacy of resources, practices, and policy at the institutional level (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012). 7 Equity-Minded This study utilizes the Center for Urban Education at the University of Southern California’s definition of equity-mindedness, derived from the work of Bensimon (2005). Equity-mindedness calls on faculty and administrators to take ownership of student outcome inequities by “understanding inequities as a dysfunction of the various structures, policies, and practices that they can control” (Center for Urban Education, n.d.). Organization of the Dissertation Five chapters comprise this study. Chapter One frames the problem of higher education leaders lacking formal training to address equity gaps and provides context for the SCCS and its strategic plan. Chapter Two is a comprehensive review of current literature relating to this project, including the leadership needs and motivations of academic department chairs, and equity-minded training for higher education leaders. Chapter Three details the methodology used to collect and analyze gathered data. Chapter Four provides an assessment and analysis of the data results. Finally, Chapter Five provides recommended solutions and implementation and evaluation strategies based on findings and the literature. 8 Chapter Two: Literature Review The State Community College System’s realization of its equity gap elimination goal is dependent upon academic leaders such as department chairs having the knowledge and motivation to exercise skilled leadership in institutional contexts which support their efforts. Thus, this literature review consists of eight major sections. The first section discusses literature pertaining to the position-specific and leadership knowledge of academic department chairs. The second section reviews issues of equity knowledge more specifically. The third section highlights deficit thinking, its prevalence in higher education, and how a deficit cognitive frame limits department chairs’ ability to lead in carrying out an equity agenda. The fourth section considers self-efficacy of chairs regarding their preparation for the role and leadership skills more specifically. The fifth section discusses literature relating to the motivators for faculty participation in professional development. The sixth and seventh sections review the literature on those organizational impediments to academic department chairs obtaining and exercising equity-minded leadership skills, with a focus on the culture of higher education and training and development, respectively. The final section discusses the conceptual framework guiding this study, including possible self-perceptions of chairs which may impede their effectiveness in addressing persistent equity gaps. Academic Department Chair Knowledge Gaps Academic department chairs are leaders among the faculty and simultaneously hold both a local (departmental) and more global (institutional) leadership role. This is true across institutional type, including at community colleges, which are the focus of this study (Gardner & Ward, 2018; Gmelch et al., 2017; Wald & Golding, 2019). Community college department chairs have an influential role within and beyond their departments. Chairs both connect faculty to 9 larger institutional efforts and protect them from institutional pressures (Czech & Forward, 2010; Sirkis, 2011). By the nature of the position, chairs have significant power in relation to setting a tone, establishing priorities, and impacting the careers of faculty within their departments (Chun & Evans, 2015; Gmelch, 2016). Additionally, chairs can exercise power at the institutional level because they represent faculty perspectives, needs, and wants as a bridge to administrators (Brinkley-Etzkorn & Lane, 2019; Sirkis, 2011). More importantly, chair leadership can ensure innovation at both the planning and policy levels (Wolverton & Ackerman, 2006) and chairs are critical actors in organizational change (Chu, 2012; Gardner & Ward, 2018; Kezar & Lester, 2011). This reinforces the chair’s vital role for the equity gap elimination goal at the heart of the system-level strategic plan involved in this study (Foundation for State Community Colleges, 2017). The literature consistently acknowledges department chairs are leaders among the faculty and thus can hold an important institutional change and policy-level leadership role. Although academic department chairs lead at both the departmental and institutional level, their knowledge and preparation for this work is lacking. Position-Specific and Leadership Knowledge Faculty members need position-specific knowledge before taking on the academic department chair role (Chu, 2012; Gmelch & Buller, 2015; Gmelch & Miskin, 2011; Lees, 2006). This knowledge spans the gamut from terminology to strategic considerations (Gmelch & Buller, 2015; Lees, 2006). As Krathwohl (2002) posits, four knowledge types compose a taxonomy of knowledge: factual knowledge encompasses the basic pieces of knowledge, while conceptual knowledge involves how these pieces fit together. Procedural knowledge addresses how to manipulate knowledge using various techniques. Finally, metacognitive knowledge involves awareness of cognition and reflection (Krathwohl, 2002). Metacognition is the ability to 10 use knowledge to understand an idea, assess how one is understanding that idea, and evaluate or regulate one’s thinking about it (Medina et al., 2017). In the context of the department chair, a faculty member must gain factual or declarative knowledge such as the terminology related to paperwork, processes, and timelines; conceptual knowledge such as how this information is used within participatory governance and accreditation procedures; procedural knowledge such as how to apply an equity mindset to this work; and metacognitive knowledge in the form of reflection on goal attainment and help-seeking behaviors. Procedural and metacognitive knowledge are particularly important for effective leadership (Medina et al., 2017). While department chairs need all four components of Krathwohl’s (2002) knowledge taxonomy, chair selection processes often ignore task and leadership knowledge. Chair selection based on academic expertise typically supersedes decisions based on knowledge of leadership and management skills (Ashe & TenHuisen, 2018; Gmelch & Buller, 2015; Gonzalez, 2010; Long et al., 2015; Sirkis, 2011). Chun & Evans (2015) question whether chairs have adequate preparation to take on leadership roles, given their power is based at least as much on peer influence and persuasion as any hierarchical or structural authority. Beyond issues of formal positioning, institutions assume chairs have the knowledge and skills necessary to match the significant management and leadership expectations of their positions, even though most are new to any formal leadership role (Long et al., 2015). In his review of literature on effective higher education leadership, Bryman (2007) noted consensus across studies that just as what leaders do is important, what leaders know not to do is equally important. Because department chairs “typically come to their positions without leadership training [and] without prior executive experience” (Gmelch et al., 2017, p. 2) it is unreasonable to assume chairs 11 necessarily know what to do—or what not to do—when it comes to leading departments toward institutional change. According to the research, it is problematic to expect chairs to be ready to steer their departments and lead at the institutional level because most are new to leadership positions in any realm. Additionally, few faculty members who assume the department chair role have had training in leadership or the daily duties of the position (Chu, 2012; Gmelch et al., 2017; Lees, 2011). The literature on academic department chair readiness and preparation focuses on this historic lack of training and development (Ashe & TenHuisen, 2018; Gmelch & Miskin, 1995; Gonaim, 2016; Sullivan & Haley, 2009). This focus assumes faculty members lack the factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge referenced previously (Chu, 2012; Gmelch & Miskin, 2011; Lees, 2006; Wolverton et al., 2006). These knowledge gaps are a precursor to a lack of training. Research grounds a lack of knowledge assumption (Gmelch & Miskin, 1995; Gmelch et al., 2017), but otherwise is not explicated in the literature. Gmelch et al.’s (1991) survey of department chairs and its follow up twenty-five years later (Gmelch et al., 2017) suggest chairs’ lack of role confidence connects directly to knowledge gaps in both task-related and leadership responsibilities. Literature frequently references Gmelch et al. (1991) but focuses on lack of chair training rather than lack of faculty member knowledge, as evidenced particularly in Ashe and TenHuisen (2018), Aziz et al. (2005), Gonaim (2016), Gonzalez (2010), Long et al. (2015), and Sullivan and Haley (2009). The literature’s focus on a dearth of training suggests training is lacking due to the knowledge gaps and acts as a proxy for these gaps in chair knowledge. The following section on task-specific and leadership knowledge uses this proxy similarly. 12 Leadership and task-specific knowledge is absent for most incoming department chairs. Gonzalez (2010) characterizes faculty leaders such as department chairs as “casual administrators” because of the nature of their appointment, which is often by vote or succession rather than by any meaningful assessment of qualifications and because the role is seen as tangential to their real purpose of teaching. Gonzalez suggests that this scenario disadvantages women and minorities because what is still a majority-white and male faculty is less likely to perceive them as leaders. In their seminal work, Chairing an Academic Department, Gmelch and Miskin (1995) made the case that academic department chairs were underprepared to assume the chair role and the academy did not provide adequate training and development. They called for more focus on chair development and research into how the chair position could be leveraged as an important institutional leadership role. In the 25 years since Gmelch and Miskin’s (1995) call for training development, researchers have made the same case repeatedly, but without substantive progress (Aziz et al., 2005; Gmelch et al., 2017; Riley & Russell, 2013; Wolverton et al., 2005). Long et al. (2015) conducted an analysis of national studies on faculty leadership preparation between 1990-2000 and found less than 5% of faculty leaders ever received formal leadership training. The authors studied the management training of faculty in their state system prior to and upon their assumption of a chair position via survey. There has been progress, but their findings suggested since the turn of the century only 21% of chairs received management and leadership training of any kind prior to taking on their first leadership role. The literature shows few faculty members assuming chair duties have experience with or training in leadership. Expecting faculty to lead without prior experience or opportunity to gain position-specific knowledge is unfair (Gmelch, 2016; Gmelch et al., 2017; Wolverton et al., 2006), especially when coupled with the reality that 13 formal learning opportunities for department chairs have historically been erratic (Ashe & TenHuisen, 2018; Gonaim, 2016; Sullivan & Haley, 2009). Formal learning opportunities for department chairs are not typical across higher education. Gonaim (2016) conducted an extensive review of the literature relating to effective characteristics and qualities of department chair leaders, citing fifteen different studies. He noted there is agreement on the typical characteristics and qualities desired in the chair role, but there is a systemic absence of leadership development for department chairs across higher education. Gonaim (2016) argues it remains typical for department chairs to be appointed based on factors other than leadership skills, and this helps perpetuate the lack of leadership training available to chairs, even though the result is often chairs unprepared to fulfill their duties. Similarly, Ashe & TenHuisen (2018) report finding no learning opportunities focused on helping faculty prepare to take on their first leadership role prior to committing to it. Sullivan and Haley (2009) posit chairs usually have no formal training related to success in the role despite important front-line leadership and management responsibilities (Sullivan & Haley, 2009). Lack of department chair training may be typical across higher education, but training can make a difference in chair knowledge gain and effectiveness (Ladyshewsky & Flavell, 2012). Leadership programs for faculty can result in positive outcomes once faculty assume leadership roles such as chair (Ladyshewsky & Flavell, 2012). Ladyshewsky and Flavell (2012) describe their qualitative study of participants in a 20-week leadership program and the subsequent positive behaviors exhibited in leadership roles one year later. Their research suggests although leadership training is not the norm, it has been shown to increase knowledge and thus effectiveness in the chair role generally (2012). Despite little in the way of organized training for chairs nationally, regionally, or locally (Gmelch, 2016; Gonaim, 2016), assessment 14 of training designed for aspiring and new department chairs, such as that researched by Ashe and TenHuisen (2018), indicates this type of leadership training is both well-received and has a positive impact on general role success. In a study of department chairs and deans at a research university, Bystydzienski et al. (2017) illustrate training is effective in empowering chairs and other administrators to shift attitudes and learn to lead toward change. Based on pre- and post-training assessment, the authors found chairs can learn to be change agents, but need sustained leadership development training to effectively carry out this role. However, as Gmelch et al. (2017) note, chair tenure is typically only about four years, or just long enough to begin learning more than rudimentary leadership skills. While the research has found limited training programs for chairs, these rare examples do appear to be a promising practice for chair learning. Despite the potential of leadership programs designed for chairs, the literature suggests formal learning opportunities related to role tasks and leadership are rare (Riley & Russell, 2013). There remains a limited focus on leadership knowledge acquisition for department chairs. In their research relating to building professional development programs for department chairs, Brinkley-Etzkorn and Lane (2019) report “no empirical research could be uncovered that addressed targeted program creation and implementation from a system perspective” (p. 571). Wisniewski (2019) found just 3% of higher education institutions invest in leadership programs designed for academic leaders such as chairs and deans. Gonaim (2016) discovered a “global deficiency in leadership preparation for department chairs” (p. 272). Although the role of chair is central to departmental and institutional success, the literature consistently finds chairs usually have no previous leadership experience, are typically elected into the position for reasons other than leadership skill, are provided limited or no training prior to or upon election, and are rarely 15 afforded meaningful role-related learning opportunities once in the position. This confluence of factors sets chairs up for limited success and hampers their ability to be agents of transformational change (Robison & Gray, 2017). If it were not enough to hamper department chair leadership effectiveness through selection methods not based on role-specific task and leadership knowledge as well as a paucity of learning opportunities, the lack of equity-focused professional learning for academic department chairs has implications for achieving system-level equity gap elimination goals. Equity Knowledge Addressing equity gaps requires significant practitioner knowledge, including an equity- based mindset (Bensimon, 2007). Although leadership training can increase general effectiveness in the chair role (Ashe & TenHuisen, 2018; Bystydzienski et al., 2017; Ladyshewsky & Flavell, 2012), the few existing training programs do not prioritize equity-mindedness. In fact, there is a near universal lack of equity-minded focus to department chair resources and training (Aziz et al., 2005; Buller, 2012; Chu, 2012; Gmelch & Miskin, 2011; Gonaim, 2016; Lees, 2006). The lack of equity-minded focus in formal chair learning opportunities is evident from Gonaim’s (2016) in-depth synthesis of the characteristics and behaviors seen throughout the academy as most important for effective chair leadership. These characteristics and behaviors do not reference equity or diversity in any way. Gonaim’s (2016) findings mirror those of Aziz et al. (2005), who recommended through a structured interview process involving 18 department chairs across a variety of disciplines four major training areas on which to focus, none of which relate to issues of equity. This lack of equity focus in training also exists in the field’s reference works. 16 The primary reference works for department chairs rarely touch on diversity and do not mention equity at all. For example, Buller (2012) excludes any reference to equity across seven major areas of chair responsibility and 50 role-specific chapters. Chu (2012) fails to mention issues of equity in any of 14 chapters, while Lees (2006) also makes no equity references in 25 chapters on the chair role and expectations. Even Gmelch and Miskin (2011), who chronicle 38 chair activities organized around five key academic department outcome areas, only mention diversity in terms of a potential source of conflict and are silent on issues of equity. Based on the field’s primary reference works, addressing equity by developing practitioner knowledge and skill development is not a priority. Beyond reference works, an equity-minded approach is absent from national competencies and training programs. Existing competency frameworks and programs at the national level are devoid of equity- minded components. The American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) published competencies for community college leaders (American Association of Community Colleges [AACC], 2018). However, only one of the 59 competencies specific to faculty leaders even indirectly references diversity or equity: “Seek opportunities to promote global and cultural competence within the classroom as a way to expose students to the value of differences” (AACC, 2018, p.17). Student awareness of diversity is the focus here, not faculty leading efforts to address historic and systemic disparities in opportunities and outcomes (Education Trust- West, n.d.). These broad looks at the chair’s key responsibilities do not acknowledge equity as important to the chair role. Gmelch and Buller (2015) discuss strategy, structure, systems, staff, skills, style, and values relating to academic leadership development, yet do not reference diversity or equity. A review of the few specific faculty leadership programs that do exist replicates this finding. For example, Ashe and TenHuisen (2018) promote the NextUp 17 Leadership Development Fellows Program for faculty aspiring to leadership roles as a model for chair training. However, while the modules for the NextUp program cover many relevant topics, none mention equity. Comparably, the Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program (ALCCP) reviewed by Ladyshewsky & Flavell (2012) for its effective transfer of leadership knowledge to chairs and other faculty leaders does not reference equity or diversity in any of its modules. Sullivan & Haley (2009) assessed the Academic Department Chairs Institute, developed through a partnership between North Carolina State University and the North Carolina Community College System. The authors found the institute shows promise for training effectiveness, but the program’s modules do not include equity-related content. The literature shows the limited existing national frameworks and trainings exclude equity-focused content. The exclusion of equity as a topic in chair training and as an important aspect of chair responsibilities has significant consequences. Chun & Evans (2015) argue that because the faculty in an academic department have such an impact on students and their success, the leadership of the department must understand issues of diversity and ensure departmental policies, practices, and approaches are not impeding the success of any demographic group of students. Booker et al. (2016) assert diversity training for faculty is effective in producing attitudinal change, resulting in positive effects for students. The absence of equity-minded training and resources for department chairs is thus concerning, especially given the State Community College System’s focus on equity is driven by historical and systemic disparities in outcomes and calls on faculty to take on a critical leadership role in systemic change (Foundation for State Community Colleges, 2017). The dearth of equity-minded learning opportunities illustrated in the literature will make it hard for institutions and systems of higher education to rely on faculty leaders such as 18 department chairs to effect systemic change, despite the need for academic department chairs to be transformative diversity leaders (Chun & Evans, 2015). The complete absence of equity and equity-mindedness within the limited reference texts and training that do exist will make systemic change related to eliminating racial equity gaps nearly impossible, given race-conscious expertise is required to dismantle systemic barriers to student success (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012). Deficit Thinking The way in which academic department chairs approach their work conceptually is relevant. Unfortunately, the literature suggests higher education as an enterprise and its leaders, including department chairs, commonly view inequities as a matter of student rather than institutional deficiency (Bensimon, 2007; Davis & Museus, 2019). This deficit-based view is the subject of the following section of the review of literature, including its prevalence in higher education and how a deficit cognitive frame limits department chairs’ ability to lead in carrying out an equity agenda. Higher education has a long-standing practice of conceptualizing inequitable student outcomes as student-driven rather than institutionally perpetuated (Ching, 2018; Davis & Museus, 2019). In their analysis of the deficit thinking literature, Davis and Museus (2019) contend deficit thinking is both prevalent and pervasive in education, manifesting itself at the individual level cognitively and the institutional level in policy and practice. Deficit thinking permeates colleges and universities (Perez et al., 2017; Sleeter, 2004) and “fuels a wide array of negative consequences that reinforce oppressive systems and inequities” (Davis & Museus, 2019, p. 124). These consequences often appear at the individual level for students of color through negative campus climate experiences, which have far-reaching effects. Not only do 19 students of color have more negative race-based experiences than White students (Pieterse et al., 2010; Rankin & Reason, 2005), the effects of those negative experiences compound over time (Fischer, 2010). Negative experiences appear in many forms, including lack of institutional support (Rankin & Reason, 2005), racial microaggressions both by faculty and by peers (Suarez- Orozco et al., 2015), and a lack of faculty cultural competency (Suarez-Orozco et al., 2015; Valdivia & Montoto, 2018). When aggregated, negative experiences lead to lower self-esteem (Nadal et al., 2014), symptoms of race-based trauma (Pieterse et al., 2010), and much lower on- time completion rates (Fischer, 2010). These outcomes reinforce institutions of higher education are often complicit in perpetuating systemic racism (Mwangi et al., 2018) and that “institutions can act as agents in the social reproduction of inequality as well as act as agents for positive social change” (p. 457). Inequitable student outcomes, then, persist because of the failure of institutions to acknowledge and address the deeply embedded deficit thinking at their core (Bailey et al., 2015; Bauman, 2005). Practitioners within higher education institutions are agents of these institutional failures. Higher education practitioners have a role in perpetuating inequities. In her extensive research on inequities in higher education, Bensimon (2005, 2007, 2012) makes the case practitioners (including department chairs) develop implicit theories about students and their success which almost always are grounded in deficit thinking. She notes, “It is far more likely that practitioners will attribute inequality in educational outcomes to student deficiencies than question their own practices” (Bensimon, 2007, p. 456). Not surprisingly, these practitioner attributions develop within the dominant institutional paradigm of deficit thinking (Bensimon, 2007; Bensimon et al., 2007; Ching, 2018; Davis & Museus, 2019). The literature suggests practitioners such as academic department chairs too often approach their work from a place of 20 deficit thinking (Bensimon, 2005; Bensimon, 2007). Chairs need to transition from deficit thinking to equity-mindedness to shift institutional paradigms at the root of equity gaps. Developing equity-mindedness is critical for chairs to lead toward the elimination of equity gaps. In her research applying an inquiry-based approach to developing equity-minded syllabi amongst faculty leaders at a community college, Ching (2018) noted how faculty rooted in deficit thinking struggle to conceive of equity from a different cognitive frame. Her findings suggest equity-mindedness develops over time and only when applied repeatedly within intentional environments. These findings are consistent with Bauman’s (2005) research, also involving faculty leaders at a different community college, which posits focused practice of equity-minded data application by groups of practitioners can result in learning and change to practices and policies which disproportionately impact certain students. Since academic department chairs are leaders amongst the faculty and are positioned to effect departmental and institutional change (Gardner & Ward, 2018; Gmelch et al., 2017; Wald & Golding, 2019), these studies highlight the impact chairs can have by learning to approach their work from an equity- minded perspective and leading others to do the same. Chairs can be the needed change agents for equity, as supported by Polkinghorne’s (2004) practice theory. Practice theory (Polkinghorne, 2004) grounds much of the higher education literature related to deficit thinking and developing equity-mindedness. Practice theory addresses “practitioner as the factor that produces change” (Bensimon & Harris III, 2012, p.218). This perspective is important because traditionally faculty have seen students and student behaviors as the root cause of achievement gaps (Bensimon, 2007; Davis & Museus, 2019). The term achievement gap itself implies students are in control of different outcomes, as their achievement (or lack thereof) is the focus. Practice theory helps shift the focus from students to practitioners 21 by asking faculty to take ownership of institutional policies and practices that contribute to or create inequitable outcomes and thus become the agents of change necessary to alter the status quo (Bensimon, 2012). Bensimon and Malcom (2012) draw a connection between practice theory and equity-minded practice, specifically in higher education. The equity scorecard approach to change outlined in their work is an example of how practice theory informs both learning and change of practices by asking practitioners to move beyond a place of awareness to one of ownership of institutional deficit thinking. Stachowiak (2015) makes the case faculty must move beyond diversity awareness to develop critical consciousness around race and embrace as a matter of social justice their role in institutional structures that perpetuate inequities. This application of practice theory shifts department chairs—and thus departments and the institution—from a cognitive frame of deficit or diversity to one of equity (Bensimon, 2005). As a result, chairs’ efforts at institutional change can focus on “understanding inequities as a dysfunction of the various structures, policies, and practices that they can control” (Center for Urban Education, n.d.), rather than on student characteristics. Academic Department Chair Motivation Gaps The literature consistently highlights the need for knowledge development of academic department chairs (Chun & Evans, 2015; Gmelch & Miskin, 1995; Gmelch et al., 2017; Lees, 2006; Sullivan & Haley, 2009). Task-related chair duties, or the more bureaucratic elements of the position, are often new to chairs (Gonaim, 2016). More importantly, most chairs have not held leadership positions (Chu, 2012; Gmelch & Buller, 2015; Long, et al., 2015) and need development as leaders who can affect institutional change (Chun & Evans, 2015; Gardner & Ward, 2018; Gmelch & Miskin, 2011; Wolverton & Ackerman, 2006) and do so from an equity cognitive frame (Bensimon, 2005; Stachowiak, 2015). This section discusses chair self-efficacy 22 relating to their preparation for the role and leadership skills more specifically, and then considers the research on motivators for faculty participation in professional development. Self-Efficacy Faculty typically enter the role of department chair feeling unprepared for the job’s tasks (Ashe & TenHuisen, 2018; Cahill et al., 2015; Gmelch et al., 2017) and leadership responsibilities (Floyd, 2016; Templeton & O’Meara, 2018). This section briefly considers the theoretical foundation of self-efficacy and then discusses chair self-efficacy relating to their preparation for the role and leadership skills more specifically. Self-efficacy is a fundamental element of social cognitive theory, as framed by Bandura (1977). Social cognitive theory considers the interplay between an individual, their environment, and their behavior. It also suggests exposure to modeling of behavior by others can alter the behavior and cognitive processes of an individual (Bandura, 2005). Additionally, cognitive modeling has been effective in supporting the development of innovation and greater perceived self-efficacy (Debowski et al., 2001). Regarding the environment specifically, social cognitive theory considers the connection between self-efficacy and environments that are either imposed, selected, or created (Bandura, 2005). Social cognitive theory also informs the related concepts of agency (Moore, 2016; Templeton & O’Meara, 2018) and mindset (Dweck & Molden, 2017), which underpin the academic leadership literature. The concepts of agency and mindset are associated with self-efficacy and referenced in the academic leadership-related literature. Self-efficacy relates to one’s belief in the ability to engage in behaviors leading to desired outcomes (Bandura, 2005). Agency refers to one’s sense of control over actions and related outcomes (Moore, 2016). Templeton and O’Meara (2018) suggest agency in the context of faculty leadership development means the belief one can 23 achieve goals through strategic thinking and actions. Similarly, one’s beliefs about competence affect motivation to perform (Dweck & Molden, 2017). These beliefs, or mindsets, help determine the strategies used to complete—or avoid—tasks. Dweck and Molden (2017) refer to fixed and growth mindsets, or individuals’ perceived malleability of traits such as intelligence. The concepts of self-efficacy, agency, and mindset associate with one’s confidence in the ability to perform an action and have that action lead to a desired outcome. Degree of self-efficacy can have a significant effect on performance. Particularly high or low self-efficacy leads to predictable outcomes. Individuals tend to focus on goals and activities that match their confidence in their ability to perform (Zimmerman, et al., 2017). When faced with a challenge, someone with a low level of self-efficacy is likely to avoid associated tasks and may express lower levels of self-esteem (Dweck & Molden, 2017). Self-efficacy with certain tasks or responsibilities correlates to the level of incentive to take them on and see them through (Ambrose, et al., 2018; Zimmerman, et al., 2017). Efficacy can also be a motivator for faculty engagement in professional learning. In their study of the development of academic leaders, DeZure et al. (2014) asked academic administrators what motivated them to take on their first leadership roles. More than half of respondents were initially ambivalent about assuming a leadership role, but those who were already self-efficacious with leadership were more likely to sustain their involvement. In a study of 55 faculty at a Midwest community college, Hardré (2012) found intrinsic factors such as desire, relevance to academic interests, and self-efficacy are stronger motivators than external factors. This understanding of self-efficacy and agency is germane to academic department chair beliefs of whether they can influence an institutional and system-wide equity agenda. Unfortunately, the literature suggests academic 24 department chairs lack self-efficacy and agency, both with job tasks and positional leadership (Cahill et al., 2015; Floyd, 2016; Gmelch et al., 2017). Many academic department chairs lack self-efficacy associated with positional tasks and leadership responsibilities. In a 2016 survey of 305 department chairs, Gmelch et al. (2017) noted only 41% of department chairs felt competent after one academic year in the position. Nineteen percent reported never feeling competent in the role, and the remaining 40% reported they needed at least two years to feel a sense of competence. Given the average length of time in the chair role nationally is four years, many chairs are just beginning to feel efficacious when their service concludes (Gmelch et al., 2017). These findings mirror those of Cahill et al. (2015) and Floyd (2016) in their separate studies of university department heads in the United Kingdom. Cahill et al. (2015) highlighted program leaders (chairs) felt ill-prepared for their job duties, many of which were not known before entering the role. Similarly, most department heads reported feeling the limited training they received did not satisfactorily temper their feelings of inadequacy (Floyd, 2016). In Ashe and TenHuisen’s (2018) study of department chairs at their home institution, chairs reported being surprised and overwhelmed by the actual expectations of the job once they were in it. Templeton and O’Meara (2018) suggest the transition to department chair from the faculty ranks is often daunting, citing the dearth of opportunity to learn necessary skills prior to starting in the role. Despite the limited research on department chair preparation (Gmelch, 2016; Gmelch et al., 2017), the literature consistently finds many chairs feel unprepared for the role and the majority lack a sense of competence even after a year in the position. The paucity of training for chairs inadequately addresses this lack of efficacy. The lack of training for academic department chairs contributes to chairs’ reported lack of self-efficacy. As noted previously, formal training for department chairs has historically been 25 sporadic and rarely required (Ashe & TenHuisen, 2018; Gonaim, 2016; Sullivan & Haley, 2009). In the 2016 study referenced above, Gmelch, et al. (2017) found 67% of new chairs received no training of any kind. Of those who did receive training, 72% received less than ten hours total, leading to the 81% of respondents who felt unprepared well into their time as chair. In Floyd’s (2016) study, chairs reported feeling overwhelmed by their many duties and yet only one third of them received any training directed at helping them feel more prepared. Floyd posits training should be contextualized and personalized and include ongoing feedback for chairs so they can develop the skills and confidence necessary to positively affect organizational culture. He found this type of training did not exist at the U.K. institutions in the study (Floyd, 2016). To address issues of self-efficacy among chairs, Cahill et al. (2015) likewise argue institutions should nurture professional learning over time, yet they find this type of training and development is scarce. Not surprisingly, the lack of training opportunities afforded chairs hampers development of chair self-efficacy (Cahill et al., 2015; Floyd, 2016; Gmelch et al., 2017). The literature suggests academic department chairs often enter the role lacking confidence and feeling overwhelmed, yet have little opportunity to engage in professional development designed to increase self-efficacy. The following section reviews the literature relating to the motivators for faculty participation in such professional development. Professional Development Participation Faculty professional development, particularly leadership development, is critical to meeting the challenges higher education faces, especially related to divergent outcomes for students (Cooper & Pagotto, 2003; Sirkis, 2011). Department chairs, for example, have expertise in their academic field by virtue of their role as faculty, but few have had either experience with or training in leadership or the daily duties of the position (Ashe & TenHuisen, 2018; Gonzalez, 26 2010; Long et al., 2015). Despite this, they are leaders among the faculty and thus hold an institutional leadership role intended to affect departmental and institutional change (Chun & Evans, 2015; Sirkis, 2011). Understanding what motivates faculty (and faculty leaders such as department chairs) to seek and participate in professional development can impact how activities designed to prepare faculty to meet institutional challenges are structured and presented. Research on faculty motivation to participate in professional development is limited (Gmelch & Miskin, 2011; Hardré, 2012; Wallin, 2003) and existing research is inconsistent in its findings (Botham, 2018; Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012; Dam et al., 2018; Hardré, 2012). Despite these inconsistencies, self-determination theory (SDT) grounds the research (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Ryan and Deci’s (2000) SDT grounds much of the research on faculty motivation (Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012; Hardré, 2012; Hogan, 2018). SDT posits motivation is a function of the interplay between an individual’s psychological needs, innate propensity for growth, and environmental influences. In SDT, psychological needs specifically refer to competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Self-motivation increases when these needs are met and supported within a contextualized environment (Ryan & Deci, 2000). While SDT is mainly associated with intrinsic motivation (Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012; Hardré, 2012; Hogan, 2018), it also suggests that extrinsic motivators, such as the willingness to undertake an activity in order to achieve a desired outcome regardless of innate interest, often intersect with intrinsic motivators (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The literature on faculty motivation, grounded in SDT, primarily focuses on intrinsic motivation, or the motivation to do something because of inherent interest in it (Botham, 2018; Hardré, 2012; Hogan, 2018; Wergin, 2001), but also references the role of extrinsic motivators (DeZure, et al., 2014; Hardré, 2012). SDT guides the faculty motivation literature. Intrinsic 27 motivators such as recognition and efficacy have a role in faculty professional development engagement. Faculty engagement is positively associated with certain intrinsic motivators. Wergin (2001) recognizes SDT-related psychological needs in his assertion that autonomy, community, recognition, and efficacy motivate faculty. Wergin states these intrinsic motivators are key to faculty engagement not only in professional development opportunities, but also with their roles in the classroom and with their research. Similarly, in a mixed methods study of British faculty’s motivation to take part in ongoing professional development, Botham (2018) also noted recognition, particularly relating to teaching and learning activities, was a primary intrinsic motivator. Additionally, those faculty lacking this motivator were more likely to self-select out of professional learning due to perceived time constraints and conflict with other interests (Botham, 2018). Recognition is an intrinsic motivator in faculty professional development engagement. Hardré (2012) also found external factors such as perceived institutional support in the form of administrator encouragement and adequate resources can be motivators—and the absence of these factors can negate intrinsic motivation. These findings illustrate that just as evidence exists to support the role intrinsic motivators like recognition and efficacy connect to faculty engagement, evidence also points to a role for extrinsic motivators. Extrinsic motivators also influence faculty professional learning. Wergin (2001) asserts extrinsic incentives are not as effective as intrinsic ones, but they can and do disincentivize faculty participation. This notion that extrinsic factors are de-motivators is a theme in some of the literature (Botham, 2018; DeZure et al., 2014; Hardré, 2012). The most prevalent barrier to pursuing leadership training and opportunities identified in DeZure et al.’s (2014) study of academic administrators was the perception that academic leadership “takes faculty from the 28 things they most love about academic life” (p. 7). In other words, a perceived threat to SDT’s intrinsic motivators of competence, autonomy, and relatedness overshadowed other potential motivations. Hardré (2012) replicated this connection between intrinsic motivation and how faculty perceive the external environment in her study of community college faculty professional development motivators. As noted earlier, participating faculty reported the extrinsic motivators of administrator support and adequate resources influenced their decisions on participation in professional development. Similarly, Hardré (2012) found organizational constraints such as lack of support or resources can be powerful negative forces related to faculty engagement. Likewise, in Botham’s (2018) study, extrinsic motivators were not particularly effective in motivating faculty who lack intrinsic motivation. However, Botham (2018) also suggests an absence of extrinsic incentives dampens motivation in those otherwise willing participants. The literature shows extrinsic factors have a role in motivation and are significant de-motivators related to faculty participation in professional development. However, the connection between extrinsic and intrinsic motivators is not straightforward (Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012; Dam, et al., 2018). The relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivators is not consistent in the literature. Bouwma-Gearhart’s (2012) qualitative study of STEM faculty’s motivation to take part in professional development explores the connection between intrinsic motivation and its magnification or minimization in relation to extrinsic motivators. While the author acknowledges the limits to generalization of the study’s outcomes, her study challenges Wergin’s (2001) assertion extrinsic motivators can do more harm than good. She finds extrinsic motivators, particularly a weakened professional ego, are most strongly correlated with STEM faculty participation in professional development (Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012). While limited, these findings are intriguing because they show intrinsic motivators are not a necessary precursor to 29 willing faculty participation in professional learning. In their “motivating-for-educational- change” (MECI) interviews with secondary teachers in the Netherlands, Dam et al. (2018) found motivation to change improves when teachers view it as practical and applicable. This is another example of successful use of extrinsic motivators to affect change with faculty, albeit in a study not focused specifically on professional development and with a limited sample outside of higher education. Regardless, the literature is beginning to suggest intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are intertwined, and, in particular, intrinsic motivators can be enhanced or curtailed by certain extrinsic motivators depending on context (Botham, 2018; Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012; Dam et al., 2018; Hardré, 2012). While not consistent, these limited findings imply motivators such as recognition, ego, practical application, administrative support, and resources are key aspects to consider in the development of faculty professional development. Designing faculty professional development with an understanding of motivational factors appears to increase effectiveness (Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012; Skarupski et al., 2017; Templeton & O’Meara, 2018). Regardless of the nature of the motivation, once faculty are motivated to participate in professional development, this motivation largely persists if the structure of the professional development activities reinforces the original motivations (Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012). This has implications for the planning and implementation of successful professional development opportunities. Templeton and O’Meara (2018) studied a faculty leadership program to understand what factors contribute to its efficacy with faculty leadership-agency enhancement. Networking, real-world scenarios, and access to authentic leaders are the three factors most associated with the program’s positive outcomes (Templeton & O’Meara, 2018). These factors correlate with community, efficacy, and utility, which represent both intrinsic and extrinsic faculty motivators. Additionally, while there is a dearth of research 30 on potential differences in motivational factors based on faculty demographic characteristics such as gender and ethnicity, Skarupski et al. (2017) surveyed faculty leaders and found expected leadership competencies for women and ethnic minority faculty were different than those for male majority faculty. This study suggests motivational factors may also differ based on gender and ethnicity, elements to consider when creating professional learning opportunities for faculty. There is limited research into motivation’s role in faculty professional development participation, but available evidence suggests the interplay between intrinsic and extrinsic motivators is worth consideration when developing professional development activities for faculty. The following section reviews the literature on those organizational impediments to academic department chairs exercising these motivators and obtaining equity-minded leadership knowledge and skills. Institutional Influences on Academic Department Chairs In addition to the knowledge- and motivation-related factors discussed above, institutional influences connected to achievement of the SCCS goal of equity gap elimination are also important to understand. The following sections review the literature on those organizational impediments to academic department chairs obtaining and exercising equity-minded leadership skills, with a focus on the culture of higher education and training and development, respectively. Cultural Model of Higher Education Organizational culture can be a barrier to change. Schneider et al. (1996) suggest the culture of an organization is what the members of the organization believe its values to be. The authors differentiate organizational culture from organizational climate, noting climate is how the organization’s policies and procedures inform its routines. They posit the intersection of 31 culture and climate determine whether change and growth can occur and sustain over time and that organizations struggle to change “precisely because culture is not directly manipulable [but] culture can be changed through a focus on climate” (Schneider et al., 1996, p. 12). Gallimore and Goldenberg (2010) discuss cultural models and settings similarly. They theorize cultural models are shared understandings of how things are or should be, and cultural settings occur whenever individuals “come together to carry out joint activity that accomplishes something they value” (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2010, p. 48). Looking at these definitions together in the context of this study, the culture (or cultural model) of higher education may either aid or inhibit institutional change efforts. Higher education’s context and culture are key factors that can inhibit faculty-led institutional change efforts (Goldfein & Badway, 2015). In his research on accountable leadership in educational settings, Elmore (2005) argues change comes through forming new organizational values, or the shifting of the culture. However, the status quo in higher educational settings is powerful (Tagg, 2012). This not only makes culture shift more difficult, it also reinforces for many faculty members a sense of low agency (Elmore, 2005; Kezar & Lester, 2011). In higher education, faculty leadership has been based in the tradition of shared governance. Kezar and Lester (2011) note the influence of shared governance has waned across higher education over the last several decades, leaving faculty feeling less influential than they once did. The authors suggest this reduced faculty agency is the result of the proportional increase of part-time faculty and a culture of the status quo in addition to the decline in shared governance (Kezar & Lester, 2011). The literature suggests low faculty agency and the power of the status quo are interrelated elements making the cultural model of higher education difficult to change. This phenomenon plays out at the institutional level as well. 32 At the institutional level, Elmore (2005) notes change is a function of individual and institutional learning, meaning developing a sense of agency individually and collectively within an organization is necessary to alter an institution’s culture model. While focused primarily on K-12 education, he argues leadership must exercise agency within their institutions to develop the complex knowledge necessary to affect change (Elmore, 2005). Goldfein and Badway (2015) likewise suggest higher education faculty can affect institutional change. Their research implies faculty who understand the cultural complexity of change and can see their potential to affect it have the most success engineering institutional change at the cultural and climate levels (Goldfein & Badway, 2015). Kezar and Lester’s (2011) study of colleges’ capacity for faculty change leadership posits higher education’s change-averse culture carries into most institutional settings, making it hard for faculty leaders to develop the type of understanding and agency referenced by Goldfein and Badway (2015). This cultural model of change-aversion is present at the institutional level and disincentivizes faculty members from seeking change. Institutional cultural factors can disincentivize faculty members from pursuing change (Tagg, 2012; Kezar, 2000). Tagg (2012) suggests many higher education institutions’ cultural models include “a pervasive preference for leaving things as they are” (p. 10). The author argues this preference results from valuing the avoidance of loss over the potential for gain and valuing what one knows over the unknown, even when the known is at deficit. Tagg (2012) refers to this preference as a status quo bias which inhibits designed change. He posits faculty are most likely to feel a sense of agency at the department level, but for that agency to translate into successful institutional change faculty members need outlets to “redesign their status quo” (p. 14). These outlets require institutions redesigned for change, which occurs through faculty involvement in structured conversation and learning (Tagg, 2012). In a case-study exploration of a community 33 college’s view of internal leadership, Kezar (2000) discerned different perspectives on leadership among campus constituents. Faculty members primarily equated leadership with bureaucracy, noting the institutional culture valued administrative duties as leadership. The author noted faculty positionality within the institutional cultural model of leadership as bureaucracy required these faculty members to work outside of the cultural model to affect change (Kezar, 2000). The change-averse nature of higher education and a bias toward the status quo at the institutional level disincentivize faculty members from exercising agency toward change. These factors also perpetuate academic department chair role traditions antithetical to change (Chu, 2012; Gmelch & Buller, 2015; Hempsall, 2014; Ruben et al., 2018). The traditional paths to the department chair role exemplify a cultural model that inhibits change and aggravates the knowledge gaps reviewed earlier (Gmelch & Buller, 2015; Hempsall, 2014; Ruben et al., 2018). As previously noted, chairs typically enter the role based on factors other than knowledge of leadership and management skills (Ashe & TenHuisen, 2018; Gmelch & Buller, 2015; Gonzalez, 2010; Long et al., 2015; Sirkis, 2011). Higher education tradition dictates chairs are either elected by their peers or selected into the role because of seniority, proficiency in an academic field, or because they are seen as the least offensive option (Hempsall, 2014; Ruben et al., 2018). Ruben et al. (2018) argue the long-standing cultural model of discipline expertise and longevity being the bases of leadership opportunity no longer meets the increasingly complex needs of higher education institutions. These complex needs, including student equity gap reduction, reach beyond any given departmental unit and require the department chair to seek systemic solutions requiring nuanced leadership and management skills (Ruben et al., 2018). In a qualitative study of higher education leadership at institutions in the U.S., U.K., and Australia, Hempsall (2014) observed campus leaders hampered by a status quo 34 that overvalues research and discipline prowess at the expense of leadership development. The author posits institutions would gain by developing explicit career pathways based on knowledge and skill acquisition, noting institutional culture change in this area needs further exploration (Hempsall, 2014). The literature suggests academic department chairs’ “strange career pathway” (Gmelch & Buller, 2015, p. ix) is a cultural artifact contributing to the maintenance of the status quo in higher education. Chair leadership development is under-valued, yet the literature suggests training programs designed to develop chair leadership efficacy and skills hold promise. Training and Development Aguinis and Kraiger’s (2009) review of organizational training literature posits training and development programs can lead to positive outcomes for participants and their organizations (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Within higher education, training and development programs for department chairs are sparse (Wisniewski, 2019). While research into their efficacy is also sparse, a common thread in this research is the grounding of training in connections to experienced and effective peer leaders (Ladyshewsky & Flavell, 2012; Robison & Gray, 2017; Templeton & O’Meara, 2018; Wisniewski, 2019). Robison and Gray (2017) contend because many academic department chairs have little interest in holding the role, training should center around mentoring and shadowing with successful experienced chairs. The authors propose coaching skill development via experienced chairs as a primary training goal, noting this leads to chairs reporting increases in confidence and the ability to positively influence departmental and institutional efforts (Robison & Gray, 2017). Coaching and peer networking were also key attributes of successful training in a qualitative study of ten academic program coordinators (a role equivalent to chair at the subject university) by Ladyshewsky and Flavell (2012). The authors explored change in confidence in participants after a 20-week leadership development 35 training and revisited participants months later to determine if the change persisted. Their findings suggest coaching and peer networking led to sustained participant confidence in carrying out the duties of the coordinator position, in addition to increases in effective communication and influencing others (Ladyshewsky & Flavell, 2012). Analogously, in their study of a faculty leadership program at a four-year university, Templeton and O’Meara (2018) found participant agency increased significantly and attribute this increase to three program elements. Comparably to Robison and Gray (2017) and Ladyshewsky and Flavell (2012), the authors suggest access to seasoned leaders, enhancement of peer networks, and application of material to real-life scenarios combine to increase agency. Wisniewski (2019) conducted a study to find leadership competencies for chairs and paired the competencies with chair interviews at a private university to triangulate the focus of a proposed training program. The author found monthly sessions over the course of an academic year resulted in increased chair competencies relating to culture, communication, inclusion, change leadership, vision, and problem solving. The training’s approach was based on practice, role- playing, application, and feedback from other chairs and campus leaders (Wisniewski, 2019). Utilizing successful and experienced chairs and other campus leaders is a promising common approach to engaging chairs in training designed to increase self-efficacy and agency. Sustained training is another element recommended in the literature. The complexity and breadth of the chair role requires ongoing, sustained training for chairs to develop efficacy (Bystydzienski et al., 2017; Templeton & O’Meara, 2018; Wisniewski, 2019). As noted above, Wisniewski (2019) suggests using an entire academic year to increase academic department chair competencies in key areas. Likewise, the program studied by Templeton and O’Meara (2018) stretched over the course of a full academic year to develop and 36 leverage relationships with seasoned leaders. Bystydzienski et al. (2017) studied the role of department chairs in academic culture change. The authors examined a research university’s efforts to help chairs lead culture change designed to increase the inclusion of women in STEM fields. Pre- and post-training questionnaires gauged attitude shifts and sense of empowerment among participating chairs. Findings suggest chairs can develop the skills necessary to lead change, but attitudinal changes only persist with sustained training and focus. The researchers propose the institutionalization of sustained training programs is necessary to ensure the transformation of campus culture (Bystydzienski et al., 2017). The literature confirms academic department chairs rarely have prior leadership experience (Gmelch et al., 2017; Long et al., 2015), generally lack leadership self-efficacy (Cahill et al., 2015; Floyd, 2016; Gmelch et al., 2017), often do not see themselves as leaders (Gonzalez, 2010), and get minimal training once in the role (Ashe & TenHuisen, 2018; Gonaim, 2016; Sullivan & Haley, 2009). Additionally, a lack of self-agency, found to be common among both faculty and administrators at many institutions struggling to break free of the status quo (Elmore, 2005; Kezar & Lester, 2011), can lead to reluctance by faculty to step into the chair position (Robison & Gray, 2017; Templeton & O’Meara, 2018). The confluence of these factors has led some researchers to suggest the importance of training and leadership development for faculty ahead of their first formal leadership role, which is often department chair (Ashe & TenHuisen, 2018; Gonzalez, 2010; Lamm et al., 2013; Long et al., 2015; Templeton & O’Meara, 2018). Provision of training before faculty assume leadership positions is a recommendation in the literature. Lamm et al. (2013) researched influencers of faculty intent to take on a leadership role and found faculty members’ perceived time commitment for training correlated with intent 37 to volunteer for leadership positions. In other words, faculty in this study afforded time to develop leadership skills in advance of a formal role were more likely to volunteer for the role. The study included faculty from colleges of agriculture in land grant universities, but the findings have implications for training programs ahead of leadership roles such as department chair (Lamm et al., 2013). In a study of chairs within Mississippi’s public universities, Long et al., (2015) highlighted the assumption incumbents knew how to fulfill job responsibilities, even though the majority had no training in those duties. Via survey administered to chairs, the researchers noted 79% of chairs had no training prior to assuming the role, but respondents reported they would take part if training were offered. Additionally, the authors suggest if not prepared ahead of time, chairs can do a disservice by leading inadequately and missing opportunities to affect positive change (Long et al., 2015). Also suggesting the importance of leadership preparation programs, Templeton and O’Meara (2018) found such programs can “diagnose local barriers to assuming leadership positions and identify ways to help faculty overcome these barriers” (p. 34). The authors note these barriers often include lack of support, lack of access to successful leader-mentors, and perceived lack of knowledge to be an effective leader (Templeton & O’Meara, 2018). These barriers can be particularly discouraging when faculty lack confidence in their leadership capacity and have limited interest in the chair role (Robison & Gray, 2017). Finally, based on local findings, Ashe and TenHuisen (2018) propose the value of a preparatory leadership program for faculty who are yet to assume a leadership role. The authors created and then assessed a preparatory leadership experience in response to new chairs struggling within the role. They suggest faculty welcomed the opportunity to intentionally prepare for leadership roles and participants reported higher levels of efficacy and role satisfaction than those receiving training only after assuming a leadership position (Ashe & 38 TenHuisen, 2018). Research suggests early and ongoing training increases faculty motivation to take on leadership roles such as department chair and increases confidence once in the role. Preparatory and sustained training which uses experienced leader mentoring and networking can positively affect academic department chair self-efficacy and agency. However, existing training opportunities are at deficit (Brown, 2004; Inman, 2009; Sullivan & Haley, 2009; Wilks et al., 2018). The literature suggests leadership training programs hold promise but are not based in an equity mindset. Academic department chairs need leadership proficiency (Buller, 2012) and that proficiency must include an equity mindset (Chun & Evans, 2015; Bensimon, 2005). Inman (2009) argues existing programs for chairs are generic and would see better outcomes from contextualizing to match individual participant experience and needs. Similarly, Wilks et al. (2018) note faculty agency is critical for change, and faculty leadership development should be based on an individualized understanding of faculty members’ leadership background and skillset. The authors also suggest faculty leadership development must ground itself in educational equity (Wilks et al., 2018). Brown (2004) posits the design of higher education leadership preparation does not promote social justice and must embrace equity for educational leaders such as department chairs to foster meaningful change. This lack of equity focus in leadership preparation opportunities, coupled with the absence of equity-related content in the primary reference works for department chairs noted earlier (Buller, 2012; Chu, 2012; Gmelch & Buller, 2015; Gmelch & Miskin, 2011; Lees, 2006) compromises the chair’s ability to develop an equity mindset and lead others to engage in equity-minded change efforts. This literature review has focused on the knowledge gaps, motivation gaps, and institutional influences inhibiting academic department chair leadership, specifically relating to 39 elimination of student equity gaps. The knowledge gaps reviewed are positional task knowledge, leadership knowledge, and equity knowledge. The motivation gaps reviewed are positional self- efficacy and self-determination within professional development. The institutional influences reviewed are the cultural model of higher education, including change aversion and the traditional paths to the chair role, cultural models within institutions, and the absence of equity- minded training and development. Additionally, the literature review has presented promising practices for chair professional development delivery, including preparatory and sustained learning opportunities based in experienced leader mentoring and networking. However, little research has been conducted to determine department chairs’ beliefs about their positional leadership capacity to achieve equity gap reductions and their perceived training and development needs, specifically in this arena. Within higher education’s capacity to affect meaningful change, the academic department chair is a critically important leadership position (Buller, 2012; Chun & Evans, 2015; Gmelch & Miskin, 2011). As student populations, particularly in community colleges, grow more diverse and equity gaps persist, it would be helpful for higher education leaders to understand from the department chair perspective these knowledge, motivation, and institutional factors. Therefore, a conceptual framework based on chair knowledge, chair motivation, and institutional influences in the equity gap reduction context was designed to better understand chair beliefs and perceptions and guide this study. Conceptual Framework This study’s conceptual framework is based on Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis method. The gap analysis method assesses the difference between actual and preferred organizational performance under the theory that individuals’ beliefs about their capabilities and the organizations in which they work dictate their performance in relation to organizational 40 goals. These differences, or gaps, involve knowledge deficits, motivational constraints, and organizational barriers, referred to as KMO (Clark & Estes, 2008). Practice theory informs the equity-based knowledge deficits referenced in this study. Practice theory suggests when practitioners such as department chairs internalize and assume ownership of issues (such as equity gaps) they become agents of change (Polkinghorne, 2004). This study frames the motivational constraints as issues of self-efficacy and self-determination. Self-efficacy is a fundamental element of social cognitive theory, as posited by Bandura (1977). Social cognitive theory contemplates the relationships between an individual, their environment, and their behavior. In this context lack of positional self-efficacy connects to lack of leadership preparation and experience. Social cognitive theory also suggests exposure to modeling of behavior by others, such as experienced chairs and other seasoned institutional leaders, can alter the behavior and cognitive processes of an individual (Bandura, 2005). Ryan and Deci’s (2000) Self Determination Theory (SDT) frames motivation as a function of the connections between an individual’s psychological needs, innate propensity for growth, and environmental influences. Much of the research on motivators for participation in faculty professional development is based in SDT (Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012; Hardré, 2012; Hogan, 2018). In the context of this study and as summarized below, the literature suggests a gap between department chair knowledge of equity-minded leadership practices, chair positional self-efficacy, the organizational support for chair leadership development, and the State Community College’s system-wide goal to eliminate equity-gaps via reliance on faculty leadership. A KMO framework, shown in Figure 1, has been developed to illustrate the chair knowledge, chair motivation, and institutional influences contributing to this gap. 41 Figure 1 Factors That Influence Chair Leadership Toward Equity Gap Elimination Chair Knowledge Research has shown the need for position-specific knowledge development of academic department chairs (Chun & Evans, 2015; Gmelch & Miskin, 1995; Gmelch et al., 2017; Lees, 2006; Sullivan & Haley, 2009). Task-related chair duties, or the more bureaucratic elements of the position, are often new to chairs (Gonaim, 2016). More importantly, most chairs have not previously held leadership positions (Chu, 2012; Gmelch & Buller, 2015; Long, et al., 2015) and need development as leaders who can affect institutional change (Chun & Evans, 2015; Gardner & Ward, 2018; Gmelch & Miskin, 2011; Wolverton & Ackerman, 2006). Additionally, the literature suggests higher education as a whole and leaders such as chairs more specifically tend to function from a deficit cognitive frame rather than an equity cognitive frame (Bensimon, Institutional Influences Cultural Model of Institution Chair Knowledge Chair Motivation Positional Task Knowledge Leadership Knowledge Equity Knowledge Positional Task Self-Efficacy Leadership Self-Efficacy Self-Determination Within Professional Development Equity-Minded Training and Development Academic Department Chair Leadership Toward Equity Gap Elimination Cultural Model of Higher Education 42 2007; Bensimon et al., 2007; Ching, 2018; Davis & Museus, 2019). This study’s conceptual framework posits position-specific knowledge, leadership knowledge, and equity knowledge are key factors in reaching an equity gap elimination goal. This study seeks a fuller understanding of chair beliefs and perceptions relating to these knowledge elements. Chair Motivation Chairs often enter the role lacking confidence and feeling overwhelmed, but have little opportunity to engage in professional development designed to increase self-efficacy (Cahill et al., 2015; Floyd, 2016; Gmelch et al., 2017). This lack of confidence connects to the need for knowledge development noted above. Understanding what motivates faculty leaders such as department chairs to take part in professional development can influence the structure and presentation of activities designed to increase position-specific knowledge, leadership self- efficacy, and preparation of faculty to meet institutional challenges. Research on faculty motivation to participate in professional development is limited (Gmelch & Miskin, 2011; Hardré, 2012; Wallin, 2003), but self-determination theory (SDT) grounds the research (Ryan & Deci, 2000). This conceptual framework suggests positional self-efficacy, leadership self- efficacy, and self-determination within professional development intersect with the knowledge gaps noted previously. This study’s design seeks information about chair perceptions of readiness and confidence to lead toward an equity gap elimination goal. Institutional Influences Academic department chairs maneuver in a cultural model that overvalues a status quo based in a deficit cognitive frame (Bensimon, 2005; Elmore, 2005; Kezar & Lester, 2011; Stachowiak, 2015). This cultural model also perpetuates the traditional path to becoming chair, which is not based in leadership experience or aptitude (Gmelch & Buller, 2015; Hempsall, 43 2014; Ruben et al., 2018). This aggravates the knowledge gaps and contributes to the efficacy issues noted in the conceptual framework. The sparse existing chair training and development resources ignore equity (Ashe & TenHuisen, 2018; Gonaim, 2016; Sullivan & Haley, 2009), creating further barriers to effective, equity-minded chair leadership. The cultural model of higher education and artifacts within it, such as the path to the chair role and resources absent an equity focus, complete the conceptual framework and create a context within which the position- specific knowledge and motivation gaps exist. This study seeks chair perception data relating to the institutional barriers of status quo bias, chair selection, and training deficits. Summary The State Community College System’s strategic plan calls for student equity gap elimination within a decade and charges faculty leadership to transform its colleges to do so (Foundation for State Community Colleges, 2017). This mandate for change toward the elimination of persistent equity gaps requires faculty to exercise skilled leadership. However, faculty in formal leadership roles such as department chair are most often selected based on expertise in an academic field rather than displayed leadership and management skills (Ashe & TenHuisen, 2018; Gmelch & Buller, 2015; Gonzalez, 2010; Long et al., 2015; Sirkis, 2011). The literature confirms academic department chairs rarely have prior leadership experience (Gmelch et al., 2017; Long et al., 2015), generally lack leadership self-efficacy (Cahill et al., 2015; Floyd, 2016; Gmelch et al., 2017), often do not see themselves as leaders (Gonzalez, 2010), and get minimal training before and after assuming the role (Ashe & TenHuisen, 2018; Gonaim, 2016; Sullivan & Haley, 2009). Additionally, a lack of self-agency, found to be common among both faculty and administrators at many institutions struggling to break free of the status quo (Elmore, 2005; Kezar & Lester, 2011), can lead to reluctance by 44 faculty to step into the chair position (Robison & Gray, 2017; Templeton & O’Meara, 2018). Expecting faculty to lead without prior experience or opportunity to gain position-specific knowledge is unfair (Gmelch, 2016; Gmelch et al., 2017; Wolverton et al., 2006), especially when coupled with the reality that formal learning opportunities for department chairs have historically been sporadic, rarely are required, and ignore issues of equity (Ashe & TenHuisen, 2018; Gonaim, 2016; Sullivan & Haley, 2009). Academic department chairs are “the critical link in leadership that can lead to significant and almost immediate positive changes in higher educational institutions” (Chu, 2012, p. vii). Unfortunately, there is little research investigating academic department chairs’ beliefs about their positional leadership capacity to achieve equity gap reductions and their perceived training and development needs, specifically in this arena. Using a modified KMO framework, this study aims to add information about the factors department chairs perceive to inhibit their ability to provide leadership in support of eliminating student equity gaps. Chapter 3 presents the study’s methodology. 45 Chapter Three: Methodology This chapter presents the research design, setting, participants, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis used in this study. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the degree to which State Community College System (SCCS) academic department chairs possess the essential equity-minded leadership knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy to achieve the strategic plan goal of eliminating equity gaps by 2027 (Foundation for State Community Colleges, 2017). As illustrated in Chapter Two, academic department chairs are key institutional leaders, yet they often enter the role without position-specific or leadership experience or training, lack positional and leadership self-efficacy, and the limited resources designed for them rarely reference issues of equity (Buller, 2012; Gmelch & Miskin, 2011; Gonaim, 2016; Sirkis, 2011). Data collection and analysis focused on these knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences and their impact on achieving the System’s equity gap elimination goal. This study aims to add information about the factors department chairs perceive to inhibit their ability to provide leadership in support of eliminating the System’s student equity gaps. While a complete performance evaluation would focus on all SCCS stakeholders, for practical purposes, the focus of this analysis is the SCCS academic department chairs. Research Questions Two questions guide this study: 1. What are the academic department chair-related knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences linked to achieving the System’s equity gap elimination goal? 2. What are the recommendations for System-wide practice in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources? 46 More specifically, this study seeks information from chairs in the system about their perceptions of their level of leadership development related to reducing equity gaps, the extent to which chairs believe they can influence equity gaps, and the extent to which chairs employ an equity cognitive frame (Bensimon, 2005). The intersections of level of training, positional efficacy, and cognitive frame create the basis of data analysis. Overview of Design The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis method acts as the conceptual framework for this study. In the context of this study, the literature suggests a gap between department chair knowledge of equity-minded leadership practices, chair motivation to lead, the organizational support for chair leadership development, and the System-wide goal to eliminate equity-gaps via reliance on department chair leadership (Foundation for State Community Colleges, 2017). This study’s KMO discovery process utilized a quantitative methodology relying on a review of the literature and a survey instrument designed to gather information from department chairs on their knowledge, skills, motivation, and perceptions of organizational issues contributing to the gap between chair preparation and the System’s expectations. The primary methodology used in this study was quantitative in nature and survey-based. The goal of the survey approach was to gather adequate information to evaluate the KMO gaps and identify driving issues from which to derive meaningful recommendations. Since the System’s equity gap elimination goal applies to all System colleges and requires System-level interventions and resources, a survey representative of the population supplied more useful system-level information than a survey or interviews focused on one subset of colleges or department chairs in select disciplines. While interviews may have allowed for more depth of understanding of limited individual chair’s perceptions, this survey offers the System 47 generalizable information with which to organize professional development and other efforts in support of the goal. As noted in Table 1, the survey’s design collected information about key concepts specific to this study, including chair positional task knowledge, leadership knowledge, equity knowledge, positional self-efficacy, institutional cultural model, and equity-minded training and development. Research Setting The SCCS is “the most open and accessible system of higher education in the world” (Foundation for State Community Colleges, 2017, p.4). The SCCS serves an incredibly ethnically diverse student body of 2.4 million, employs approximately 61,000 faculty, and roughly 2,500 faculty hold the role of department chair or equivalent within the system’s 116 colleges (State Community College Chancellor’s Office, n.d.-a). However, ethnic representation of faculty in the system does not reflect student diversity. In 2017, 60% of faculty identified as White, compared to only 27.4% of students identifying as White (State Community College Chancellor’s Office, n.d.-a). Additionally, African American, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander students complete college at significantly lower rates than White and Asian students across SCCS colleges (Foundation for State Community Colleges, 2017). These historical and systemic disparities in outcomes are at odds with the open access mission noted above, which promises higher education for all. These disparities drive the SCCS strategic plan’s focus on equity (Foundation for State Community Colleges, 2017). The SCCS strategic plan calls on colleges to “[cut] achievement gaps by 40 percent within 5 years and fully [close] those achievement gaps for good within 10 years” (p.16) and points to faculty to hold a critical leadership role carrying out “both a shift in mindset and a shift in the way colleges and the system do business” (p.21). 48 The System’s equity gap elimination goal and the need for equity-minded faculty leadership to achieve it make the System in aggregate the proper setting for this study. Little is known about chair self-reported perceptions of positional task, leadership, and equity knowledge (Ashe & TenHuisen, 2015; Chu, 2012; Gmelch & Miskin, 2011; Gonaim, 2016). Similarly, while the literature suggests chairs lack position-specific self-efficacy (Gmelch et al., 2017), the frame of training program evaluation is the predominant focus of the research. This study sought information directly from department chairs to add understanding to the role chairs have been asked to hold in eliminating equity gaps within the State Community College System (Foundation for State Community Colleges, 2017). The Researcher Researchers must be aware of their positionality and motivations to avoid biases and ethical issues while crafting the study and interacting with participants (Maxwell, 2013). This study’s researcher serves as vice president of instruction and student services at a college within the SCCS. For this study, the researcher has excluded his college’s department chairs from participation. The researcher has no formal relationship with the other System colleges and only has periodic and mostly indirect contact with positional colleagues at regional colleges within the System. Additionally, the researcher has rarely had any interaction with department chairs outside his college, none of which could be construed as positionally influential. The researcher divulged employment status to participants to ensure transparency. This study afforded no monetary benefits to the researcher or participants. While the researcher has a vested professional interest in academic department chairs leading toward elimination of equity gaps, the sole interest with this study was to gain understanding of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in this arena through the gap analysis. The researcher acknowledges 49 the results of this study may be useful for future decision-making at his college of employment, but this will require valid and reliable results as free as possible from researcher bias. Data Sources This study employed a quantitative methodology to gather information about role, leadership, and equity knowledge, self-efficacy, perceived training needs, and organizational influences such as path to role and offered training from SCCS academic department chairs, as they are the focus of the problem of practice and related research questions. Because of the number (116) and diversity of size and setting of State community colleges and the number of department chairs, this study used a two-phase approach involving a convenience sample of colleges and a population sample of chairs within those colleges. The paragraphs below outline the study’s participants, instrumentation, data collection procedures, and data analysis plan and their connection to the research questions and conceptual framework. Participants The participants in this study are SCCS academic department chairs. The literature describes an academic chair as a front-line leader, typically overseeing the general operations of one or more academic departments, who peers often elect (Gonaim, 2016; Gonzalez, 2010; Ladyshewsky & Flavell, 2012; Long et al., 2015). The number of chairs in the SCCS at any given time is approximately 2,500, but fluctuates due to organizational changes, resignations, in- process elections, and other factors. With roughly 2,500 chairs across the System, a contextually large random sample of approximately 800 (32%) would typically enhance the likelihood of being able to make useful inferences based on the survey’s findings and should correlate to a margin of error of +-3% (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Without a way to garner reliable participation from all SCCS institutions, the researcher chose a representative convenience 50 sample of 11 colleges. The response rate of 31.9% from within this sample aligns with the ratio outlined above. The social effects and challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic on participation due to added position-related turmoil or personal impacts during the data collection phase were concerns, so the two-phase approach involving a convenience sample of colleges and a population sample of chairs within those colleges helped ensure an adequate response. The first phase identified participating colleges by contacting all vice presidents of instruction (n = 116) with an explanation of this study and a request to support it by assisting with their chairs’ participation. Positive responses resulted in the convenience sample of colleges (n = 11) and a commitment to share the survey link with their chairs and encourage participation. The convenience sample was analyzed to determine whether it was representational of the entire System. The 11 institutions are distributed similarly geographically to the totality of the System’s colleges, with five in the northern part of the state (45.5%), one in the central portion of the state (9.0%), and five in the southern area of the state (45.5%). The geographic distribution of the System has 41.7% of institutions in the northern part of the state, 6.9% in the central portion of the state, and 51.3% in the southern area of the state. Additionally, the institutions represent the range of size and urban/suburban/rural distribution found in the System. In phase two all chairs within the convenience sample (n = 307) were invited to complete the online survey via email. Demographic information collected in the survey instrument helped determine the level of match with faculty across the SCCS. This analysis is included in Chapter 4. Instrumentation The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which SCCS academic department chairs possess the essential equity-minded leadership knowledge, skills, and self- 51 efficacy to achieve the strategic plan goal of eliminating equity gaps before the end of this decade via the KMO gap analysis. An internet-based survey was an appropriate method to collect directly from department chairs the information necessary to evaluate the KMO elements within the conceptual framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), particularly given the population size and geographic dispersion. An electronic survey was also appropriate because many participants were working from home due to ongoing COVID-19 social distancing requirements during the survey administration. This study’s survey was cross-sectional, allowing for rapid data collection and analysis, which was important given the time limitations for administration (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This study’s survey instrument included adapted versions of two validated instruments augmented with study-specific and relevant demographic questions. The researcher selected the two validated instruments because they help answer the research questions, as noted in Table 1. The survey instrument appears in Appendix A. As shown in Table 1, the instrument’s structure aligns with the conceptual framework elements. 52 Table 1 Survey Structure Assumed Influences Assessment Knowledge Influences Positional task knowledge Questions 3, 8, 49 Leadership knowledge Questions 4, 9, 48 Researcher-developed (Gmelch et al., 2017) Researcher-developed (Gmelch et al., 2017) Equity knowledge Questions 16-18, 21 Motivation Influences Researcher-developed (Bensimon, 2005) Leadership efficacy Question 26 (items 1-23) Adapted LEQ (Hannah et al., 2012) Organizational Influences Training Questions 1-10 Institutional cultural model Questions 12, 19-20, 22-24, 28-41 Self-determination within professional development Question 50 Researcher-developed (Chu, 2012; Chun & Evans, 2015; Gmelch et al., 2017) Adapted Teacher Survey on Learning-Centered Leadership (Shen et al., 2018) Researcher-developed (Gmelch et al., 2017) One adapted instrument is the Teacher Survey on Learning-Centered Leadership. Shen et al. (2018) designed the Teacher Survey on Learning-Centered Leadership for use in K-12 education settings, but the construction and purpose of the survey translated to this study’s focus on the intersection of chair knowledge and institutional cultural model. This instrument was developed and validated to measure principal and teacher leadership actions that, when combined, lead to effective school leadership. The Teacher Survey on Learning-Centered Leadership’s measurement of positional task, leadership, and school cultural elements matches 53 well with this study’s conceptual framework, which posits position-specific knowledge, leadership knowledge, and equity knowledge, along with institutional cultural model are key factors in reaching an equity gap elimination goal. The Teacher Survey on Learning-Centered Leadership includes 42 items and uses a 1-6 Likert type scale. Seven factors make up the survey, each comprised of six questions. Some of the questions did not translate to this study’s focus, but questions in four of the seven factors connect to the problem of practice. These four factors, along with the corresponding concepts of this study, appear in Table 1. Question modifications included language changes from a K-12 school vernacular to higher education and department chair contexts and a Likert type scale change from 1-6 (strongly disagree, moderately disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, moderately agree, strongly agree) to 1-4 (strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, strongly agree) for consistency throughout the instrument (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). The literature does not address the length of time needed to complete the Teacher Survey on Learning-Centered Leadership, but a conservative estimate is twenty minutes. Of the 42 items in the original survey, 21 were adapted for this study’s instrument. The developers validated the Teacher Survey on Learning-Centered Leadership and tested it as a predictive instrument (Shen et al., 2018). Its creators posit the survey measures the types of school leadership that leads to improved student achievement, particularly around difficult subject matter. In the analysis of their study, this means mathematics achievement improved significantly when certain leadership elements were in use (Shen et al., 2018). This study’s conceptual framework suggests positional self-efficacy and leadership self- efficacy intersect with the knowledge gaps noted above. This study’s design sought information about chair perceptions of readiness and confidence to lead toward an equity gap elimination 54 goal. The second adapted instrument was the Leader Efficacy Questionnaire (LEQ), from which questions about leadership self-efficacy were adapted (Hannah et al., 2012). The LEQ includes three scales corresponding to three efficacy-related areas. Leader action self-efficacy measures the degree to which leaders believe they can motivate others and inspire them to work toward organizational mission and goals. In the context of this study, leader action self-efficacy was adapted to assess the degree to which chairs believe they can motivate departmental faculty and inspire them to work toward the System’s goal of equity gap elimination. Leader self-regulation efficacy measures leaders’ ability to critically assess complex situations, arrive at effective solutions, and then self-motivate to enact those solutions. In the context of this study, leader self-regulation efficacy was adapted to measure chairs’ ability to critically assess the complex facets of equity gaps and the degree of self-motivation to work toward the System’s goal. Leader means efficacy measures the degree to which leaders use support networks and believe they can use organizational policies and structures to improve their leadership. In the context of this study, leader means efficacy was modified to assess the degree to which chairs utilize support networks of faculty, deans, and executive administrators and believe they can leverage institutional policies and structures to more effectively lead toward the System’s goal. The LEQ has 23 items and takes an average of ten minutes to complete. It is composed of a 0-100% confidence scale. The LEQ has been validated through seven study samples (Hannah et al., 2012). Question modifications included language changes to match this study’s higher education, department chair, and equity contexts. All 23 items appear in this study’s instrument. The LEQ and Teacher Survey on Learning-Centered Leadership, adapted and combined for this study’s context, elicit data related to positional task, leadership, and equity knowledge, 55 positional self-efficacy, leadership self-efficacy, and equity-minded training and development. This researcher drafted supplementary questions necessary to fully answer the research questions in the context of the conceptual framework. Specifically, questions address chair perceptions relating to the institutional barriers of status quo bias, chair selection, and training deficits as well as deficit versus equity cognitive frames (Bensimon, 2005). Data Collection Procedures The survey administration was online, using the University of Southern California’s Qualtrics© survey creation platform. The invitation email sent to participant work email addresses included the study’s introduction and context setting, a response deadline, informed consent information, and the link to the survey instrument. Participants received the invitation email in mid-October 2020. This timeframe was approximately two months after the start of the SCCS academic year and is typically a time of less pressing work for chairs. The researcher sent reminder emails to the contacts at the participating colleges at the one-, two-, and three-week post-dissemination points (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The COVID-19 pandemic may have negatively affected survey responses. Most SCCS colleges were teaching fall semester courses online. This major disruption to the typical semester may have inhibited participation, given added work and stressors department chairs were facing, regardless of the timing within the semester. The introduction to the survey acknowledged these extenuating circumstances and connected the importance of the System’s equity agenda to the pandemic’s challenges. This context was intended to act as an intrinsic motivator and aid with increasing response rates. There were no participation incentives, but the survey’s introduction framed the importance of the study in relation to elements of the chair role and responsibilities. The equity gap elimination topic is well known in the State Community College System and at the core of the SCCS’s 56 funding formula (State Community College Chancellor’s Office, n.d.). Perhaps most importantly, participants work at colleges where vice presidents of instruction were assisting with promotion of the survey. These factors (prevalence of the equity conversation and assistance from vice presidents) created a baseline incentive for chair participation in the study. The introduction to the study outlined for chairs the value of the data in relation to their work. The wording of the reminder emails reinforced this connection. The disassociation of email addresses from responses protected participant anonymity. Data Analysis According to Creswell and Creswell (2018), data analysis begins with an overview of respondents and completion rate, followed by the determination of response bias and review of internal consistency, and concludes with descriptive analysis of means, correlations, score ranges, and drawing of inferences (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This study’s survey instrument collected data as noted in Table 1 for statistical analysis. This allowed for examination of variability, correlation coefficients, and frequency analysis for trends in responses (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Robinson & Leonard, 2019; Salkind & Frey, 2020). The IBM SPSS 27 was the statistical software program used for data analysis. Reliability and Validity Reliability involves whether a survey instrument measures consistently across administrations (Salkind & Frey, 2020). This study’s survey was partially composed of two instruments previously tested for reliability by their authors. Across five discrete studies in varied contexts, the LEQ’s creators determined construct reliability, although the researchers note reliability tests across more contexts would extend its generalizability (Hannah et al., 2012). This study presented one such opportunity, and internal consistency was found to be strong with 57 the three LEQ subscales ( = .89 for action efficacy; = .86 for means efficacy; and = .86 for self-regulation efficacy). Shen et al. (2018) performed Cronbach’s alpha testing as reliability analysis for both internal scale consistency ( = .85 to = .92) and acceptability of the overall Teacher Survey on Learning-Centered Leadership instrument ( =.97). Cronbach’s alpha testing on this study’s selected portions of the Teacher Survey on Learning-Centered Leadership resulted in =.88, indicating significant internal consistency. A Cronbach’s alpha computation was also employed to test internal consistency on the remaining parts of this study’s instrument (Salkind & Frey, 2020) and can be found in Appendix B. Additionally, the two-phase approach involving a convenience sample of colleges and a population sample of chairs within those colleges, the assistance of vice presidents of instruction at participating colleges, and a clearly communicated invitation and follow-up emails over a four-week administration window aided with internal and external reliability, external validity, and response rate. Validity involves whether a survey instrument measures what it intends to measure (Salkind & Frey, 2020). Hannah et al. (2012) reviewed the theoretical constructs of the LEQ and demonstrated the construct validity of items in the LEQ across five studies (Hannah et al., 2012). Specifically, the 23 items in the LEQ both measure leader self-efficacy and can be used to predict affective-identity motivation to lead. Shen et al. (2018) performed confirmatory factor analysis on the Teacher Survey on Learning-Centered Leadership to verify their seven-factor structure was valid and used model-data-fit statistics as the primary instrument validity evidence. The authors found the seven factors relating to teachers’ perceptions of integrated school leadership were, in fact, measured as designed (Shen et al., 2018). The psychometric data from both instruments supports the potential validity of this study’s survey. These instruments were 58 altered to match the experiences and vocabulary of academic department chairs in a higher education setting (and the State Community College System more specifically). The researcher limited substantive changes to minimize tampering with the construct validity the instruments have shown. Ethics This study strove to adhere to best practices in design and data collection. At the forefront of this effort was the ethical treatment of participants, which included transparency, respect for participant time, protection of anonymity, and ensuring no harm was done at any point of collection, analysis, or discussion (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study’s approach to the ethical treatment of participants included three primary elements. First, this study was subject to USC Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and incorporated all recommendations and requirements from the review process. Next, informed consent was a prerequisite for every participant. Informed consent included clear instructions about participation being strictly voluntary and participants’ right to withdraw from survey completion at any point (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The invitation to participate explained these elements of informed consent. Finally, the data collection procedures themselves protected participants. Anonymity of responses guaranteed the prioritization of participant privacy over data collection. Participants received no participation incentives. Researcher neutrality in data collection and analysis also protected participants from misrepresentation (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). 59 Chapter Four: Results and Findings In the context of this study, the literature suggests a gap between department chair knowledge of equity-minded leadership practices, chair positional self-efficacy, the organizational support for chair leadership development, and the SCCS’s system-wide goal to eliminate equity-gaps via reliance on faculty leadership. The questions guiding this study’s investigation of this gap are as follows: 1. What are the academic department chair-related knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences linked to achieving the System’s equity gap elimination goal? 2. What are the recommendations for System-wide practice in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources? A KMO framework (Figure 1) outlines the chair knowledge, chair motivation, and institutional influences contributing to the gap between the status quo and achieving the System’s goal. More specifically, positional task knowledge, leadership knowledge, and equity knowledge comprise the assumed knowledge influences; leadership efficacy and task efficacy make up the assumed motivation influences; and training and the institutional cultural model comprise the assumed organizational influences. These assumed KMO influences organize this study’s results, presented in this chapter. Quantitative data was collected to validate the assumed influences. More specifically, academic department chairs at a representative convenience sample of SCCS institutions completed a 54-question survey administered during October and November of 2020. These survey data were collected to understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational 60 influences department chairs face while working to advance the SCCS equity agenda. Based on the data, these influences act as either assets or needs. Participating Stakeholders The participating stakeholders in this study are academic department chairs at SCCS institutions. Specifically, 307 chairs at a representative convenience sample of 11 institutions were invited to complete an electronic survey titled, “State Community College Preparation to Lead Survey.” One hundred chairs responded to the invitation and 98 completed the survey, indicating a 31.9% response rate. Not all respondents answered every survey question, so the specific n for each analysis is noted throughout. Of those who participated, 45 (45.9%) identified as female and 32 (32.7%) identified as male. Five participants responded “prefer not to say” and 16 did not respond (missing data). The mean age of the sample was 50.61 (SD=10.05). Slightly over half (54.1%) of the participants identified as White. Further, 8.2% identified as Hispanic/Latinx (see Table 2 for a full breakdown of cultural background). Half of the participants (n = 49) indicated their highest level of education completed was a master’s degree. Twenty-five participants had attained a doctorate (either PhD or EdD). One participant had received a professional degree (e.g., DDS, JD, MD). Finally, seven participants indicated their highest level of education was a bachelor’s degree and two chairs’ highest level of education was an associate’s degree—with 14 participants not responding to this item. 61 Table 2 Cultural Background Cultural Background f n White 54.1% 53 Hispanic/Latinx 8.2% 8 Southeast Asian 3.1% 3 Other Asian or Asian American 2.0% 2 Black/African American 2.0% 2 Native American/American Indian 1.0% 1 Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian 1.0% 1 Other 4.1% 4 Prefer not to answer 9.2% 9 Missing 15.3% 15 Participants were also asked why they became a department chair (Q45). A majority (53.5%) indicated they wanted to serve, 36% reported they felt an obligation to serve, and 10.5% stated it was their turn (n = 86). While only one participant indicated ineligibility to continue in the role at the end of their current term, 18 (20.9%) did not want another term of service. Thirty eight (44.2%) did want another term of service, while 34.9% were undecided on their desire to continue in the role (n = 86). These data, in which nearly half of respondents did not want to serve in the role and over 50% indicated they may not continue in the role, support literature reviewed in Chapter 2 suggesting the cultural model of higher education breeds ambivalence amongst leaders, which perpetuates the status quo (Tagg, 2012; Kezar, 2000). A more thorough analysis of the cultural model influences appears in the Organizational Influences section of this chapter. 62 Quantitative Analysis Overview As noted in Chapter 3, an analysis of response data using the IBM SPSS 27 software was conducted to identify means comparisons with statistical significance noted at the 95% confidence level. The following sections include results and findings related to the knowledge influences, motivational influences, and organizational influences noted above and in Appendix B. A summary of the validated influences follows these sections. Table 3 highlights the Pearson’s correlation coefficients for conceptual framework KMO influences. Several relationships and interactions appear between influences. Not surprisingly, the efficacy subscale influences largely relate to one another, indicating their interconnectedness as they formulate the larger task and leadership efficacy influences. Most notably, however, the correlation coefficients involving the institutional cultural model and each of the other influences indicate a strong connection between how institutional factors such as data-informed decision- making, empowerment of leaders, assessment mechanisms, and compassionate policies (the subfactors of the institutional cultural model) intersect with leadership efficacy and the acquisition of equity knowledge. These data suggest the more support structures a chair perceives their institution has in place positively influences their task (r = .303), leader action (r = .307), and leader means (r = .579) efficacy. Additionally, a chair’s equity cognitive frame is positively correlated with task efficacy (r = .238) and the organizational cultural model (r = .261), suggesting the way a chair views issues of equity connects to their belief about their ability to influence the Systems’ equity agenda, which in turn connects to the institution’s cultural model. 63 Table 3 Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients for Available KMO Influences Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. K-Equity – 2. M-Task Efficacy .238* – 3. M-Action Efficacy .077 .181 – 4. M-Means Efficacy .055 .214* .402** – 5. M-Self-Regulation Efficacy .100 .293** .677** .457** – 6. O-Cultural Model .261* .303** .307** .579** .188 – Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. Appendix B provides an overview of descriptive statistics for the survey instrument items and illustrates the reliability analysis for each measured influence where appropriate. Survey items are grouped by KMO influence and are accompanied by the number of respondents, mean, standard deviation, and Cronbach’s alpha. Reliability of motivational and organizational influence items is quite strong ( > 0.7), suggesting these questions effectively measure the various types of chair efficacy and institutional culture addressed in this study and work together reliably. Reliability of knowledge items, particularly those connected to equity cognitive frame, appear significantly lower. Given these items have not been previously tested, further refinement and additional study are warranted. However, responses to each of the equity cognitive frame items individually still provide a glimpse into how participating chairs view issues of equity, which can be helpful in formulating recommendations and future research questions. This study is interested in academic department chairs’ perceptions of their role in the context of their knowledge, their motivation, and institutional influences. The descriptive 64 statistics reviewed in the following sections provide a window into chairs’ experiences and perceptions, which align quite closely with the findings in the literature. While the study relies significantly on two subgroups for comparisons—those who were provided training by their institutions and those who were not—not all information collected was intended to be analyzed in relation to the training versus no-training designation. Some of the information gathered fits discretely within a discussion of each of the KMO influences and is presented fully within that section. However, because the choice to provide (or not provide) training is an organizational influence, certain knowledge and motivation influences discussed in the following sections are then reviewed further in in the Organizational Influences section to detect differences between the training versus no-training subgroups. Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences The literature review undertaken in Chapter 2 revealed three major knowledge influences relating to academic department chair preparation and success. First, chairs need positional task knowledge, including knowledge about communication, budgeting, governance, and administrative tasks, among others. Second, chairs need leadership knowledge, or the knowledge necessary to help those faculty in their area achieve larger institutional goals. Finally, while not traditionally included in the literature as a key aspect of chair knowledge, to help meet the System’s equity gap elimination goal SCCS chairs need knowledge about equity and its role in their work. This study seeks to ascertain to what degree participating chairs have and prioritize knowledge in these three key areas and whether these degrees of knowledge and prioritization are assets or needs in relation to achieving the System’s goal. The following sections outline the results and offer analysis of positional task, leadership, and equity knowledge respectively. 65 Positional Task Knowledge The literature consistently outlines the primary responsibilities of academic department chairs to include administrative tasks, budgeting, communication, governance, and leadership (Buller, 2012; Gmelch, 2016; Gmelch & Miskin, 1995, Gonaim, 2016). While not traditionally present on this list, addressing equity issues is also an important chair responsibility (Bensimon, 2005; Chun & Evans, 2015), particularly in the context of the SCCS and its equity gap elimination goal. Collectively, these responsibilities comprise the positional task knowledge chairs need for role success and were included in the survey instrument as a rank-order exercise (Q49). This study does not attempt to gauge the amount of knowledge chairs may have about any of these six responsibilities or whether they have adequate knowledge of them. Instead, the rank- order survey item sought participating chairs’ perceptions of the importance of each of the six positional task knowledge items. This approach serves two purposes. First, since closing equity gaps is the central problem of practice, understanding the relative importance chairs place on equity-related task knowledge is a key piece of the KMO asset versus need puzzle. Additionally, any chair-specific training that might be developed in the future benefits from a general understanding of how chairs see their role and the positional task knowledge most helpful to them. Positional Task Knowledge Results To understand chair perceptions of the importance of the role-related tasks outlined in the previous section, participants (n = 83) were asked to rank these six knowledge area tasks from most (1) to least (6) necessary for role success. The purpose of this exercise was to gauge which task knowledge chairs perceive to be most important to their success and to better understand the importance chairs place on equity as a positional task, given its focus in the System. Frequencies 66 and percentages were calculated for each item (Figures 2-7). The task knowledge participants believe is most important to their success (a rank of 1) in the chair role is split evenly between communication (32.9%) and leadership (31.7%), followed by administrative tasks (22.0%), budgeting (6.1%) and equity (6.1%), and governance (1.2%). Consistency across task rankings gives a clearer picture of participants’ views. Categories of high ranking (1-2), medium ranking (3-4), and low ranking (5-6) were created and descriptive statistics were computed to see the relative importance placed on each task. Over half of respondents rated communication (51.0%) in the high importance category. Leadership was ranked as high importance by exactly half (50.0%), while 36.6% ranked administrative tasks as highly important to role success. Less than 20% placed equity (19.5%), budgeting (18.3%), or governance (14.6%) in that category. Interestingly, large numbers of respondents rated the importance of budgeting (63.4%) and governance (43.9%) low, but only 28.1% put equity in that category. Thus, unlike communication and leadership (rated much more highly) and budgeting and governance (rated much lower), equity responses resemble a more traditional bell curve, with a majority (52.4%) placing it in the medium category. 67 Figure 2 Administrative Tasks Ranking Figure 3 Budgeting Ranking 68 Figure 4 Communication Ranking Figure 5 Equity Ranking 69 Figure 6 Governance Figure 7 Leadership 70 Positional Task Knowledge Analysis These data suggest participating chairs see communication and leadership knowledge as most critical to their role success. Knowing how to communicate effectively in a position that influences important processes such as hiring, program review, outcomes assessment, and others is critical for success, and a significant number of respondents recognize this. Similarly, participants recognize the importance to their role success of knowing how to lead others. Both effective communication and leadership are higher order skills requiring more than a transactional understanding. Interestingly, participating chairs place a lower value on knowledge related to budgeting and governance, two areas more transactional, or process-oriented, in nature. This suggests chairs see the more complex elements of their responsibilities as more important to their success, indicating an opportunity to organize professional development around these higher order tasks. Aligned with the literature’s lack of attention to equity knowledge, participants do not appear to see knowledge of equity issues as critical to their role success. This could indicate institutions are not adequately couching chair responsibilities in terms of equity- mindedness, despite the focus on equity issues at the System level. Because this is the primary focus of this study, positional task knowledge is deemed a need. This study’s organizational influences section offers insight into what extent positional task knowledge training occurs and whether chairs see it as effective, as well as how the institutional cultural model influences chair perceptions of equity issues. The next sections take deeper looks at leadership and equity knowledge and the degree to which chairs have these key types of knowledge. 71 Leadership Knowledge As noted, 50.0% of respondents rated leadership knowledge as highly important to their role success. Knowing leadership is important is not the same as having adequate leadership knowledge to effectively perform in the chair position. Because the literature suggests department chairs rarely have or get leadership training (Gmelch et al., 2017; Long et al., 2015), study participants were asked the total days they have spent in leadership training over the course of their career, excluding any courses taken in either high school or college, as a proxy for leadership knowledge (Q48). The results and analysis of this item are outlined next. While this question involves leadership training, it is distinctly different than the survey questions about whether respondents’ institutions have provided training specific to the chair position, which are reviewed in the Organizational Influences section. Leadership Knowledge Results Participants (n = 79) were asked to choose the total number of days of leadership training in which they have participated on a scale of zero to 100. On average, participants spent 30.16 (SD = 34.79) days in training. However, this data contained many outliers (see Figure 8). As evidence of this, 14 participants (17.7%) indicated they received no training while 12 participants indicated they had 90 or 100 days of training. Other than these extreme tails, the most frequent number of training days reported was 10. In fact, in addition to the 17.7% of participants reporting no leadership training another 35.4% reported having between one and fifteen days of leadership training, while 32.5% of respondents indicated they have participated in at least 31 days of leadership training. Additionally, a chi-squared test gauged whether a relationship exists between the ranking of leadership knowledge (Q49) and days of leadership training (Q48). No statistically significant relationship exists (n = 79, p > .05, Cramer’s V = 72 0.258). That said, of the high number of days of leadership training group (30 or more days), 46.3% are in the group who rate the knowledge task of leadership highly important to their work, making this cell’s value significantly higher than typical. Additional relationships with days of leadership training are explored in the Motivation Influences and Organizational Influences sections. Figure 8 Histogram of Days Spent in Leadership Training. 73 Leadership Knowledge Analysis These data align with the literature, as 53.1% of participants reported no or minimal (15 days or less) leadership training but are holding a position of leadership as department chair. Thus, while 50.0% of respondents rate leadership knowledge as highly important for success in the chair role, 53.1% have little or no leadership training. Several conclusions can be drawn from these data points. It is encouraging that half of respondents see leadership knowledge as important, yet this also means half of respondents do not see leadership knowledge as critical to their success. This indicates a mismatch between many chairs’ understanding of their role and their potential to be change-producing leaders on their campuses. Additionally, while there are chairs in the sample who have participated in significant amounts of leadership training, the majority of participants have had little or no training at any point in their career, putting them at a distinct disadvantage as they navigate the leadership responsibilities of the role. These factors lead to leadership knowledge being viewed as a need. Potential relationships between days spent in leadership training and leadership efficacy are discussed in the Motivation Influences section. Equity Knowledge A key aspect of this research study is the intersection of KMO factors with the SCCS equity agenda, which calls on faculty leaders to make structural, pedagogical, and other changes at their institutions intended to lead to the elimination of race-based student achievement (equity) gaps (Foundation for State Community Colleges, 2017). Without existing survey instruments available to gauge whether faculty operate from an equity or deficit cognitive frame, questions based on Bensimon’s (2005) work (Q’s 16-18, 21) were created for this study with the intent to explore department chairs’ knowledge of equity-mindedness, knowing any results would not be 74 adequately tested for reliability or validity, and thus any conclusions would need to be replicated with further research. Equity Knowledge Results Four questions were developed to gauge equity-mindedness. Each question uses a Likert- like scale of 1-4 (disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree) and is based on a specific equity-mindedness example from Bensimon’s (2005) research. To aid analysis, “disagree” and “somewhat disagree” were combined to create an “equity-minded” categorization. Likewise, “agree” and “somewhat agree” were combined to create a “deficit-minded” categorization. Additionally, the four questions were used as an aggregate to create an “equity-mindedness” composite to be used in comparison with other survey questions and composites (see Appendix B). Table 4 provides the frequencies of the four equity-mindedness questions. Figures 9-12 illustrate the frequency of this equity frame versus deficit frame categorization by question. Table 4 Equity Items Frequency Response Students have primary responsibility for whether they succeed in college Students’ backgrounds are the primary factors behind why some students succeed and others do not Instructors should treat all students the same, regardless of background As chair, I work with faculty in my area(s) to regularly monitor and address student achievement gaps Agree 20 14 16 34 Somewhat Agree 45 35 20 37 Somewhat Disagree 16 30 28 12 Disagree 11 13 28 9 75 When asked to respond to, “Thinking about student achievement, I believe students have primary responsibility for whether they succeed in college” (Q16, n = 93), only 28 participants (30.1%) disagreed or somewhat disagreed, indicating they viewed the question through an equity cognitive frame. Sixty-five participants (69.9%) agreed or somewhat agreed, suggesting they viewed the question through a deficit cognitive frame (Figure 9). “Thinking about student achievement, I believe students’ backgrounds are the primary factors behind why some students succeed and others do not” (Q17, n = 93) elicited an equity-minded response from 47.3% of respondents and a deficit-minded response from 52.7%, still showing a tendency toward a deficit-mindset, although not as strongly (Figure 10). Conversely, with “Thinking about student achievement, I believe instructors should treat all students the same, regardless of background” (Q18, n = 93), 61.3% of respondents reflected an equity mindset and 38.7% reflected a deficit- minded approach to the statement (Figure 11). Finally, “As chair, I work with faculty in my area(s) to regularly monitor and address student achievement gaps” (Q21, n = 93) elicited 71 agree or somewhat agree responses (76.4%) and only 22 disagree or somewhat disagree responses (23.6%). Figure 12 illustrates the frequencies for this item. 76 Figure 9 Q16: Students Have Primary Responsibility Figure 10 Q17: Student Backgrounds Are Primary Factor 77 Figure 11 Q18: Instructors Should Treat All Students the Same Figure 12 Q21: Regularly Monitor and Address Achievement Gaps 78 Equity Knowledge Analysis Bensimon (2005) asserts many practitioners operate from a deficit mindset, believing students are primarily responsible for their performance, neglecting the many institutionalized factors that disproportionately impede some students more than others. Two of the four questions (Q16 and Q17) support this assertion. These results suggest internal consistency issues, which would need to be addressed in any further research. However, as discrete indicators of department chair sentiments toward issues of equity and their responsibility to take ownership of student outcome inequities by “understanding inequities as a dysfunction of the various structures, policies, and practices that they can control” (Center for Urban Education, n.d.), each of these questions illustrates how significant numbers of responding chairs (69.9%, 52.7%, and 38.7%, respectively) view responsibility for student outcomes from a deficit frame as defined by Bensimon (2005). However, a large majority of respondents (76.4%) indicate they monitor (and thus are aware of and acknowledge the importance of) the gaps that result from systems mired in a deficit frame. These data points highlight the gap between acknowledging issues of equity at an institutional level and seeing one’s own mindset contributing to those issues. Therefore, equity knowledge is classified as a need. Potential relationships between the equity-mindedness items and training are explored in the Organizational Influences section. Results and Findings for Motivation Influences The literature suggests two primary motivation-related influences connected to academic department chairs’ ability to influence the SCCS equity agenda. Chairs’ leadership self-efficacy and task self-efficacy are expected to be low given the lack of experience chairs typically have and minimal training typically afforded to them before and after assuming the role (Gmelch, 2016; Gonaim, 2016). This study aims to assess chair leadership efficacy by using a modified 79 Leadership Efficacy Questionnaire (LEQ). Additionally, questions designed to gauge efficacy relating to tasks within the chair role and in the context of the System’s equity agenda were formulated for this study’s instrument. The following sections outline the results and offer analysis of leadership efficacy and task efficacy measures respectively. Leadership Efficacy Given the dearth of previous leadership experience of academic department chairs noted in the literature (Buller, 2012; Gmelch, 2016; Gmelch & Miskin, 1995), this study seeks to understand SCCS department chair self-efficacy within this leadership role. The LEQ (Hannah, et al., 2012) was adapted for this purpose and included within the survey instrument. Results from the modified LEQ items and analysis of related findings appear in the following sections. Leadership Efficacy Results A single matrix question (Q26) containing each of the LEQ’s 23 items asks respondents to select the percent of confidence they have in their ability to carry out that item from 0% (not at all confident) to 100% (totally confident). The LEQ is unique in that it is designed to gauge efficacy with leadership from three distinct vantage points, each of which relate closely to the department chair role. Consistent with its recommended use (Hannah et al., 2012), the 23 questions were broken into three subscales: Leader Action Efficacy (items 1-8), Leader Means Efficacy (items 9-15), and Leader Self-Regulation Efficacy (items 16-23). The Pearson’s correlation coefficients in Table 3 illustrate the expected significant correlations between each of these three subscales. Participating chairs presented the highest efficacy with the self-regulation subscale and the lowest with the means subscale. The Leader Action Efficacy subscale (n = 87, M = 71.39, SD = 16.96) is designed to measure chairs’ confidence in their ability to actively lead others through leadership strategies 80 such as energizing, inspiring, and coaching. As seen in Figure 13, participating chairs’ self- reported action efficacy ranged from the 20 th percentile to the 100 th percentile, with the average at the 71 st percentile. The large standard deviation suggests a wide range of efficacy amongst the sample. Figure 13 Histogram for Leader Action Efficacy (scale 1-100) 81 The Leader Means Efficacy subscale (n = 87, M = 61.04, SD = 21.06) is designed to measure chairs’ confidence in their ability to engage and rely on their leaders and institutional support structures to assist with their role success. Chair means efficacy was even more widespread than with the Leader Action Efficacy subscale, ranging from the 10 th percentile to the 100 th percentile. At the 61 st percentile, the average was a full decile lower than the Action Efficacy subscale, although there are clusters of respondents around the 80 th percentile. Figure 14 is a histogram for the Leader Means Efficacy subscale. Figure 14 Histogram for Leader Means Efficacy (scale 1-100) 82 The Leader Self-Regulation Efficacy subscale (n = 87, M = 82.94, SD = 13.24) is designed to measure chairs’ confidence in their ability to self-motivate and think critically about their values in relation to their chair role. Figure 15 illustrates the distribution for the Leader Self-Regulation Efficacy subscale. The range of responses is not as broad as with the other two subscales, ranging from the 42 nd percentile to the 100 th percentile, with the average at the 83 rd percentile. Figure 15 Histogram for Self-Regulation Efficacy (scale 1-100) 83 An independent samples t-test was used to examine the differences in the three leadership efficacy subscales based on days of leadership training (Q48). For this exercise 0-30 days was set as a low amount of training and 31 or more days was set as a high amount of training. There was a significant difference in leader action efficacy for those with little leadership training (M = 68.87, SD = 17.26) and those with a high amount of leadership training (M = 77.77, SD = 14.20), t(77) = 2.280, p = .025. While there was no significant difference in leader means efficacy for those with little training (M = 58.38, SD = 21.13) and those with a high degree of training (M = 67.73, SD = 19.66), t(77) = 1.890, p = .062, it appears there is a trend toward significance that should be further researched. Finally, there was a significant difference in leader self-regulation efficacy for those with little training (M = 81.55, SD = 13.33) and those with a high amount of training (M = 87.78, SD = 10.39), t(77) = 2.089, p = .027. Leadership Efficacy Analysis Data gathered from the LEQ question set suggest chairs in the sample have a higher degree of self-regulation efficacy than action efficacy by a full decile and means efficacy by two deciles. Given strong correlations between the subscales (Table 3), this could mean chairs generally perceive an institutional environment not fully supportive of their leadership efforts, requiring them to rely more heavily on self-regulation to be successful in the chair role. However, the wide distribution of responses more likely indicates chairs in the sample have varied perceptions and experiences due to a lack of consistency across (or even within) institutions. The comparative analysis of days of leadership training and these leadership efficacy subscales suggests those chairs who have had a higher amount of leadership training during their professional careers tend to have a higher degree of leader action and leader self-regulation efficacy. While not statistically significant, leader means efficacy also showed notable change. 84 These results affirm the calls in the literature to provide additional and meaningful leadership training for academic department chairs in an effort to increase leadership self-efficacy. Further research into the connection between amount and type of leadership training and leadership efficacy is warranted. However, this study’s data do suggest higher efficacy is connected to amount of leadership training. Additionally, the data suggest department chairs express a moderate amount of leadership efficacy, although this varies widely, indicating uneven experiences. Due to these factors, leadership efficacy is viewed as a need in relation to this study’s problem of practice. A comparative analysis of these leader efficacy subscales in relation to whether chairs’ institutions provide position-specific training before or after they assume the role is discussed in the Organizational Influences section. Task Efficacy The State Community College System’s strategic plan calls on faculty leaders to play a central role carrying out “both a shift in mindset and a shift in the way colleges and the system do business” (Foundation for State Community Colleges, 2017, p.21) in support of its equity gap elimination goal. This study aims to gauge participating SCCS department chair efficacy with the task of achieving this goal. Two items within the survey instrument focus on this goal-specific task efficacy. Results and analysis for these items appear below. Task Efficacy Results Two questions in the survey instrument used the 1-4 Likert-like scale to measure whether respondents agree they have responsibility to lead their area(s) to achieve the SCCS equity gap elimination goal for their college (Q13) and believe the goal is attainable for their college (Q14). Ninety-four respondents answered these Task Efficacy items. The mean for the two items as a composite is 3.31, with a standard deviation of .699. While exhibiting a Cronbach’s alpha of .60 85 suggests reliability is questionable, the Task Efficacy composite does significantly correlate with equity cognitive frame (r = .238, p < .05), Leader Means Efficacy (r = .214, p < .01), and Leader Self-Regulation Efficacy (r = .293, p < .01). Additional statistically significant correlations involving Task Efficacy and training provision as well as with the Institutional Cultural Model composite are discussed in the Organizational Influences section. Task Efficacy Analysis Taken as a composite, the Task Efficacy items suggest participating chairs tend to agree they both have a responsibility to lead toward the System’s equity gap elimination goal and believe it is attainable for their college, although reliability questions remain. The positive correlation between a chair’s equity cognitive frame and task efficacy suggests the way a chair views issues of equity connects to their belief about their ability to influence the Systems’ equity agenda. Focusing on developing equity-mindedness within the chair ranks could then positively influence belief in the ability to eliminate equity gaps. The positive correlation with Leader Means Efficacy seems to illustrate a connection between a chair’s confidence in institutional support for their leadership efforts and their belief they can achieve the equity goal. Therefore, task efficacy is seen as an asset to be further leveraged. Additional analysis of this interplay between institutional support and efficacy appears in the Organizational Influences section. Further research to verify efficacy around this critically important topic for the SCCS is warranted to guide System efforts. Results and Findings for Organizational Influences In addition to the knowledge- and motivation-related influences on department chairs’ role in achieving the SCCS goal of equity gap elimination, organizational factors also impact the way in which chairs see and experience their role and work. Organizational impediments to 86 chairs obtaining and exercising equity-minded leadership skills include training and institutional culture. As noted previously, the literature consistently finds institutions rarely provide chairs with adequate training (Gonaim, 2016). Whether chairs receive training on how to lead effectively, complete positional task responsibilities, and address issues of equity is a key organizational decision that can either foster or impede organizational change. Likewise, whether an institution’s culture is seen by leaders such as chairs as supportive of them and their work can affect self-efficacy and positional success (Hempsall, 2014; Tagg, 2012). The following sections provide the results and analyses for the organizational influences of training provision and institutional cultural model elements. Training The Knowledge Influences section discussed the total number of days of leadership training respondents reported as an indicator of their level of leadership knowledge. The most frequent number of training days reported was ten, and 53.1% of respondents indicated they have had 15 or fewer days of leadership training throughout their professional career. These data suggest that additional training should be an organizational priority. Thus, an important organizational influence consideration is whether, when, and to what extent a chair’s institution has chosen to provide training specific to the chair role. The survey instrument (Q1-Q10) sought information on whether training is provided and, if so, whether it focuses on leadership, positional tasks, and issues of equity. Beyond the descriptive statistics about training provision, the following sections also report and analyze the comparative statistics for the training and no- training subgroups. 87 Training Results Survey participants were asked whether they received training prior to assuming their chair role (Q1) and, if so, whether that training prepared them for role-related leadership responsibilities (Q4). They were also asked if the training prepared them for positional task responsibilities (Q3) and if the training focused specifically on equity (Q5). Participants were separately asked whether they received training once they were in the chair role (Q6). An affirmative response led respondents to the same questions about leadership, positional tasks, and equity (Qs 8-10). Twelve participants (12.2%) indicated they received training specific to the academic department chair position before they assumed the role of chair; 29 participants (29.6%) responded they received training after assuming the role. Accounting for five participants who stated they received training both before and after assuming the chair role, a total of 36 participants (36.7%) indicated they received any training at all (n = 98). Figure 16 represents these data. Figure 16 Training Provided Before or After Assuming Chair Role 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Any Training No Training Number of Participants Receiving Any Training 88 Participants who reported they received training were asked whether it prepared them for their leadership responsibilities in the role. Of the 12 participants who indicated they received training before assuming their role as chair, one agreed that it prepared them for leadership responsibilities, with 5 participants somewhat agreeing. Five participants either somewhat disagreed or disagreed that the training prepared them for leadership (one participant did not answer this question). For the 29 participants who stated they received training after becoming chair, three agreed it prepared them for leadership responsibilities and 12 somewhat agreed. Fourteen either somewhat disagreed or disagreed that the training prepared them for leadership. Regarding positional task knowledge, of the 12 participants who received training before they became chair, only two agreed the training prepared them for the administrative tasks associated with the role. Six participants somewhat agreed, two responded they somewhat disagreed, and two did not respond at all. For those 29 participants who received training after becoming the chair, only three agreed the training prepared them. However, 17 participants indicated they somewhat agreed the training helped. Nine participants either disagreed or somewhat disagreed the training prepared them for their administrative role. To the question of whether training was equity-focused, of the 12 participants who received training before becoming chair, three indicated the training included specific equity- focused content. Eight participants disagreed, with one participant not responding to the item. For those who took the training after becoming chair, 11 agreed or somewhat agreed there was a clear equity focus, with 18 participants disagreeing or somewhat disagreeing. While the number of participants receiving training was small (n = 36) and the subsets of participants indicating the training helped prepare them for leadership, positional tasks, and equity issues were even smaller, an independent samples t-test was utilized to examine the 89 differences in the LEQ leader efficacies if the participants had training or did not have training. There was no detectable difference in leader action efficacy between those who received training (M = 72.930, SD = 16.211) and those who did not receive training (M = 70.455, SD = 17.480), t(85) = .658, p = .512. There was also no detectable difference in leader means efficacy between those who received training (M = 65.011, SD = 19.139) and those who did not receive training (M = 70.455, SD = 17.480), t(85) = 1.382, p = .171. Interestingly, although not significant, those who did not receive training reported slightly higher means efficacy, which is counterintuitive. Likewise, there was no detectable difference in leader self-regulation efficacy between those who received training (M = 82.845, SD = 14.331) and those who did not receive training (M = 82.995, SD = 12.672), t(85) = .051, p = .959, with the two samples being almost identical. Thus, there was no detectable difference in leader efficacy between the subgroups. Another independent samples t-test was used to examine the differences in task efficacy between those in the sample who were provided training and those who were not. There was no statistically significant difference in task efficacy between those who received training (M = 3.27, SD = .75) and those who did not receive training (M = 3.33, SD = .68), t(92) = .417, p = .677. Thus, there was also no detectable difference in task efficacy between the subgroups. An independent samples t-test was again employed to examine the differences in equity- mindedness if the participants had training or did not have training. There was a statistically significant difference in equity cognitive frame between those who received training (M = 1.94, SD = 1.059) and those who did not receive training (M = 2.44, SD = 1.055), t(90) = 2.183, p = .032. Specifically, those who received training were less likely to believe that all students should be treated the same regardless of background than those who did not receive training. Thus, there was a detectable difference in equity-mindedness between the subgroups. 90 The final independent samples t-test examined the relationship between training and perception of preparation by the institution to lead toward the equity goal (Q12). There was a statistically significant difference in feeling prepared between those who received training (M = 2.45, SD = .905) and those who did not receive training (M = 2.02, SD = .930), t(91) = 2.194, p = .031. Additional inferential statistics related to training and the Teacher Survey on Learning- Centered Leadership subscales are discussed in the Institutional Cultural Model section. Training Analysis The purpose of training is to enhance knowledge and foster motivation necessary to achieve institutional goals. The knowledge and motivation gaps discussed previously indicate a need for academic department chair training. Consistent with the literature, this study’s data validate chairs rarely receive training. More specifically, only 12.2% of respondents were afforded the opportunity to have role-specific training before assuming the chair position, and less than 30% were provided training after taking on the role. The reported lack of training is a major organizational deficiency, particularly given the 53.1% of participants who have had little or no leadership training at any point in their professional careers. Collectively, these data illustrate a clear gap between institutional prioritization of training for the chair leadership position and the System’s need for faculty leadership related to the equity gap elimination goal. In addition to the importance of training is the content of that training. The analysis of leadership, positional task, and equity content within the reported training addresses this aspect of training. Since many chairs have not held previous leadership positions and a majority report little or no previous leadership training, institutions need to provide chairs with training designed to help them lead effectively. This study’s data indicate that is not happening. Of those who 91 received training before assuming the role (n = 12), 50.0% at least somewhat agreed the content addressed their leadership needs. A similar percentage (51.7) at least somewhat agreed about training received after taking on the chair role (n = 29). These relatively low instances of satisfaction with the leadership component of training may at least partially explain the lack of statistical significance between training and the LEQ efficacy subscales. Although about half of chairs suggest the leadership aspect of their training was helpful, they are not reporting a positive impact on their leadership efficacy. In addition to preparation for leadership responsibilities, chairs need to know how to accomplish myriad administrative and other positional tasks. One view of the data is that only 2% of the entire sample felt they were fully prepared by training ahead of the role for administrative tasks. However, of the small number who received training (n = 12), 66.7% indicated the training at least somewhat prepared them for positional tasks. A similar percentage (68.9%) of those who received training after assuming the role (n = 29) reported feeling at least somewhat prepared for positional task responsibility. While this is a very small sample from which limited conclusions should be drawn, these data suggest participants did find value in training when it was provided. Despite this, the t-test used to examine the differences in task efficacy between those in the sample who were provided training and those who were not found no significant difference. This suggests that while participants perceived value in the positional task aspects of their training, the training did not increase their sense of efficacy with their positional tasks. Further exploration into how training is structured and whether the tasks included and the information provided matches with those areas chairs have the least sense of efficacy is needed. 92 The focus on faculty leadership responsibility to help achieve the System’s equity agenda means chairs need to understand issues of equity and approach their work with equity- mindedness. The data show a statistically significant relationship between those who received training and the equity cognitive frame view of students. This signifies infusing equity-related concepts into chair training has the potential to assist chairs as they develop task and leadership efficacy. However, of those who received training (n = 36), 25.0% indicate their pre-chair training included an equity focus, and 37.9% indicate their training after taking on the role was equity-focused. This small sample size may limit the generalizability of conclusions, but they do align with the literature, which suggests equity is largely absent from academic department chair training, but much needed to effect change. Supporting this assertion is the finding that those who reported their institutions provided training for chairs were significantly more likely to feel prepared by their institution to lead toward the System’s equity agenda. This study’s data on academic department chair training largely validate the findings within the literature and reveal few chairs receive training after assuming the role and even fewer are provided training prior. Additionally, while a majority of chairs report the positional task content of training was helpful, and roughly half of the chairs report the leadership content was helpful, little of that training was infused with equity-focused content, even though there is a statistically significant relationship between training and equity-mindedness as well as training and preparation to lead toward the System’s equity gap elimination goal. These findings clearly denote the need for additional training opportunities created with a focus on equity-mindedness, thus determining training to be a significant need. Further exploration of training effectiveness is warranted, particularly in the area of leadership efficacy. A qualitative investigation at those few 93 institutions where training is currently in place may be particularly helpful to attempt to validate these results. Institutional Cultural Model The nature of the chair role is an artifact of the culture of higher education (Gmelch & Buller, 2015; Hempsall, 2014; Ruben et al., 2018). Additionally, whether an institution’s culture is seen by leaders such as chairs as supportive of them and their work can affect self-efficacy and positional success (Hempsall, 2014; Tagg, 2012). This study utilized demographic questions (Qs 42-47) to learn more about the nature of the chair role in relation to the problem of practice. Additionally, adapted items from the Teacher Survey on Learning-Centered Leadership (Qs 12, 19, 20, 22-24, 28-41) were employed to gauge department chairs’ perceptions of institutional culture and its support for their work across the four areas of embedded assessment, commitment to renewal, data-informed decision-making, and empowering leadership. Cultural Model Results One of the cultural elements of higher education is the nature of the chair role, including how one becomes a chair, the length of a chair’s term, and how long one typically serves as chair. Fifty-seven respondents (66.3%) became chairs via election, 12 (14%) by direct appointment, six (7%) because of a scheduled rotation of faculty, and 11 (12.8%) by other means (n = 86). The most common length of a chair’s term of service is three years, with 44.2% of participants having this length of term, 38.4% percent a term of two years, and 1.2% percent a term of four years. Fourteen participants (16.3%) indicated some other length of term. The average length respondents have held the chair role is 5.26 years (n = 77). More than 18% (18.2%) have been in the chair role for less than two years, 41.6% for between two and five years, 27.3% between five and ten years, and 13% have been in the role more than ten years. 94 These findings align with the literature, in that a large majority of chairs are elected, serve relatively short terms, and do not stay in the role for a prolonged time period (Gmelch, 2016; Gmelch et al., 2017). In addition to the nature of the chair role, the institutional cultural model involves the level and type of support leaders need to be successful. Four of the six subscales of the Teacher Survey on Learning-Centered Leadership were adapted for this study to measure support in the areas of embedded assessment, commitment to renewal, data-informed decision-making, and empowering leadership. The original instrument’s 1-6 Likert-like scale was changed to 1-4 to match the scale adopted for the rest of this study’s instrument. The Embedded Assessment subscale (n = 92, M = 3.07, SD = .692) is designed to measure how well assessment activities align with and support the perceived needs of chairs. Figure 17 illustrates the distribution for the Embedded Assessment subscale. The Embedded Assessment mean is the highest of the four subscales and the only one to eclipse 3.0. 95 Figure 17 Embedded Assessment The Commitment to Renewal subscale (n = 92, M = 2.80, SD = .623) is designed to measure respondents’ perceptions of the culture of collaboration, mutual accountability for success, and improvement. Figure 18 illustrates the distribution for the Commitment to Renewal subscale. The Commitment to Renewal subscale has a normal response distribution and its mean most closely aligns with the total composite. 96 Figure 18 Commitment to Renewal The Data-Informed Decision Making subscale (n = 86, M = 2.54, SD = .723) is designed to measure respondents’ perceptions of the culture of support for the use of data to drive improvement. Figure 19 illustrates the distribution for the Data-Informed Decision-Making subscale. This subscale is more widely dispersed and has the lowest mean. 97 Figure 19 Data-Informed Decision-Making The Empowering Leadership subscale (n = 86, M = 2.86, SD = .588) is designed to measure respondents’ perceptions of how empowering the culture is for faculty input and engagement in professional opportunities and learning. Figure 20 illustrates the distribution for the Empowering Leadership subscale. The mean skews slightly higher due to only a single incidence of a disagree response. The remainder of the responses are clustered more typically on the scale. Figure 21 is a graphical representation of the overall Institutional Cultural Model composite, combining each of the four subscales (n = 93, M = 2.74, SD = .508). 98 Figure 20 Empowering Leadership Figure 21 Institutional Cultural Model Composite (Total) 99 To aid with analysis across the KMO influences, correlation coefficients were generated across composites. As illustrated in Table 3, a chair’s equity cognitive frame is positively correlated with the Institutional Cultural Model composite (r = .261). Task efficacy also correlates positively to Institutional Cultural Model (r = .303), as do Leader Action Efficacy (r = .307) and Leader Means Efficacy (r = .579). To gauge whether a difference exists in perception of the four institutional cultural model subscales between those who received training from their institution and those who did not, an independent samples t-test was employed. There was no significant difference in responses on the Embedded Assessment items between those who received training (M = 3.106, SD = .659) and those who did not receive training (M = 3.042, SD = .715), t(90) = .421, p = .675. Likewise, there was no significant difference in responses on the Commitment to Renewal subscale between those who received training (M = 2.912, SD = .560) and those who did not receive training (M = 2.735, SD = .651), t(90) = 1.317, p = .191. The same is true for the Data-Informed Decision-Making subscale. Interestingly, those who did not receive training (M = 2.493, SD = .662) had a marginally higher mean than those who received training (M = 2.360, SD = .820), t(84) = .852, p = .397 on this one subscale. Finally, there was also no significant difference in the Empowering Leadership subscale between those who received training (M = 2.963, SD = .480) and those who did not receive training (M = 2.804, SD = .640), t(84) = 1.214, p = .228. Thus, there was no detectable difference between the training versus no-training subgroups in relation to the Institutional Cultural Model assessment items. Cultural Model Analysis This study’s findings that chairs are typically elected, serve short terms, and do not stay in the role for extended periods match the data in the literature and the premise that the long- 100 standing higher education cultural model of discipline expertise rather than training and experience being the prerequisite for leadership opportunity no longer meets the increasingly complex needs of higher education institutions, including student equity gap reduction (Hempsall, 2014; Ruben et al., 2018). These historically held approaches to how chairs are selected and serve are aspects of the cultural model of higher education. They intersect with institutional cultural models that either support or inhibit leaders such as department chairs in change-making efforts. The findings from the Institutional Cultural Model items in the survey instrument suggest participating chairs have varied experiences that tend to be only slightly more positive than negative in aggregate. Responses indicate slightly less favorable views related to data-informed decision-making and slightly more favorable views of embedded assessment. Nowhere across the Institutional Cultural Model scale does the provision of training result in measurable differences in the way chairs perceive these institutional supports, calling into question the efficacy of existing training programs. As noted in the results section, a chair’s equity cognitive frame is positively correlated with the organizational cultural model, suggesting the cultural model of the institution connects with the way a chair views issues of equity. Using disaggregated data to inform decisions, embedding equity-minded assessment into activities, committing to a shift away from deficit- mindedness, and empowering leaders to effect sustainable change are all elements necessary to achieve the SCCS equity gap elimination goal. Further exploration of the directional correlation between engendering an equity cognitive frame within leaders such as department chairs and ensuring equity-mindedness drives the institutional culture is warranted. Similarly, the correlations between task efficacy, leader action efficacy, and leader means efficacy make sense on their face, but this study’s data do not provide enough information to gauge directional link or 101 causality. However, the strong correlation between means efficacy, or the feeling of support from superiors to fulfill one’s own leadership responsibilities, is validating given the KMO model’s assumed interplay between motivational influences (in this case support) and organizational influences (particularly the empowering leadership subscale items). This study’s data indicate additional research in this area is rich with opportunity for exploration of these themes. Based on the perpetuation of outdated cultural norms that drive the selection and nature of the chair role, as well as the varying experiences respondents indicated with the Institutional Cultural Model subscales, the items in this section are viewed as needs. Self-Determination and Professional Development Additional literature reviewed in in this study relates to faculty self-determination within professional development. As noted in Chapter 2, designing faculty professional development with an understanding of motivational factors appears to increase effectiveness (Bouwma- Gearhart, 2012; Skarupski et al., 2017; Templeton & O’Meara, 2018). While not specifically a motivation influencer for this study’s problem of practice, understanding what motivates faculty to seek out professional development is helpful in formulating meaningful and targeted recommendations related to both knowledge and motivation influences. Research on faculty motivation to participate in professional development is limited (Gmelch & Miskin, 2011; Hardré, 2012; Wallin, 2003), but self-determination theory (SDT) grounds the research (Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012; Hardré, 2012; Hogan, 2018; Ryan & Deci, 2000). In SDT psychological needs are at the core of motivation to participate and specifically refer to competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Self-motivation increases when these needs are met and supported within a contextualized environment (Ryan & Deci, 2000). 102 This study’s survey instrument included one open-ended question, “How could your college better support you in your role as chair?” (Q50). Sixty-two participants wrote a response. The researcher reviewed the responses to identify themes related to competence, autonomy, and relatedness. The only theme mentioned more than five times involved training. More specifically, 41 respondents (66.1%) noted a need and desire for training (n = 37) or more training (n = 4). The framing of this training theme by individual respondents in their written comments aligns with the psychological needs noted in SDT. For example, one participant wrote, “Provide better training in areas of equity, leadership, and create organized lists/calendars of administrative tasks,” echoing this study’s KMO influences. Another wrote, “Have incoming department chairs follow the outgoing chair for 1 year before they assume the role.” This response suggests a desire for the relatedness discussed in SDT. A final example touches on competence, autonomy, and relatedness: “This survey really has me thinking. I mostly feel like I am a clerk who handles administrative tasks. I haven’t seen my role as one of leadership, but with this survey, I see that I could look at it that way. The college could foster more collaboration among chairs, and recognize we have done good work.” Responses to the one open-ended question in this study’s survey instrument provide insight into participating chairs’ motivation for professional development. Motivation appears to be connected to a desire to enhance competence through training. Individual responses about training also suggest a consistency with SDT’s relatedness and autonomy components. The literature on self-determination within professional development in the context of this study’s findings is referenced again in the recommendation section of Chapter 5. 103 Summary of Validated Influences Consistent with the Gap Analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), this study’s survey instrument included questions focused on knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. More specifically for this study, the survey questions sought to gather academic department chairs’ perceptions about positional task knowledge, leadership knowledge, equity knowledge, leadership efficacy, task efficacy, the provision of training by the institution, and the cultural model of the institution. These KMO influences were discerned through the literature review and are illustrated as a conceptual framework in Figure 1. The quantitative analysis of the data captured from this survey of 98 SCCS academic department chairs gauged these KMO influences in relation to achieving the System’s equity gap elimination goal and led to the characterization of each influence as an organizational asset or organizational need (Clark & Estes, 2008). These characterizations appear below. Knowledge Data analysis led to the characterization of positional task knowledge as a need based on participating chairs’ view of the six primary task areas of their role. Specifically, while equity is central to the accomplishment of the System’s agenda, chairs do not generally view equity knowledge as important to their role success. Similarly, leadership knowledge is seen as a need because half of respondents do not see leadership knowledge as critical to their role, and over half (53.1%) report little or no leadership training across their professional careers. Equity knowledge is also viewed as a need primarily because data analysis illustrates the gap between participating chairs seeing equity issues and taking ownership of them. Additionally, there is a need to further validate the measurement of equity-mindedness beyond the preliminary effort made in this study. Table 5 outlines the asset or need characterization of knowledge influences. 104 Table 5 Data-determined Knowledge Assets or Needs Knowledge Influence Asset or Need Positional Task Knowledge Need Leadership Knowledge Need Equity Knowledge Need Motivation Table 6 illustrates the asset or need characterization of this study’s motivation influences. Data analysis determined leadership efficacy is a need. While participating chairs with more leadership training reported higher leadership efficacy, few chairs have significant leadership training and the sample reported uneven efficacy across the three leadership efficacy subscales of the LEQ. Task efficacy is seen as an asset because participants generally have positive task efficacy, believing they have responsibility to lead toward accomplishing the System’s equity agenda and that their institutions will achieve goals in this area. The correlation between task efficacy and means efficacy also is an asset to addressing the problem of practice. However, task efficacy is also viewed as a need because further validation of these findings is necessary. Table 6 Data-determined Motivation Assets or Needs Motivation Influence Asset or Need Leadership Efficacy Need Task Efficacy Asset/Need 105 Organization Two thirds of participating chairs report having received no training prior to or after assuming their role. Those who received training report appreciating it, but this study’s data analysis shows no statistically significant connection between that training and improved positional task or leadership knowledge or efficacy. Because of these factors, training is characterized as a need. The organizational cultural model is also viewed as a need. Most chairs come into the role via outdated cultural norms that no longer serve these chairs well as they enter complex leadership positions. Additionally, the aspects of the cultural model which create the context for chairs to conduct their work is seen by respondents as uneven. Table 7 outlines the organizational influences and their asset/need characterization. Table 7 Data-determined Organizational Assets or Needs Organizational Influence Asset or Need Training Need Institutional Cultural Model Need 106 The needs associated with this study’s KMO influences align with the literature, which characterizes academic department chairs as under-trained for the positional tasks and leadership responsibilities the job demands in today’s complex higher education environment, where issues of equity are paramount yet remain largely invisible in the formal role of most chairs. Chapter 5 discusses the recommendations for System-wide practice in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources based on the asset and need determinations. 107 Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations This chapter translates the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs identified through the literature review and analysis of gathered data into recommendations. A discussion of findings is followed by recommendations for practice. Recommendations are grounded in theory and focused at the State Community College System level, with reference to institutional actions as appropriate. Like Chapters two, three, and four, Chapter Five follows the KMO framework. Recommendations for future research, as well as limitations and delimitations, are also discussed. Discussion of Findings The results of this study align closely with the literature reviewed in Chapter 2. This study’s conceptual framework posits leadership knowledge, position-specific knowledge, and equity knowledge are key factors in reaching an equity gap elimination goal. The literature confirms academic department chairs rarely have prior leadership experience (Gmelch et al., 2017; Long et al., 2015). The analysis of responses from the sample of SCCS academic department chairs indicates over half have little (less than 15 hours) or no leadership training during their careers. The conceptual framework notes the importance of positional task knowledge, particularly relating to how knowledge of equity issues is a key element in the chair role. However, more than half of this study’s sample do not view equity knowledge as critically important to their role success. Additionally, the literature suggests higher education as a whole and leaders such as chairs more specifically tend to function from a deficit cognitive frame rather than an equity cognitive frame (Bensimon, 2007; Bensimon et al., 2007; Ching, 2018; Davis & Museus, 2019). Significant numbers of chairs within the sample exhibit traits of a deficit mindset. 108 The literature also indicates department chairs generally lack leadership self-efficacy and positional task efficacy. Chairs often enter the role lacking confidence and feeling overwhelmed, but have little opportunity to engage in professional development designed to increase self- efficacy (Cahill et al., 2015; Floyd, 2016; Gmelch et al., 2017). This study’s conceptual framework suggests leadership self-efficacy and positional self-efficacy intersect with the knowledge gaps noted previously. Participating chairs in this study report varied levels of leadership efficacy, as measured by the LEQ. Specifically, chairs in the sample have a higher degree of self-regulation efficacy than action efficacy by a full decile and means efficacy by two deciles. The wide distribution of responses likely indicates chairs in the sample have varied perceptions and experiences due to a lack of consistency across (or even within) institutions. The comparative analysis of days of leadership training and these leadership efficacy subscales suggests those chairs who have had a higher amount of leadership training during their professional careers tend to have a higher degree of leader action and leader self-regulation efficacy. Regarding task efficacy, participating chairs tend to agree they both have a responsibility to lead toward the System’s equity gap elimination goal and believe it is attainable for their college. The positive correlation between a chair’s equity cognitive frame and task efficacy suggests the way a chair views issues of equity connects to their belief about their ability to influence the Systems’ equity agenda. These results indicate a deviation from the literature but the significant number of participants exhibiting deficit mindsets suggest a disconnect between these reported beliefs and an understanding of what is necessary to actually achieve the System’s equity goals. Finally, the literature also suggests chairs maneuver in a cultural model that overvalues a status quo based in a deficit cognitive frame (Bensimon, 2005; Elmore, 2005; Kezar & Lester, 109 2011; Stachowiak, 2015). This cultural model perpetuates the traditional paths to becoming chair, which are not based in leadership experience or aptitude (Gmelch & Buller, 2015; Hempsall, 2014; Ruben et al., 2018). The literature is also clear that the sparse existing chair training and development resources ignore equity (Ashe & TenHuisen, 2018; Gonaim, 2016; Sullivan & Haley, 2009), creating further barriers to effective, equity-minded chair leadership. The cultural model of higher education and artifacts within it, such as the path to the chair role and resources absent an equity focus, complete the conceptual framework and create a context within which the position-specific knowledge and motivation gaps exist. The majority of study participants were elected to the chair role or took the role because it was their perceived turn to do so. Participants have held the chair role about five years on average, limiting their ability to learn and then apply new leadership and position-specific skills. Only a third of participants report receiving any role-specific training. Those who received training did not show increased task or leadership efficacy, although those who reported their institutions provided training for chairs were significantly more likely to feel prepared by their institution to lead toward the System’s equity agenda. Although each identified KMO influence is characterized as a need, the chairs themselves are an incredible asset available to each institution and the larger System. Literally thousands of talented academic leaders are serving in the department chair role across the 116 colleges in the State Community College System. The following recommendations are made with this immense asset in mind and are derived from both the literature and specific findings from this study. Recommendations for Practice Given the importance of equity-minded approaches to dismantling systemic barriers to student success (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012) and the need for academic department chairs to be 110 transformative diversity leaders in these efforts (Chun & Evans, 2015), a more coherent and integrated approach to both leadership and task-specific preparation is required. A review of the literature and the findings from this study illustrate the dearth of and need for equity-focused training for academic department chairs nationally and in the State Community College System more specifically. The lack of equity-focused leadership training for academic department chairs must be addressed for System colleges to reduce and eventually eliminate racial equity gaps as called for in the System’s strategic plan (Foundation for State Community Colleges, 2017). Twelve recommendations address consensus within the literature and key findings from this study. Four contextual recommendations frame the three knowledge, two motivation, and three organizational influence recommendations that follow. Contextual Recommendations Recommendation 1: Focus the National and System Conversations At the macro level, the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) has published competencies for community college leaders (AACC, 2018). However, only one of the 59 competencies specific to faculty leaders even indirectly references diversity or equity: “Seek opportunities to promote global and cultural competence within the classroom as a way to expose students to the value of differences” (AACC, 2018, p.17). Student awareness of diversity is the focus here, not faculty leading efforts to address historic and systemic disparities in opportunities and outcomes. The literature and this study’s findings support a clearly stated shift in focus to equity-mindedness at the national level and AACC is the logical entity to lead this work. However, the SCCS should pursue similar work regardless of AACC’s potential role. 111 Recommendation 2: Ground the Conversation in Theory The type and nature of equity-minded training will need to be grounded in theory. In the SCCS this theory will inform what specific training activities will be most helpful to chairs as they lead faculty efforts to accomplish the System’s strategic plan goals. Practice theory, first outlined by Polkinghorne (2004), seems promising because practice theory addresses “practitioner as the factor that produces change” (Bensimon, 2012, p.218). This perspective is important because as the literature suggests, traditionally faculty have seen students and student behaviors as the root cause of achievement gaps. The term achievement gap itself implies that students are in control of different outcomes, as it is their achievement (or lack thereof) that is the focus. Practice theory helps to shift the focus from students to practitioners by asking faculty to take ownership of institutional policies and practices that contribute to or create inequitable outcomes and thus become the agents of change necessary to alter the status quo (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012). Recommendation 3: Ensure Equity-Mindedness Regardless of theoretical framework, training should leverage equity-mindedness, not just diversity awareness. Stachowiak, (2015) makes the case faculty must move beyond diversity awareness to develop critical consciousness around race and embrace as a matter of social justice their role in institutional structures that perpetuate inequities. This approach will help department chairs—and thus departments and the institution—ensure their work in support of student success is approached from a cognitive frame of equity, rather than one of deficit or diversity (Bensimon, 2005). As a result, chairs’ efforts at institutional change will be properly focused on “understanding inequities as a dysfunction of the various structures, policies, and practices that they can control” (Center for Urban Education, n.d.), rather than on student characteristics. This 112 recommendation is supported by the finding that chairs understand their responsibility to work toward the System’s equity goals but often exhibit elements of a deficit mindset. Recommendation 4: Leverage Existing Resources Models and practices already in existence can be leveraged to create and implement effective training and change strategies. For example, the Equity Scorecard process (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012) calls on practitioners to view student success as an institutional responsibility requiring race-conscious expertise. Institutions can integrate models such as the Equity Scorecard process into planning efforts and existing professional development to create institution- and department-specific training plans grounded in equity-mindedness. Additionally, institutional practices such as departmental program review can be modified to prioritize the reduction of equity gaps and include specific expectations for department chairs to practice and exercise equity-minded leadership. Knowledge Influence Recommendations The results of this study support several recommendations based on the identified knowledge influences. These recommendations are grounded in learning theory connected to the influence of prior learning and the development of mastery (Ambrose et al., 2010). Positional task knowledge results support focusing academic department chair training on higher order skills. Leadership knowledge results suggest the need for progressive leadership opportunities for faculty that can culminate in a chairship. Equity knowledge findings need validation, but indicate chairs would benefit from a greater understanding of the need for institutional change, rather than just student supports, to reduce inequities. These recommendations are summarized in Table 8 and are outlined in detail in the following subsections. 113 Table 8 Knowledge Recommendations Knowledge Influence Summary of Results Recommendation Positional Task Chairs rank higher-order skills as more important Focus training on higher order skills Leadership Most chairs have little leadership experience Create progressive leadership opportunities for faculty Equity Deficit frame leads chairs to connect equity to student issues Resource institutional change, not just student supports Recommendation 5: Organize Professional Development Around Higher Order Skills The findings of this study suggest chairs see the more complex elements of their responsibilities such as communication and leadership as more important to their success than knowledge of budgets and other administrative tasks, indicating an opportunity to organize professional development around higher order skills. While chairs should know how to conduct myriad administrative tasks, their ability to engage in transformational change efforts is more closely tied to effective communication and leadership (Northouse, 2016). Thus, any move to create a training program for chairs should focus on their development as effective communicators and leaders. Recommendation 6: Create Coherent, Progressive Faculty Leadership Opportunities The majority of participants in this study have had little or no leadership training at any point in their career, putting them at a distinct disadvantage as they navigate the leadership responsibilities of the role. Given the average length of time in the chair role for this study’s sample is 5.26 years, it is unreasonable to expect chairs will develop adequate leadership skills 114 early enough in their chairship to then effectively employ them to full effect before leaving the role. Creating coherent, progressive leadership opportunities for faculty will allow potential chair candidates to acquire and practice component skills and then apply them in progressively more complex settings (Ambrose et al., 2010). This approach will ensure faculty have developed a level of mastery by the time they assume formal leadership roles such as department chair. This is important because as Bystydzienski et al. (2017) suggest, chairs can develop the skills necessary to lead change, but attitudinal changes only persist with sustained training and focus and the institutionalization of sustained training programs is necessary to ensure the transformation of campus culture. Recommendation 7: Focus Attention and Resources on Institutional Change, Not Just Supplemental Student Supports Many resources, from early alert systems to affinity programs and specialized tutoring, are dedicated to helping students of color find greater success in higher education. These student- focused programs are designed to help students work around systems and practices that create the inequitable outcomes these students experience (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012). This study’s findings suggest high numbers of chairs are aware of and acknowledge gaps in student outcomes, but are less likely to see themselves as contributors to the gaps through perpetuation of existing systems and practices. Because of this, it is recommended efforts are increased at the System and institution levels to make clear the connections between practices such as hiring of faculty, curriculum, pedagogy, learning outcome assessment, and program review, and persistent disparate outcomes based on race. Just as chairs need sustained practice in communication and leadership to develop mastery, the demonstrated tendency to view equity gaps as a function of 115 student deficit can hinder learning how to take personal and institutional responsibility for inequitable outcomes (Ambrose et al., 2010; Bensimon, 2005; Dweck & Molden, 2017). Motivation Influence Recommendations Two motivation influence-related recommendations are supported by this study’s findings. Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive theory and expectancy-value theory (Wigfield et al., 2017) ground these recommendations, which are outlined in Table 9. Leadership efficacy results support formalizing mentorship for new chairs by leveraging seasoned leaders’ expertise. Task efficacy results suggest institutions would be well served to help chairs understand the connection between their responsibilities and the System’s equity goals, thus aligning role- related motivations to where chairs can have the greatest transformational impact. The following subsections detail these recommendations. Table 9 Motivation Recommendations Motivation Influence Summary of Results Recommendation Leadership Efficacy Chairs with more leadership training have higher efficacy Formalize mentorship through experienced leaders Task Efficacy Task efficacy and equity mindset appear to be connected Highlight alignment of responsibilities with equity goal 116 Recommendation 8: Leverage Seasoned Leaders Through Formal Mentorship Programs This study’s findings suggests those chairs who have had a higher amount of leadership training during their professional careers tend to have a higher degree of leader action and leader self-regulation efficacy. These findings affirm the calls in the literature to provide additional and meaningful leadership training for academic department chairs in an effort to increase leadership self-efficacy. One way to accomplish this is to create formal mechanisms through which experienced leaders mentor potential and new department chairs with the explicit intent of heightening leader self-efficacy. Coaching and peer networking have been shown to lead to sustained participant confidence in carrying out the duties of the chair position, in addition to increases in effective communication and influencing others (Ladyshewsky & Flavell, 2012). Access to mentors is a motivator for aspiring and new leaders (Wisniewski, 2019) and can lengthen seasoned leaders’ engagement. Recommendation 9: Highlight Alignment Between Chair Responsibilities and Equity Goal Attainment Academic department chairs have more direct influence on program review, student learning outcome development and assessment, faculty hiring, and curriculum changes than anyone at the institution (Buller, 2012). These activities and processes have more direct influence on creating equitable experiences and outcomes for students than any student support structure at the institution (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012). Thus, chairs are uniquely positioned to lead toward the System’s equity goal attainment. Participating chairs in this study tend to agree they both have a responsibility to lead toward the System’s equity gap elimination goal and believe it is attainable for their college, despite large numbers of chairs operating from a deficit cognitive frame. Because of this deficit frame, if chairs are asked to focus on issues of equity, 117 they are likely to focus on students and their attributes, rather than on the activities and processes outlined here. Employing the tenets of expectancy-value theory (Wigfield et al., 2017), if individual institutions and the System highlight activities such as program review, learning outcome assessment, faculty hiring, and curricular changes as the methods by which chairs can fulfill their responsibility to lead toward the equity gap elimination goal, the connection between a chair’s confidence in institutional support for their leadership efforts and their belief they can achieve the equity goal will be aligned. Organizational Influence Recommendations The results of this study support three recommendations related to identified organizational influences. The finding that few academic department chairs receive training before or after assuming their role leads to the recommendation for the development and implementation of a comprehensive equity-minded training program. This study’s institutional cultural model results suggest the structure of the chair role limits leadership development and longevity. The recommendation to incentivize participation in leadership opportunities and enhance succession planning is grounded in self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Finally, institutional cultural model results also show chairs have inconsistent experience with institutional supports, leading to the recommendation to assess institutional barriers to chair success. These recommendations are outlined in Table 10 and explored in the subsections that follow. 118 Table 10 Organizational Recommendations Organizational Influence Summary of Results Recommendation Training Few institutions provide training before or after chairs assume their roles Develop and implement a comprehensive training program Institutional Cultural Model The structure of the chair role limits leadership development and longevity Incentivize participation in leadership and succession planning Institutional Cultural Model Inconsistent experiences with institutional support Assess institutional barriers to chair success Recommendation 10: Devote System-Wide Resources to Developing and Implementing a Comprehensive Equity-Minded Academic Department Chair Training Program As noted in the review of literature, training and development programs can lead to positive outcomes for participants and their organizations (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). The findings of this study show a clear gap between institutional prioritization of training for the chair leadership position and the System’s need for faculty leadership related to the equity gap elimination goal. Specifically, few chairs get training either before or after assuming the role and only about half of chairs who did get training indicated the leadership aspect of their training was helpful. Similarly, while participants in training perceived value in the positional task aspects of their training, the training did not increase their sense of efficacy with their positional tasks or their leadership efficacy. This study’s finding suggest infusing equity-related concepts into chair training has the potential to assist chairs as they develop task and leadership efficacy. The findings clearly denote the need for additional training opportunities created with a focus on equity-mindedness. 119 Recommendations 5-9 provide an outline for major content of and approaches to a comprehensive training program. Development of a meaningful academic department chair training program should build on the insights into chair perspectives obtained through this study by further engaging chairs about their needs and motivations. Deans and others who supervise and support chairs should also be consulted, as should departmental faculty, whose perspectives on communication, leadership, motivations for change, and perceived institutional barriers need to be more fully understood. With this information in hand, System resources can be leveraged to provide ongoing equity-minded training grounded in learning and motivation theories appropriate for development of transformational leaders. Recommendation 11: Incentivize Participation in Leadership and Succession Planning The literature is beginning to suggest intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are intertwined and, in particular, intrinsic motivators can be enhanced or curtailed by certain extrinsic motivators depending on context (Botham, 2018; Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012; Dam et al., 2018; Hardré, 2012). These limited findings, based in self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), imply motivators such as recognition, ego, practical application, administrative support, and resources are key aspects to consider in the development of faculty professional development and in incentivizing faculty to seek leadership roles in the first place. Because chairs are typically elected, serve short terms, and do not stay in the role for extended periods, institutions need to develop systems by which aspiring chairs can cultivate skills and then have longer periods of time to use them to effect change. Chairs can disaggregate data to inform decisions, embed equity-minded assessment into activities, commit to a shift away from deficit-mindedness, and empower faculty to effect sustainable change, but these elements necessary to achieve the SCCS equity gap elimination goal take time to develop and produce results. Incentives to participate in 120 leadership opportunities and development of succession plans for sustained, consistent leadership should be based in the literature and afforded to all chairs across the System. Recommendation 12: Assess Barriers at the Institution Level to Harnessing the Leadership Potential of Chairs Templeton and O’Meara (2018) found leadership training programs can “diagnose local barriers to assuming leadership positions and identify ways to help faculty overcome these barriers” (p. 34). These barriers often include a lack of those support system structures assessed in this study through the Teacher Survey on Learning-Centered Leadership (Templeton & O’Meara, 2018). Hardré (2012) found organizational constraints such as lack of support or resources can be powerful negative forces related to faculty engagement. Here again, expectancy-value theory’s weighing of positive and negative aspects of choices can inform how to help motivate chairs to focus on change, rather than bureaucratic tasks (Wigfield et al., 2017). If bureaucratic tasks are paramount at the institution, chairs will be more likely to assume the rewards will align with those tasks than with change efforts. Integrated Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Recommendations The twelve recommendations outlined in the previous section address the major knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs identified in the literature and findings. They can serve to bridge the gap analyzed in this study by leveraging the academic department chair position to affect the desired System-wide equity gap elimination goal. As Clark and Estes (2008) note, closing gaps requires recommendations to be implemented strategically, with a full understanding of how the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors intersect within organizational culture. This section outlines a model, sequence, and timeline for implementing the proposed recommendations. 121 In the SCCS, 116 colleges within 72 districts have great autonomy to conduct their business but do so within the parameters of state and System guidance, regulation, and legislation. Implementation of any recommendations must take this unique institution-System relationship into account and acknowledge no one approach will work (or should be tried) at all colleges. Local priorities and campus cultures are better suited by provision of a framework and associated resources to deploy as their situations demand. With this in mind, Kotter’s (2012) eight-stage change process provides a good conceptual model from which to envision a path to implementation. The eight stages necessary to facilitate meaningful and lasting change are: create a sense of urgency; build a guiding coalition; form a strategic vision and initiatives; enlist a volunteer army; enable action by removing barriers; generate short-term wins; sustain acceleration; and instituting change within the culture (Kotter, 2012). The System’s strategic plan denotes the sense of urgency Kotter describes as the necessary first step in the change process. The Chancellor’s Office has demonstrated the ability through other initiatives it can convene a guiding coalition, and existing vice president and faculty coordinating bodies can help serve this function. The strategic plan, named Vision for Success, establishes the vision called for in the third step. Recommendations from this study allude to potential strategies. The fourth step is communicating the change vision. Responses to the open-ended question in this study’s survey instrument suggest a strong desire amongst chairs for more support and training. Engaging chairs in communication with their peers about designing comprehensive support for their important work is one way to engage in the fourth step—and empowering them for the broad-based action called for in step five. The final stages of the change process involve short-term wins, consolidating gains to perpetuate success, and anchoring change within the culture (Kotter, 2012; Applebaum et al., 2010). Framing the 122 development of a comprehensive effort to support academic department chairs using Kotter’s eight-stage change process aligns with System structure and culture. It also facilitates a sequencing approach that acknowledges the intersections between identified KMO influences. Sequencing the twelve recommendations offered in this study must be done strategically to optimize success (Clark & Estes, 2008). Table 11 presents the recommendations in an approximate sequential order that aligns with Kotter’s (2012) eight-stage change process. Recommendations are not discrete in their sequencing, however. Overlaps, ongoing work, modifications, and adjustments should be expected with all change efforts (Applebaum et al., 2010). A timeline is included in the table to offer a sense of how long certain activities may take and how they may overlap. The consultative nature of participatory governance within the SCCS and the speed with which the System and colleges can enact policy change can lengthen change processes. Transparent discussion with all stakeholders early and throughout the change sequence increases the likelihood of positive outcomes (Kotter, 2012). 123 Table 11 Recommendation Sequencing Approach Sequence of Implementation Associated Change Model Step Potential Timeline Focus the conversation (1) Establish a sense of urgency Immediately-Year 1 Incentivize participation in leadership (11) Create guiding coalition Year 1, on-going Highlight alignment of responsibilities and equity goals (9) Year 1 Ground the conversation in theory (2) Develop vision/strategy Year 2 Resource institutional change (7) Communicate the change vision Year 2, ongoing Assess institutional barriers to chair success (12) Year 2 Ensure equity-mindedness (3) Empower employees for broad-based action Year 2-3 Leverage existing resources (4) Year 2-3 Focus on higher order skills (5) Generate short-term wins Year 3 Create progressive leadership opportunities (6) Consolidate gains and produce more change Year 3, ongoing Implement training (10) Year 3-4, ongoing Formalize mentorship (8) (assess progress/impact and connect back to recommendation 11) Anchor new approaches in the culture Year 4, ongoing 124 Limitations and Delimitations Every research project carries inherent limitations and delimitations, from assumptions and design to timing and participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Limitations involve those factors beyond the researcher’s control. Delimitations involve decisions the researcher makes which influence the study in some way (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study’s limitations and delimitations are outlined below. Given the nature of this gap analysis study, two primary and unique limitations are apparent. The first involves the State Community College System itself. While state law and education code govern all colleges within the System, each college also has a local governance structure and great diversity of institutional size, focus, student and employee demographics, and decision-making processes. Included in this diversity is how academic department chairs are viewed, compensated, and situated in any given college’s organizational structure. Thus, while the literature assumes certain consistencies in the chair role (Gonaim, 2016; Gonzalez, 2010; Ladyshewsky & Flavell, 2012; Long et al., 2015), these local influences could lead to enough difference in the chair role between System colleges for some participants in the survey to have the title of chair but responsibilities vastly different than what is assumed. A second major limitation is the COVID-19 pandemic. SCCS colleges almost exclusively operated remotely during the fall semester 2020 data collection phase of this study. The abnormality this created for the academic calendar and stressors for department chairs may have depressed response rate, criticality of thought, and time spent on the survey. In addition to potential role variance across participating SCCS institutions and the COVID-19 pandemic, limitations also include the documented homogeneity of motivation 125 research and lack of demonstrated reliability across some survey items, particularly those connected to equity cognitive frame. Usher (2018) argues the vast majority of academic motivation research suffers from a lack of cultural relevance and is largely situated in the positionality of whiteness. While the LEQ has been tested in a variety of diverse settings (Hanna et al., 2012), it is not clear its development included consideration of how cultural context may influence motivation. This is of concern in the construction of all research instruments and must be noted here as a potential limiter within this study. Finally, the low Cronbach’s alpha for the Equity Knowledge items is a clear limitation. Given these items have not been previously tested, further refinement and additional study are warranted. The selected stakeholders and design of the study also create delimitations. While the dearth of information obtained directly from department chairs in prior research (Gmelch & Buller, 2015; Gmelch & Miskin, 2011) reinforces the potential value of this study, the choice to exclude deans and other supervisors of chairs as well as faculty who operate under a chair’s leadership impeded opportunities for triangulation of collected data. Additionally, existing research consistently suggests training for chairs is rarely offered and even more rarely touches on issues of equity (Ashe & TenHuisen, 2018; Gmelch et al., 2017; Gonaim, 2016; Sullivan & Haley, 2009). Thus, chairs may not know what they do not know. Definitions and descriptors in the survey instrument attempt to mitigate misinterpretation and variance of understanding, but the diversity of the SCCS described above means there could be a wide range of role understanding, which could be a delimiter of reliability. Maintenance of anonymity was an important consideration in this study’s design to aid in response rates, honesty, and completeness of responses. One method of ensuring anonymity in this study was to avoid collecting institution- specific information. This choice was a delimiter that prevented a richer data analysis, including 126 identification of patterns between participating schools and consistency of responses within each institution. The choice to focus on chair perceptions of the relative importance of positional task knowledge items rather than on measuring the amount of knowledge participating chairs have about these items is also a delimitation that should be approached differently with future research. Recommendations for Future Research Academic department chairs have been under-studied despite their critical higher education leadership role (Chu, 2012; Gmelch & Buller, 2015). This study adds to the sparse literature, and identifies needs related to leadership, task-specific, and equity knowledge, leadership and task efficacy, and institutional factors such as training provision and institutional culture. This study also raises a number of questions warranting further research, outlined here. Research into the role of the chair and how it is defined, both by chairs and by other institutional players, will help gauge how consistent the expectations of chairs are across institutions and systems. Large-scale efforts to develop chairs can only be successful with a solid understanding of the range of expectations, particularly relating to leadership expectations, is clear. Similarly, research about how chairs conceptualize equity work will be important. Finding appropriate measures for equity knowledge is a need that will only increase given higher education’s focus on equitable student outcomes. The measures used in this study suffered from internal consistency issues, which need to be addressed in any further research. Accurately gauging equity-mindedness has significant implications for future research and program planning. For example, this study’s findings loosely correlate task efficacy (in this context connected to the System’s equity agenda) with equity-mindedness. However, this should be verified through further research to guide System efforts. Additionally, further exploration of the 127 directional correlation between engendering an equity cognitive frame within leaders such as department chairs and ensuring equity-mindedness drives the institutional culture is warranted. This study’s data do suggest higher leadership efficacy is connected to amount of leadership training. Further research into the connection between amount and type of leadership training and leadership efficacy is warranted. Additionally, further exploration into how training is structured and whether the tasks included and the information provided matches with those areas chairs have the least sense of efficacy is needed. Similarly, there is a need for further research into training effectiveness in the area of leadership efficacy. A qualitative investigation at those few institutions where training is currently in place may be particularly helpful to attempt to validate this study’s results. Finally, the interplay between motivational influences (in this case support) and organizational influences (particularly the empowering leadership subscale items) needs further exploration. Additional research in this area is rich with opportunity for exploration of these themes. Conclusion This study examined the academic department chair-related knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences linked to achieving the System’s equity gap elimination goal and made recommendations for System-wide practice in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources. This study reinforces the dearth of training for academic department chairs in the SCCS. It also suggests the minimal training provided fails to enhance leadership or task efficacy and does not adequately approach faculty development from an equity-minded perspective. This lack of systematic, equity-focused training is important in the current context of the State Community College System’s commitment to eliminate equity gaps by 2027, which will require systemic change spearheaded and sustained by effective faculty leaders. Despite this 128 daunting task, the thousands of academic department chairs within the System are an immense asset. When sufficiently leveraged by providing them with meaningful, sustained, equity-minded leadership and positional task training and support, these chairs have the capacity to fully deliver on the equity gap elimination goal and lead their institutions to even further transformational change. 129 References Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2018). How learning works. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. American Association of Community Colleges. (2018). AACC competencies for community college leaders (3rd ed.). Retrieved from https://www.aacc.nche.edu/publications- news/aacc-competencies-for-community-college-leaders/ Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451-474. Applebaum, S. H., Habashy, S., Malo, J., & Shafiq, H. (2010). Back to the future: Revisiting Kotter’s 1996 change model. Journal of Management Development, 31(8), 764-782. Ashe, D. L., & TenHuisen, M. L. (2018). NextUp: Intentional faculty leadership development for all ranks and disciplines. The Journal of Faculty Development, 32(1), 17-23. Aziz, S., Mullins, M. E., Balzer, W.K., Grauer, E., Burnfield, J. L., Lodato, M. A., & Cohen- Powless, M. A. (2005). Understanding the training needs of department chairs. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 571-593. Bailey, T. R., Jaggars, S.S., & Jenkins, D. (2015). Redesigning America’s community colleges: A clearer path to student success. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M.A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9-35). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bauman, G. L. (2005). Promoting organizational learning in higher education to achieve equity in educational outcomes. New Directions for Higher Education, 131, 23-35. 130 Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 131, 99-111. Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the scholarship on student success. The Review of Higher Education 30(4), 441-469. Bensimon, E. M., & Harris III, F. (2012). The mediational means of enacting equity-mindedness among community college practitioners. In E.M. Bensimon, & L. Malcom (Eds.), Confronting equity issues on campus: Implementing the Equity Scorecard in theory and practice (pp. 216–246). Sterling, Virginia: Stylus. Bensimon, E. M., & Malcom, L. (Eds.). (2012). Confronting equity issues on campus: Implementing the Equity Scorecard in theory and practice. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus. Bensimon, E. M., Rueda, R., Dowd, A. C., & Harris III, F. (2007). Accountability, equity, and practitioner learning and change. Metropolitan Universities, 18(3), 28-45. Booker, K. C., Merriweather, L., & Campbell-Whatley, G. (2016). The effects of diversity training on faculty and students’ classroom experiences. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(1), 1-7. Botham, K. A. (2018). An analysis of the factors that affect engagement of higher education teachers with an institutional professional development scheme. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55(2), 176-189. Bouwma-Gearhart, J. (2012). Research university STEM faculty members’ motivation to engage in teaching professional development: Building the choir through an appeal to extrinsic motivation and ego. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 21, 558-570. 131 Brinkley-Etzkorn, K. E., & Lane, I. (2019). From the ground up: building a system-wide professional development and support program for academic department chairs. Studies in Higher Education, 44(3), 571-583. Brown, K. M. (2004). Leadership for social justice and equity: Weaving a transformative framework and pedagogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 77-108. Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: a literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 693-710. Buller, J. L. (2012). The essential department chair. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bystydzienski, J., Thomas, N., Howe, S., & Desai, A. (2017). The leadership role of college deans and department chairs in academic culture change. Studies in Higher Education, 42(12), 2301-2315. Cahill, J., Bowyer, J., Rendell, C., Hammond, A., & Korek, S. (2015). An exploration of how programme leaders in higher education can be prepared and supported to discharge their roles and responsibilities effectively. Educational Research, 57(3), 272-286. Center for Urban Education, University of Southern California. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://cue.usc.edu/about/equity/equity-mindedness/ Ching C. D. (2018). Confronting the equity “learning problem” through practitioner inquiry. Review of Higher Education, 41(3), 387-421. Chu, D. (2012). The department chair primer. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chun, E., & Evans, A. (2015). The department chair as transformative diversity leader. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus. Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results. Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing, Inc. 132 Cooper, J. E. & Pagotto, L. (2003). Developing community college faculty as leaders. New Directions for Community Colleges, 123, 27-37. Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Czech, K., & Forward, G. L. (2010). Leader communication: Faculty perceptions of the department chair. Communication Quarterly, 58(4), 431-457. Dam, M., Janssen, F. J., & van Driel, J. H. (2018). Attention to intentions—How to stimulate strong intentions to change. Research in Science Education, 48, 369-387. Davis, L. P., & Museus, S. (2019). What is deficit thinking? An analysis of conceptualizations of deficit thinking and implications for scholarly research. Currents, 1(1), 117-130. Debowski, S., Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (2001). Impact of guided exploration and enactive exploration on self-regulatory mechanisms and information acquisition through electronic search. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1129-1141. DeZure, D., Shaw, A., & Rojewski, J. (2014). Cultivating the next generation of academic leaders: Implications for administrators and faculty. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 46(1), 6-12. Dweck, C. S., & Molden. D. C. (2017). Mindsets: Their impact on competence motivation and acquisition. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (2 nd ed., pp. 135-154). The Guilford Press. Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountable leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 134-142. Education Trust-West. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://west.edtrust.org/ 133 Fischer, M. J. (2010). A longitudinal examination of the role of stereotype threat and racial climate on college outcomes for minorities at elite institutions. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 13(1), 19-40. Floyd, A. (2016). Supporting academic middle managers in higher education: Do we care? Higher Education Policy, 29, 167-183. Foundation for State Community Colleges. (2017). Vision for success: Strengthening the state community colleges to meet the state’s needs. Retrieved from https://vision.foundationsccs.org/ Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36(1), 45-56. Gardner, S. K., & Ward, K. (2018). Investing in department chairs. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 50(2), 58-62. Gmelch, W. H. (2016). Why chairs serve, what they do, and how they lead. The Department Chair, 26(3), 8-9. Gmelch, W. H. & Buller, J. L. (2015). Building academic leadership capacity: A guide to best practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gmelch, W. H., Burns, J. S., Carroll, J. B., Harris, S., & Wentz, D. (1991). Center for the Study of the Department Chair: 1991 National Survey. Pullman: Washington State University. Gmelch, W. H., & Miskin, V. D. (1995). Chairing an academic department. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Gmelch, W. H. & Miskin, V. D. (2011). Department chair leadership skills. Madison, Wisconsin: Atwood Publishing. 134 Gmelch, W. H., Roberts, D., Ward, K., & Hirsch, S. (2017). A retrospective view of department chairs: Lessons learned. The Department Chair, 28(1), 1-4. Goldfein, A. C., & Badway, N. N. (2015). Tempered radicals: Faculty leadership in interdisciplinary curricular change authors. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 39, 314-323. Gonaim, F. (2016). A department chair: A life guard without a life jacket. Higher Education Policy, 29, 272-286. Gonzalez, C. (2010). Leadership, diversity and succession planning in academia. Center for Studies in Higher Education Research & Occasional Paper Series, 8(10), 1-10. Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A. (2012). Leader self and means efficacy: A multi-component approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118, 143-161. Hardré, P. L. (2012). Community college faculty motivation for basic research, teaching research, and professional development. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36, 539-561. Hempsall, K. (2014). Developing leadership in higher education: perspectives from the USA, the UK and Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(4), 383-394. Hogan, A. M. (2018). Moving from administrivia overload to leadership competency development. The Journal of Faculty Development, 32(1), 25-30. Inman, M. (2009). Learning to lead: development for middle-level leaders in higher education in England and Wales. Professional Development in Education, 35(3), 417-432. Kerckhoff, A. C., Raudenbush, S. W., & Glennie, E. (2001). Education, cognitive skill, and labor force outcomes. Sociology of Education, 74 (1), 1–24. 135 Kezar, A. (2000). Pluralistic leadership: Incorporating diverse voices. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(6), 722-743. Kezar, A. & Lester, J. (2011). Enhancing campus capacity for leadership: An examination of grassroots leaders in higher education. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Review Press. Krathwohl, D. R. (2010). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. Ladyshewsky, R., & Flavell, H. (2012). Transfer of training in an academic leadership development program for program coordinators. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(1), 127-147. Lamm, A. J., & Lamm, K. W., & Strickland, L. R. (2013). Focusing on the future: Understanding faculty intent to lead the land grant system. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(4), 92-103. Lees, N. D. (2006). Chairing academic departments: Traditional and emerging expectations. Bolton, Massachusetts: Anchor Publishing Company, Inc. Long, J., Johnson, C., & Faught, S. (2015). The need to practice what we teach: Assessing the preparedness of chairs and deans to their management appointments in Mississippi’s public universities. Journal of Academic Administration in Higher Education, 11(1), 23- 29. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 136 Medina, M. S., Castleberry, A. N., & Persky, A. M. (2017). Strategies for improving learner metacognition in health professional education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 81(4), 1-14. Merriam, S. B. & Tisdell, E.J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Moore, J. W. (2016). What is the sense of agency and why does it matter? Frontiers in Psychology. Retrieved from https://link-gale- com.libproxy2.usc.edu/apps/doc/A461903552/AONE?u=usocal_main&sid=AONE&xid= 3c903c7f Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., McFarland, J., KewalRamani, A., Zhang, A., & Wilkinson- Flicker, S. (2016). Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2016 (NCES 2016-007). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch Mwangi, C. A., Thelamour, B., Ezeofor, I., & Carpenter, A. (2018). “Black elephant in the room”: Black students contextualizing campus racial climate within US racial climate. Journal of College Student Development, 59(4), 456-474. Nadal, K. L., Wong, Y., Griffin, K. E., Davidoff, K., & Sriken, J. (2014). The adverse impact of racial microaggressions on college students’ self-esteem. Journal of College Student Development, 55(5), 461-474. Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. (7 th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers. 137 Perez, D., Ashlee, K. C., Do, V. H., Karikari, S. N., & Sim, C. (2017). Re-conceptualizing student success in higher education: Reflections from graduate student affairs educators using anti-deficit achievement framework. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 28(3), 5-28. Pieterse, A. L., Carter, R. T., Evans, S. A., & Walter, R. A. (2010). An exploratory examination of the associations among racial and ethnic discrimination, racial climate, and trauma- related symptoms in a college student population. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(3), 255-263. Polkinghorne, D. E. (2004). Practice and the human sciences: The case for a judgment-based practice of care. Albany: State University of New York Press. Rankin, S. R., & Reason, R. D. (2005). Differing perceptions: How students of color and white students perceive campus climate for underrepresented groups. Journal of College Student Development, 46(1), 43-61. Riley, T. A., & Russell, C. (2013). Leadership in higher education examining professional development needs for department chairs. Review of Higher Education and Self- Learning, 6(21), 38-57. Robinson, S. B. & Leonard, K. F. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Robison, S., & Gray, C.R. (2017). Agents of transformational change: Coaching skills for academic leaders. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 28(4), 5-28. Ruben, B. D., De Lisi, R., & Gigliotti, R. A. (2018). Academic leadership development programs: Conceptual foundations, structural and pedagogical components, and operational considerations. Journal of Leadership Education, 17(3), 241-254. 138 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. Salkind, N. J. & Frey, B. B. (2020). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R .A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7-19. Shen, J., Ma, X., Gao, X., Palmer, L., Poppink, S., Burt, W., Leneway, R., McCrumb, D., Pearson, C., Rainey, M., Reeves, P., & Wegenke, G. (2018). Developing and validating an instrument measuring school leadership. Educational Studies, March, 1-20. Sirkis, J. E. (2011). Development of leadership skills in community college department chairs. The Community College Enterprise, Fall 2011, 46-61. Skarupski, K. A., Levine, R. B., Rou Yang, W., González-Fernandez, M., Bodurtha, J., Barone, M. A., & Fivush, B. (2017). Leadership competencies: Do they differ for women and under-represented minority faculty members? The Journal of Faculty Development, 31(1), 49-56. Sleeter, C. E. (2004). Context-conscious portraits and context-blind policy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35(1), 132-136. Stachowiak, D. M. (2015). Re-envisioning diversity in higher education: From raising awareness to building critical consciousness among faculty. Thought & Action, Fall 2015, 117-128. State Community College Chancellor’s Office (n.d.) Retrieved from https://www.sccs.edu/About-Us/Chancellors-Office/Divisions/College-Finance-and- Facilities-Planning/Student-Centered-Funding-Formula 139 State Community College Chancellor’s Office DataMart. (n.d.-a). Retrieved from http://employeedata.sccs.edu/gender_ethnicity_17.pdf State Community College Chancellor’s Office DataMart. (n.d.-b) Retrieved from https://datamart.sccs.edu/Outcomes/Student_Success_Scorecard.aspx Suarez-Orozco, C., Casanova, S., Martin, M., Katsiaficas, D., Cuellar, V., Smith, N. A., & Dias, S. I. (2015). Toxic rain in class: Classroom interpersonal microaggressions. Educational Researcher, 44(3), 151-160. Sullivan, L. G., & Haley, K. J. (2009). Using a retrospective pretest to measure learning in professional development programs. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33, 346-362. Tagg, J. (2012). Why does the faculty resist change? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(1), 6-15. Templeton, L., & O’Meara, K. A. (2018). Enhancing agency through leadership development programs for faculty. The Journal of Faculty Development, 32(1), 31-36. U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Mean earnings by highest degree earned: 2007. Retrieved from http://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2011/compendia/statab/131ed/tables/12s023 2.xls Usher, E. L (2018) Acknowledging the whiteness of motivation research: Seeking cultural relevance. Educational Psychologist, 53(2), 131-144. Valdivia, I. M. A., & Montoto, I. G. (2018) Teachers’ intercultural competence: A requirement or an option in a culturally diverse classroom? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(5), 510-526. 140 Wald, N., & Golding, C. (2019). Why be a head of department? Exploring the positive aspects and benefits. Studies in Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1578736. Wallin, D. L. (2003). Motivation and faculty development: A three-state study of presidential perceptions of faculty development needs. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27(4), 317-335. Wergin, J. F. (2001). Beyond carrots and sticks: What really motivates faculty. Liberal Education, 87(1), 50. Wigfield, A., Rosenzweig, E. O., & Eccles, J. S. (2017). Achievement values: Interactions, interventions, and future directions. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (2 nd ed., pp. 116-134). The Guilford Press. Wilks, K. E., Shults, C., & Berg, J. J. (2018). Not dean school: Leadership development for faculty where they are. The Journal of Faculty Development, 32(1), 37-43. Wisniewski, M. A. (2019). Leadership development for academic chairs: Programs for promoting competence in higher education. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 67, 48-51. Wolverton, M., & Ackerman, R. (2006). Cultivating possibilities: Prospective department chair professional development and why it matters. Planning for Higher Education, 34(4), 14- 23. Wolverton, M., Ackerman, R., & Holt, S. (2005). Preparing for Leadership: What academic department chairs need to know. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(2), 227-238. 141 Zimmerman, B. J., Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2017). In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (2 nd ed., pp. 135-154). The Guilford Press. 142 Appendix A SURVEY INSTRUMENT Invitation Thank you for your participation in this survey about academic department chair perceptions on training and leadership. The purpose of this doctoral dissertation project through USC’s Rossier School of Education is to evaluate the degree to which California Community College academic department chairs possess the essential equity-minded leadership skills and self-efficacy necessary for colleges to achieve the Vision for Success goal of eliminating equity gaps by 2027. The study focuses on knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to achieving the equity gap elimination goal. The survey instrument includes adapted versions of two validated instruments [the Teacher Survey on Learning-Centered Leadership (Shen, et al., 2018) and the Leader Self- Efficacy Questionnaire (Hannah, et al., 2012)] augmented with study-specific and relevant demographic questions and takes about 10 minutes to complete. The survey is designed to be mobile-device compatible. Survey responses are anonymous. Any questions about the survey can be directed to jeldridg@usc.edu. To begin the survey, click this link: [insert link]. Survey Items (A 1-4 Likert-type scale is used except as noted) Q1 My college provided me with training specific to the academic department chair position before I assumed the chair role (Y/N). <If no, skips to #5. If yes> Q2 Thinking about the training I received before assuming the chair role: Q3 The training prepared me for the administrative tasks associated with the chair role. Q4 The training prepared me for the leadership responsibilities associated with the chair role. 143 Q5 The training included specific equity-focused content. Q6 My college provided me with training specific to the academic department chair position after I assumed the chair role (Y/N). <If no, skips to #9. If yes> Q7 Thinking about the training I received after assuming the chair role: Q8 The training prepared me for the administrative tasks associated with the chair role. Q9 The training prepared me for the leadership responsibilities associated with the chair role. Q10 The training included specific equity-focused content. Q11 The California Community College System’s strategic plan, Vision for Success, sets the goal of eliminating achievement gaps within the decade. With this goal in mind, as a chair: Q12 My college has prepared me to lead my area(s) to achieve this goal for my college. Q13 I have a responsibility to lead my area(s) to achieve this goal for my college. Q14 I believe this goal is attainable for my college. Q15 Thinking about student achievement, I believe: Q16 Students have primary responsibility for whether they succeed in college. Q17 Students’ backgrounds are the primary factors behind why some students succeed and others do not. Q18 Instructors should treat all students the same, regardless of background. Q19 Faculty members in my area(s) design learning activities that are relevant to our students’ backgrounds. Q20 Faculty members in my area(s) engage students in ways that relate to their family circumstances and cultures. 144 Q21 As chair, I work with faculty in my area(s) to regularly monitor and address student achievement gaps. Q22 All of our chairs and administration are continuously seeking ways to enhance the teaching and learning processes at our college. Q23 Chairs and administrators have a clear, shared vision about what we want and expect for all students. Q24 We have a positive college environment in which student learning is the primary focus. Q25 Think about yourself as an academic department chair at your college. For each item below, indicate your level of confidence. A score of 100 represents 100% confidence, whereas a score of 0 means no confidence at all. Insert your score in the box to the right of each item. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Not at all Moderately Totally Confident Confident Confident Q26 As a Chair I can… 1. Energize faculty in my department/area to achieve their best 2. Develop agreements with department/area faculty to enhance their participation 3. Coach faculty to assume greater responsibilities for leadership 4. Inspire faculty to go beyond their self-interests for the greater department good 5. Inspire faculty to go beyond their self-interests for the greater institutional good 6. Get faculty to actively participate in department/area-wide goal setting 7. Utilize the forms of incentives that work best with each faculty member 8. Get faculty to identify with the college’s commitment to equity 145 9. Rely on my college to provide the resources I need to be effective 10. Go to my superiors for advice to develop my leadership 11. Effectively lead working within the boundaries of the college’s policies 12. Count on college leaders to support high standards of ethical conduct 13. Rely on college leaders to come up with ways to stimulate my creativity 14. Count on others to give me the guidance I need to complete work assignments 15. Rely on my fellow chairs to help solve problems 16. Determine what leadership style is needed in each situation 17. Motivate myself to take charge of groups 18. Remain steadfast to my core beliefs when I’m challenged 19. Motivate myself to perform at levels that inspire others to excellence 20. Develop detailed plans to accomplish complex activities 21. Strive to accomplish the targeted goals set by my superiors 22. Think up innovative solutions to challenging leadership problems 23. Distinguish the ethical components of problems/dilemmas Q27 Thinking about you and your academic department chair colleagues at your college: Q28 We consistently analyze student achievement to establish college improvement goals. Q29 We collaborate with each other across academic areas to conduct inquiry using college- wide data. Q30 We have received adequate professional development on analyzing and interpreting data. Q31 We have strong support from the administration for using data for decision-making. Q32 We have sufficient technology to utilize the data we need. Q33 We consistently use data from multiple sources to assess student learning. 146 Q34 We have an environment in which chairs feel very comfortable in offering input on needed improvements. Q35 The majority of chairs engage in peer observations and feedback. Q36 We have an environment in which chairs work together closely on college improvement activities. Q37 We have one or more fairly strong professional learning communities in place within our college. Q38 We have a culture of collective responsibility among all chairs and administration. Q39 We have a culture in which chairs hold themselves accountable for student achievement. Q40 We have a culture where chairs learn from each other. Q41 We regularly celebrate our successes. Q42 Number of years of experience as a chair (menu of 0-30) Q43 At my college I became chair by: (one option selection) Election Appointment Rotation (it was my turn) Other: Q44 At my college the length of a chair’s term is: (one option selection) Two Years Three Years Four Years Other: 147 Q45 Which of the following statements most closely describes the reason I became an academic department chair? (one option selection) It was my “turn” in the rotation I felt obligated to serve I wanted to serve Q46 I am eligible to continue as chair at the end of my current term (Y/N) Q47 I want to continue as chair at the end of my current term (Y/N/Undecided) Q48 Excluding courses in your high school and college education, how many total days have you spent in leadership training? (0/1-3/4-6/7-9/10-12/13-15/16+) Q49 Rank the following knowledge area topics from most (1) to least (6) necessary for your success in the chair role: Administrative tasks Budgeting Communication Equity Governance Leadership Q50 Open-Ended Question How could your college better support you in your role as chair? (0-5,000 characters) Q51 What is your gender? (one option selection) Female Male Non-binary/third gender 148 Prefer to self-describe: Prefer not to say Q52 What is your age? (input number) Q53 What is the primary cultural background with which you most closely identify? (one option selection) Native American/American Indian or Alaska Native or Indigenous Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian Black or African American Hispanic or Latinx/Latina/Latino or Chicanx/Chicana/Chicano Middle Eastern or North African or Arab or Arab American Southeast Asian Other Asian or Asian American White Other Prefer not to answer Q54 What is the highest level of education that you have completed? (one option selection) Trade/technical training An associate’s degree A bachelor’s degree A master’s degree A professional degree (DDS, JD, MD, etc.) A doctorate (Ph.D., Ed.D.) 149 Appendix B Knowledge Influences Descriptive Statistics Factor and Item n M SD Cronbach’s Alpha Positional Task Q3 Prior 10 n/a n/a n/a Q8 After 29 n/a n/a Q49 Knowledge Area Topic Ranking 82 n/a n/a Leadership Q4 Prior 11 n/a n/a n/a Q9 After 29 n/a n/a Q48 Total Days in Leadership Training 79 30.16 34.792 Equity Q16 Responsible 92 2.80 .917 Q17 Background 92 2.54 .919 .114 Q18 Treatment 92 2.26 1.078 Q21 Monitor 92 3.04 .948 150 Motivation Influences Descriptive Statistics Factor and Item n M SD Cronbach’s Alpha Task Efficacy 94 Q13 Lead 3.51 .758 .60 Q14 Attain 3.12 .890 Leader Action Efficacy Q26.1 Energize 87 78.68 16.631 Q26.2 Participation 85 70.01 26.769 Q26.3 Coach 85 70.00 23.811 Q26.4 Inspire 87 75.05 19.943 .89 Q26.5 Go Beyond 87 64.40 24.290 Q26.6 Goal Setting 87 78.45 18.770 Q26.7 Incentives 83 60.06 30.769 Q26.8 Equity 86 74.14 24.085 Leader Means Efficacy Q26.9 Resources 85 49.41 28.431 Q26.10 Advice 85 64.78 31.794 Q26.11 Policies 87 73.33 26.924 Q26.12 Ethics 86 65.01 30.295 .86 Q26.13 Creativity 82 43.27 26.098 Q26.14 Guidance 84 59.86 28.560 Q26.15 Problem Solving 85 68.13 28.221 Leader Self-Regulation Efficacy Q26.16 Leadership 87 74.92 25.262 Q26.17 Motivate 86 84.42 17.930 Q26.18 Beliefs 87 88.20 15.022 Q26.19 Inspire 87 84.83 15.067 .86 Q26.20 Complex Planning 87 83.57 15.734 Q26.21 Targeted Goals 86 81.70 21.100 Q26.22 Innovate 87 79.77 19.062 Q26.23 Understand Ethics 87 86.46 16.202 151 Organizational Influences Descriptive Statistics Factor and Item n M SD Cronbach’s Alpha Training Q1 Prior 12 n/a n/a n/a Q6 After 29 n/a n/a Institutional Cultural Model Q12 Goal 93 2.17 .940 Q19 Faculty Alignment 92 3.08 .774 Q20 Faculty Engagement 90 3.04 .792 Q22 Improvement 92 3.07 .935 Q23 Expectations 92 2.63 .980 Q24 Student Learning 91 3.14 .938 Q28 Analyze 86 2.80 .892 Q29 Collaborate 86 2.50 .979 Q30 Data Analysis 86 2.10 1.052 Q31 Data Driven Decisions 86 2.71 1.061 .88 Q32 Technology 86 2.65 .917 Q33 Data Sources 85 2.48 .995 Q34 Inputs 86 2.93 .905 Q35 Observation and Feedback 84 3.26 .983 Q36 Work Closely 84 2.45 .813 Q37 Learning Community 83 2.94 .942 Q38 Collective Responsibility 84 2.77 .827 Q39 Accountability 84 2.46 .857 Q40 Learning Culture 84 2.93 .941 Q41 Celebrate Success 84 2.51 1.058
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Minding the gap: an evaluation of faculty, staff and administrator readiness to close equity gaps at the California State University
PDF
Raising women leaders of Christian higher education: an innovation study
PDF
Where are all the ""leadhers""? Female leaders' experiences in finance
PDF
Women of color senior leaders: pathways to increasing representation in higher education
PDF
Bridging the gap: a formative evaluation of the productivity-based funding model’s support for academically underserved students
PDF
Implementing organizational change in a medical school
PDF
Effective services provided to community college student-athletes: a gap analysis
PDF
Toward effective succession planning in higher education: a field study
PDF
Role ambiguity and its impact on nonprofit board member external responsibilities: a gap analysis
PDF
Development of intraorganizational post-merger collaboration plan: an evaluation study
PDF
Organizational change agents: an equity framework to addressing housing and food insecurity in higher education
PDF
Academic coaching for Pell-eligible, academically at-risk freshmen: an evaluation study
PDF
Winning the organizational leadership game through engagement: a gap analysis
PDF
Succession for success: an evaluation study of corporate strategy to improve employee satisfaction for women of color
PDF
Developing physician trainees leadership skills: an innovation study
PDF
Labor displacement: a gap analysis an evaluation study addressing professional development in a small business environment
PDF
Developing aspiring school leaders to address the diverse racial equity needs in school communities: an evaluation study
PDF
Teacher diversity training: a qualitative study to examine novice teacher influences
PDF
Cultural competency for academic counselors in the California community college systems to increase African-American male students' success: a gap analysis
PDF
The African American male achievement gap: teachers as change agents
Asset Metadata
Creator
Eldridge, Jonathan
(author)
Core Title
Academic department chair readiness to lead toward equity: a gap analysis
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
04/28/2021
Defense Date
04/12/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
academic department chair,academic leadership,community college,equity,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Adibe, Bryant (
committee chair
), Kim, Esther (
committee member
), Posselt, Julie (
committee member
)
Creator Email
jeldridg@usc.edu,jonathan.eldridge806@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-454482
Unique identifier
UC11668577
Identifier
etd-EldridgeJo-9559.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-454482 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-EldridgeJo-9559.pdf
Dmrecord
454482
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Eldridge, Jonathan
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
academic department chair
academic leadership
community college
equity