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
/
Anti-bias training in community colleges: an exploratory study
(USC Thesis Other)
Anti-bias training in community colleges: an exploratory study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Anti-Bias Training in Community Colleges: An Exploratory Study
by
Traci Price Fahimi
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 Traci Price Fahimi 2021
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Traci Price Fahimi certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Mark Pearson
Jennifer Phillips
Helena Seli, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
iv
Abstract
This is an exploratory study of anti-bias training in a large community college system in the
United States. A survey and semi-structured interviews with human resources leaders revealed
that anti-bias training falls short of recommended best practices for social justice education. Part-
time faculty are the employee group least likely to receive training. Most institutions involved in
the study did not utilize robust evaluation methods to ascertain the quality and impact of training.
Institutional challenges to offering high-quality anti-bias training to all employees include
motivating attendance at training, marshalling resources to pay for training, ensuring that leaders
prioritize training, and negotiating with collective bargaining units to ensure that some or all
employees attend training. A rubric for evaluating anti-bias training is suggested that can be used
by college leaders to evaluate and select high-quality anti-bias training and to provide
appropriate institutional support for training. Adaptive leadership can be used to improve campus
climate and motivate participation in and engagement with anti-bias training.
Keywords: Anti-bias training, social justice education, adaptive leadership, student
success, community college, bias, diversity, equity, inclusion, microaggression
v
Dedication
To the students in American higher education who struggle because of bias.
vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Helena Seli, for her patience, guidance,
and support throughout this project. Her insights, clarity of vision, and focus were instrumental
in helping me frame this study and stay on track.
I would like to thank my dissertation committee members Dr. Jennifer Phillips and Dr.
Mark Pearson. Dr. Phillips was generous with her time, feedback, and ideas, which strengthened
the study, especially the survey instrument. I am very grateful for the close working relationship
between Drs. Seli and Phillips in support of my work and others in our cohort. The clarity of
guidance provided in our regular cohort meetings was a phenomenal source of support.
I am very grateful for Dr. Pearson for serving on my dissertation committee and whose class on
diversity provided an environment in which I could explore and develop the conceptual
framework for this dissertation and take my first foray into social justice education.
My classmates in Cohort 12 have also been an amazing source of support, providing
lively and challenging discussion on how to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in our
workplaces.
My deep appreciation goes to the human resources leaders who participated in this study.
Each participant was generous with their time and open in their sharing. Each one was
passionate, dedicated, creative, and unique in their approaches to guiding their institutions
toward greater equity.
Friends and co-workers have been an unending source of support throughout this
journey. They have been sounding boards, cheerleaders, comedians, inspiration and information
sources, and, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, huggers and high-fivers. They have made this
journey lighter, and for that I am very grateful.
vii
Finally, this work would not have been possible without the unconditional love and
support of my husband and children. They gave me the time, space, and resources to focus on
this project and for that, and so much more, I am eternally grateful.
viii
Table of Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ...........................................................................................................................xii
Chapter One: : Overview of the Study ......................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ............................................................................................. 1
Organizational Context and Mission ................................................................................ 3
Stakeholder Group of Focus ............................................................................................ 4
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .................................................................. 6
Importance of the Study ................................................................................................... 7
Overview of Conceptual Framework and Methodology ................................................... 8
Definitions ..................................................................................................................... 11
Organization of the Dissertation .................................................................................... 13
Chapter Two: Literature Review ............................................................................................... 16
Bias in Higher Education ............................................................................................... 16
Impacts of Bias in Higher Education .............................................................................. 21
Anti-Bias Training in Higher Education ......................................................................... 25
Institutional Capacity for Effective Anti-Bias Training in Higher Education .................. 47
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Model ............................................................................. 49
Conceptual Framework .................................................................................................. 55
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 58
Chapter Three: Methodology ..................................................................................................... 61
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 61
Overview of Methodology ............................................................................................. 62
The Researcher .............................................................................................................. 64
Data Sources.................................................................................................................. 66
Ethics ............................................................................................................................ 80
Chapter Four: Findings and Results ........................................................................................... 82
Participating Stakeholders ............................................................................................. 82
Research Question 1: What Anti-Bias Training Protocols are Currently Being
Implemented in Community College System and Why? ..................................... 90
Research Question 2: What Anti-Bias Training Protocols are Held Up by Community
College System Human Resources Leaders as Ideal and Why?......................... 105
Research Question 3: How Do Current Anti-Bias Training Protocols in Community
College System Align with Best Practices? ..................................................... 115
Research Question 4: How do Community College System Human Resources Leaders
Perceive and Evaluate the Effectiveness of Anti-Bias Training? ....................... 131
Research Question 5: In What Ways do External Factors and Internal Organizational
Influences Impact Human Resources Leaders’ Ability to Implement Effective
Training? ........................................................................................................ 147
Summary of Results and Findings ................................................................................ 155
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 157
ix
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion .................................................................... 159
Discussion of Findings and Results .............................................................................. 159
Recommendations for Practice..................................................................................... 169
Integrated Recommendations ....................................................................................... 175
Limitations and Delimitations ..................................................................................... 178
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................ 180
Considerations for Equity ........................................................................................... 181
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 182
References .............................................................................................................................. 185
Appendix A............................................................................................................................. 209
Appendix B ............................................................................................................................. 242
Appendix C ............................................................................................................................. 246
Appendix D............................................................................................................................. 247
Appendix E ............................................................................................................................ 249
x
List of Tables
Table 1: Stakeholders in community college systems 30
Table 2: Stakeholders in anti-bias training 33
Table 3: Characteristics associated with anti-bias training 42
Table 4: Gap analysis framework for stakeholders in anti-bias training 54
Table 5: Data sources 63
Table 6: Data sources and gap analysis model 64
Table 7: Organization of survey instrument 68
Table 8: Organization of interview protocol 74
Table 9: Anti-bias training documents and data analysis 79
Table 10: Human resources leader job data 84
Table 11: Human resources leader workplace data 86
Table 12: Human resources leader demographics 88
Table 13: Characteristics of interview participants 90
Table 14: Topics included in anti-bias training 92
Table 15: Online v. in-person modes of delivery for anti-bias training 98
Table 16: Relationship of race and gender to perceptions of anti-bias training 101
Table 17: Satisfaction and perceptions of anti-bias training effectiveness by race 103
Table 18: Mandatory v. voluntary anti-bias training 111
Table 19: What human resources leaders would like to change about anti-bias training 113
Table 20: Anti-bias training duration 122
Table 21: Individualized v. interactive methods in anti-bias training 126
Table 22: Perceptions of effectiveness and impact of anti-bias training 133
Table 23: Which employee groups receive anti-bias training 137
xi
Table 24: Evaluation of anti-bias training effectiveness 143
Table 25: The impact of external factors on anti-bias training 149
Table 26: The impact of internal factors on anti-bias training 152
Table 27: Summary of findings 156
xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual framework 57
Figure 2: Topics Included in Anti-Bias Training 129
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Despite widespread efforts to eradicate behaviors that make minoritized groups,
including women, feel marginalized in higher education institutions, biased behavior continues
to be a problem on college campuses. Boysen et al. (2009) pointed out that more than 50 percent
of undergraduate students reported microaggression and Wood et al. (2018) stated that 19
percent of students reported experiencing sexual harassment perpetrated by faculty and staff.
Microaggression and harassment are forms of bias that contribute to the overall tenor of campus
climate, which, along with social factors, impacts student success, defined as student persistence
to the completion of a degree (Jones-White et al., 2010).
The standard approach to creating safe spaces in higher education is anti-harassment and
anti-discrimination training, which California and 28 other states make mandatory (California
Department of Fair Employment and Housing, 2019; Inspired eLearning, 2020) and which aids
institutions’ compliance with federal Title IX rules against gender discrimination and harassment
(Anderson, 2020). Despite widespread training to prevent common forms of bias, such as
harassment; hostile environment; and microaggression in the classrooms, social spaces, and work
units in higher education, biased behavior persists (Boysen et al., 2009; Wood et al., 2018). This
study explores current anti-bias training approaches in higher education and seeks to identify
factors impacting institutional capacity to deploy effective training. The focus is specifically on a
key stakeholder group, human resources leaders, who encounter barriers to deploying effective
anti-bias training.
Background of the Problem
Institutional failure to address bias and harassment has a serious impact on students and
institutions (Ogunyemi et al., 2020). Graduation rates for Latinx, African American and Native
2
American students are significantly lower than for White and Asian-American students and
instances of microaggression have increased despite efforts to increase diversity in higher
education (Caplan & Ford, 2014). A microaggressive campus climate provokes attrition
(McClain & Perry, 2017), hurts student performance on exams (Whaley, 2018), impacts
persistence (Hernández & Villodas, 2019), and is associated with behaviors such as dropping
classes, changing majors, and leaving school (Solorzano et al., 2000). The psychological impacts
of microaggression include increased suicidal ideation (O’Keefe et al., 2015), increased anxiety
(Liao et al., 2016), increased mood disorders and substance abuse (Clark et al., 2015), feeling
unwelcome on college campuses (Solorzano et al., 2000; Duquaine-Watson, 2007) and “battle
fatigue” (Smith et al., 2007).
In addition to student impacts, the persistence of bias in institutions of higher education
has negative impacts on the institutions themselves. Bias results in Title IX and civil rights
complaints, investigations, litigation, reputational damage, and reduced funding. Currently, the
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, has more than 6,000 open investigations
of discrimination in educational institutions (U.S. Department of Education, 2020). Failure to
protect student civil rights can lead to a halt in federal defunding, including the provision of
federal financial aid (U.S. Department of Justice, 2020). In addition, public higher education
institutions often have mission-driven student success metrics and student equity goals that they
are held publically accountable for achieving. In California, Washington, Ohio, Tennessee, and
New Mexico, performance-based funding is linked to mission-driven student success and equity
metrics, raising the stakes for institutions who fail to ensure a welcome and inclusive campus
climate (Gandara & Rutherford, 2017; McKinney & Hagedorn 2017).
3
Business and higher education institutions use anti-bias training to protect themselves
from litigation, address reputational impacts, and avoid non-compliance sanctions (Edelman,
2017). Anti-bias training may also be used to achieve higher aspirational goals of equity and
inclusion. Twenty-nine states mandate anti-harassment training for defined populations, such as
public employees, and eight states recommend, but do not require, anti-bias training (Inspired
eLearning, 2020). Although Starbucks’ system-wide, day-long mandatory diversity training in
May 2018 captured national attention (McGregor & Siegel, 2018), Starbucks is certainly not an
innovator in this as an estimated 60% of large companies and 29% of higher education
institutions require diversity training (Dobbin & Kalev, 2018). Effective anti-bias training is
costly, so institutions rely on low cost, short-term approaches that research indicates are
ineffective (Dobbin & Kalev, 2018). A plethora of companies purvey anti-bias training to
business and educational institutions, in formats ranging from one-hour, one-and-done online
modules to multi-day, in-person retreats. Research shows that these common approaches to anti-
bias training in business and higher education are ineffective in changing behavior and
increasing diversity, but they do check off compliance and public relations boxes for
organizational leaders seeking to demonstrate commitment to diversity and fairness.
Organizational Context and Mission
This study focuses on anti-bias training in a large, state-wide system of two-year colleges
in the United States. According to the organization website, the mission of Community College
System (a pseudonym), is to provide education and training for careers, transfer, social mobility,
and equity to a diverse population. Anti-bias training is provided at all colleges in the system.
Community College System is one of the largest in the United States, with more than one
million students enrolled each year and more than 50 colleges of varying sizes, serving urban,
4
suburban and rural communities. Each college district is comprised of one or more colleges. The
college districts receive funding from the Community College System office based on enrollment
and performance metrics, and distribute funds to individual colleges. Each district is headed by a
chancellor and each college by a president. Apart from a common organizational hierarchy and
centralized funding, Community College System is highly decentralized such that individual
colleges and districts are able to adopt policies and practices tailored to local conditions.
Therefore, the study of anti-bias training within Community College System must focus on
policies and practices adopted by individual districts and colleges. In addition, according to
documents posted on the organizational website, colleges in the system are asked to meet
specific performance metrics that include closing equity gaps in a diverse student population.
Colleges in the system must also comply with federal Title IX rules governing diversity, equity,
inclusion, and the maintenance of spaces free from discrimination and harassment. Community
College System has both legal and mission driven imperatives to address bias on its campuses.
Stakeholder Group of Focus
In Community College System, there are many stakeholders at the district and college
levels tasked with promoting equity, inclusion, and safe, welcoming spaces for students on
college campuses. These include governing boards, local district leaders, college leaders, faculty,
administrators, staff and students. Comprised of seven locally elected members, governing
boards set districtwide policy and board members may individually or collectively interrogate or
influence districtwide practices surrounding equity and inclusion. District leaders, such as the
Chancellor and vice chancellors, distribute funds and provide services to the colleges, such as
human resources and institutional technology. District leaders, especially those heading human
resources departments, play a major role in determining the institutional approach to anti-bias
5
training, both due to their job function and due to their personal values. Within districts are one
or more colleges, tasked with delivering instruction and student services support to students. It is
at the college level that we find local administration, faculty, staff and students interacting with
each other on a routine, daily basis. It is at this level that bias manifests itself through frequent
and continuous interactions and it is also at the college level where we find most of the personnel
in a college district who are the recipients of anti-bias training. Students, although the
beneficiaries of the educational experience provided by a college, are also the recipients of some
forms of anti-bias training, particularly students involved in associated student government,
clubs, and competitive teams. Students are also, as noted earlier, sometimes the victims of biased
behavior, and thus are an important source of feedback on the prevalence of bias, levels of
student engagement on campus, and overall campus climate.
Resource and time constraints prevent including all of these stakeholders in the present
study. Instead, the study focuses on human resources leaders at the district or college levels.
Human resources leaders are the primary stakeholders tasked with determining the scope and
frequency of anti-bias training within Community College System. Human resources leaders in
Community College System oversee the recruitment, selection, and hiring processes; collective
bargaining; the maintenance of accurate personnel files; communication and policy development
with boards of trustees; disciplinary and grievance processes; and performance evaluation and
management. In addition, they are responsible for implementing diversity and inclusion
initiatives; implementing Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) plans and compliance; and the
processing unlawful discrimination complaints. Human resources leaders are pivotal
determinants of college or district approaches to anti-bias training due to their functional role in
6
ensuring both diversity and compliance with state and federal mandates related to bias and
diversity.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
This study explores the nature of current anti-bias training protocols in Community
College System, identifies gaps between existing and recommended training approaches, and
examines institutional capacity to improve anti-bias training. Thus, there are two foci to the
research questions: A field study of what is being done in Community College System and
discovery of human resource leaders’ capacity to implement effective anti-bias training. Six
research questions guided the study:
1. What anti-bias training protocols are currently being implemented in the Community
College System?
2. What anti-bias training protocols are held up by Community College System human
resources’ leaders as ideal and why?
3. How do current anti-bias training protocols in Community College System align with
best practices?
4. How do Community College System human resources’ leaders perceive and evaluate the
effectiveness of anti-bias training?
5. In what ways do external factors and internal organizational influences impact human
resources leaders’ ability to implement effective training?
Research question one establishes what current practice is in Community College
System. Research question two probes human resources leaders’ knowledge of anti-bias training
practices. Research question three connects knowledge and practice of anti-bias training with
best practices as identified in research literature. Research question four probes factors that can
7
influence the motivation of human resources leaders to devote resources to effective anti-bias
training practices, such as their perceptions of its effectiveness. Research question five examines
internal, organizational factors that influence human resources leaders’ choices regarding anti-
bias training, such as internal budget allocations. Research question six probes the influences of
external factors on anti-bias training, such as federal and state laws.
Importance of the Study
Although a biased campus climate has negative impacts on student success, feelings of
belonging, overall emotional health as well as negative impacts on institutional reputation and
costs associated with investigations and litigation, to date, there has been no systematic study of
anti-bias training protocols used in the Community College System. This study provides data on
the scope and evaluation of anti-bias training within Community College System as well as
analysis of Community College System’s institutional capacity to provide anti-bias training
consistent with best practices. Given Community College System’s stated goal of providing
equity in education and training for a diverse population as reported in the institutional website,
1
more knowledge is needed on how to cultivate and maintain safe, inclusive spaces for learning at
the system’s numerous campuses, including how to implement effective anti-bias training.
Knowledge about the barriers to deploying effective training models can help colleges identify
resources and strategies to improve training, improve campus climate, and improve student
success. The inability of colleges to address bias effectively has negative consequences for both
students and the colleges.
1
The URL for this website is not provided to protect the identity of the institution.
8
Failure to address the role of effective anti-bias training in promoting an inclusive
campus climate could have serious consequences for student outcomes. The failure of bias
awareness and prevention training to create safe spaces on campus has a deleterious impact on
many different student populations, including Black students (Solorzano et al., 2000, Kanter et
al., 2017), students of Asian descent (Ong et al., 2013), LGBTQIA+ individuals (Balsam et al.,
2011; Nadal et al., 2017), Native American students (Drywater-Whitekiller, 2017), Latinx
persons (Huynh & Fuligni, 2012), women (Lewis et al., 2013), single mothers (Duquaine-
Watson, 2007), people with disabilities (Harris, 2017) and others (Sue et al., 2007). As noted
earlier, the impacts on students are academic, behavioral, and psychological, causing students to
delay or abort educational plans, feel unwelcome on campus, and to engage in self-destructive
thoughts and behaviors. The impact on colleges is also serious. Inability to effectively address
bias has reputational and financial consequences for colleges due to costly investigations,
litigation and settlements, and failure to meet student success and equity goals.
Overview of Conceptual Framework and Methodology
Using a gap analysis framework that combines Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis and
Burke-Litwin Organizational Performance (OP) models (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Burke, 2018),
this study investigates Community College System human resources leaders’ capacity to
implement effective anti-bias training. The study asks why human resources leaders at colleges
and districts choose to deploy specific anti-bias training protocols and how they test for the
effectiveness of anti-bias training. The study focuses on internal and external influences on
human resources leaders’ choices regarding anti-bias training, including the content of training,
the mode of training, and the duration and frequency of training. Using a capacity building lens,
9
the study seeks to identify what would need to change to enable human resources leaders to
deploy more effective training practices within Community College System.
This study addresses the topic of anti-bias training using a constructivist paradigm of
inquiry, which sees institutional capacity, bias, learning, and change as socially constructed and
embedded in specific and unique organizational contexts (Creswell, 2014; Saunders, 2019). The
idea that change is not simply a matter of knowledge, but of organizational context, has been
observed by Beer and Nohria (2000) and Eisenbach et al. (1999). The Aspen Institute (2013), a
Washington D.C.-based, privately funded, non-partisan policy studies organization, identifies
surfacing contradictions between values and reality as an important mechanism for change
related to equity work. Thus, the study uncovers the decision process regarding anti-bias training
of human resources leaders, including the interplay of their personal values and ideas about best
practices in anti-bias training with internal organizational and external environmental influences
that may constrain leaders’ choices about what kind of anti-bias training to offer.
Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis combined with the Burke-Litwin Organizational
Performance models (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Burke, 2018) provided a comprehensive conceptual
framework for identifying factors that influence human resources leaders’ decisions on anti-bias
training protocols. The key insight of Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis is that performance
problems stem from three factors: Knowledge, motivation, and organization-related factors.
Human resources leaders’ choices regarding which anti-bias training protocols to offer are, in
part, rooted in their knowledge of best practices in anti-bias training. Decisions about training are
also part of an organizational context in which budgets and workforce constraints, such as the
time allowed for training, make it difficult for leaders to adopt effective anti-bias training.
Finally, human resources leaders have varying degrees of motivation to overcome obstacles
10
related to deploying effective training. Such motivational factors are deeply rooted in human
resources leaders’ personal values and identities.
The Clark and Estes (2008) model does not take into consideration factors outside of
those related to knowledge, motivation and organization such as external influences. External
influence on human resources leaders’ decisions regarding anti-bias training can be significant,
include both state and federal laws, and may lead to compliance-focused anti-bias training, rather
than training that achieves best practices for actually changing biased behavior. Combining the
two models by incorporating the influence of external factors, yielded comprehensive insights on
institutional capacity for learning and change, and helped to identify specific barriers to and
opportunities for implementing effective anti-bias training practices in Community College
System. In the conceptual framework external factors, such as society, regulatory laws, and
college funding, influence internal factors at colleges and districts such as organizational
resources. In addition, individual characteristics of human resources leaders—such as their
knowledge levels, levels of motivation to learn, and transformational leadership capacity—
influence the organization’s capacity for implementing effective anti-bias training. Finally, the
effectiveness of training impacts campus climate insofar as biased behaviors, including
microaggression and harassment, persist on campus. As noted earlier, campus climate influences
students’ psychological stress, persistence behavior, stress levels, and completion of degrees.
The present study focuses on three elements of the conceptual framework: External Factors,
College Capacity, and Training Approach.
The study utilizes an explanatory sequential mixed methods design (Creswell, 2014).
This design provides rich contextualization for a non-random census survey of human resources
leaders in Community College System. The survey instrument addresses internal and external
11
factors that impact the decisions that human resources leaders make about the content, scope, and
duration of anti-bias training, the approach used for institutional anti-bias training, and
knowledge, organizational and leadership factors impacting training. In-depth interviews were
conducted with a sample of 10 human resources leaders in Community College System. Finally,
document analysis provided additional descriptive information on anti-bias training approaches.
Definitions
This section addresses key terms used in the study, such as anti-bias training, implicit
bias, microaggression, and social justice education (SJE).
Anti-Bias Training
Following Paluck and Green’s (2009) treatment of anti-prejudice training, the term anti-
bias training as used in this paper refers to a variety of interventions, including diversity training,
multicultural education, anti-bias education, cultural competence training, anti-harassment
training and anti-bullying training.
Implicit Bias
Implicit biases are unconscious associations and evaluations made by members of a
group who share a characteristic about individuals outside the group. They include both
stereotypes and prejudices, and may cause biased judgment and behavior (FitzGerald et al.,
2019). Biased behaviors can include sexual harassment, bullying, discrimination, and
microaggression.
Microaggressions
A microaggression, which is studied extensively in higher education environments, is an
expression of implicit bias. It is defined as “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, and
environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile,
12
derogatory or negative…slights and insults” to a target person or group (Sue et al., 2007, p. 271).
Microaggression may impact Black persons (Solorzano et al., 2000, Kanter et al., 2017), persons
of Asian descent (Ong et al., 2013;), LGBTQIA+ individuals (Balsam et al., 2011; Nadal et al.,
2017), Native Americans (Drywater-Whitekiller, 2017), Latinx persons (Huynh & Fuligni 2012),
women (Lewis et al., 2013), single mothers (Duquaine-Watson, 2007), individuals with
disabilities (Harris, 2017) and marginalized others (Sue et al., 2007).
Social Justice Education
Social justice education (SJE) emerged from a critical, constructivist paradigm that calls
for a highly contextualized, multimodal, interactive, and reflective learning process that takes
place over several months (Adams & Bell, 2016). A key insight of SJE is that systems of
oppression are both inside and outside the learning community, that learning takes place through
the “interaction of theory, reflection, and action” (Adams & Bell, 2016, p. 29) and that SJE
teaching must “model the equity, fairness, inclusiveness, reciprocity, and justice for which we
are striving” (Adams & Bell, 2016, p. 49). The study argues that research-informed best practices
in anti-bias training follow the elements of training outlined in the SJE model.
Positionality and Identity
Positionality is used in the present study in three domains. The first is in relation to
participants in anti-bias training and how positionality impacts learning. The second is in relation
to the impact of researcher positionality on the collection and interpretation of data. The third is
in relation to the impact of positionality and identity on human resources leaders’ perceptions of
anti-bias training. Tien (2019) argued that identity and positionality are often conflated. Identity
is a person’s interpretation of their own attributes or characteristics derived from their location in
a power system (Tien, 2019). Positionality is a perspective and set of processes where meaning,
13
including identities, is constructed (Tien, 2019). Identities, such as gender, race, class, cultural
background, ability, and sexual orientation, are shaped through social location and interactions
(Muhammad et al., 2015). Individuals have multiple identities that intersect and may be
contradictory in their relationship to systems of power and oppression (Crenshaw, 1991;
Muhammad et al., 2015). Positionality and identity influence an individual’s biases or lenses
through which they experience the world and relate to others. A key finding of the study is that
the positionality, identities, and lived experiences of human resources leaders impact their
perceptions of anti-bias training.
Organization of the Dissertation
This study of anti-bias training in Community College System is organized into five
chapters. Chapter One introduced the persistence of unsafe spaces for learning in higher
education and the challenge of providing effective anti-bias training to faculty, staff and
administrators. It reviews the study setting, Community College System, and identifies the
specific stakeholder group, human resources leaders, who choose and implement training
protocols. The chapter briefly situates anti-bias training within the literature on learning and
motivation, describes the nexus of anti-bias training and campus climate, and the relationship of
campus climate to student success. Finally, the conceptual framework of the study is introduced,
along with an overview of the organization of the dissertation.
Chapter Two is a literature review that situates workplace training within a theory of
adult learning, or andragogy, and anti-bias training within the Social Justice Education
framework. The review also provides a conceptual framework for an analysis of institutional
capacity to implement effective anti-bias training that is rooted in the Clark and Estes (2008) gap
14
analysis and the Burke-Litwin (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Burke, 2018) Organizational Performance
models.
Chapter Three addresses the methodology used in the study. It provides a detailed
description of the mixed methods approach used in the study, situating the approach conceptually
within the Burke-Litwin (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Burke, 2018) Organizational Performance and
Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis models. The methodological approach is comprised of three
elements. The first element is a non-random census survey of 72 human resources leaders in
Community College System. The second element is in-depth, semi-structured interviews of a
sample of 10 human resources leaders. The third element is a brief review of selected anti-bias
training protocols that exemplify best practices utilizing publicly available documents from
college websites within Community College System. Finally, the chapter addresses the
positionality of the researcher and the impact that positionality may have on the collection and
interpretation of data.
Chapter Four reviews the data collected from the survey, interviews, and document
analysis. The data are presented and organized around the five research questions that inform the
study and are centered in the gap analysis conceptual framework. The data demonstrate the type
and quality of anti-bias training offered in Community College System, the methods of
evaluation used to determine the effectiveness of anti-bias training, and the external, internal, and
individual factors that influence leaders’ choice of anti-bias training protocol.
Chapter Five provides an overview of the key findings and a discussion of their
implications for Community College System and future research. The author identifies key
factors influencing the capacity of Community College System to deliver effective anti-bias
15
training to its faculty, staff and administrators and makes recommendations for performance
improvement derived from the study findings.
16
Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter addresses three areas of research surrounding biased behavior and anti-bias
training on college campuses and introduces a conceptual framework for assessing college
capacity to effectively address bias through training. First, the prevalence and impact of bias on
college campuses is reviewed, focusing specifically on implicit bias, microaggression, and
harassment experienced by students and perpetrated by college personnel. The data indicate that
biased behavior is not rare and has a negative impact on student success. Second, anti-bias
training is examined in three respects: its prevalence as a method of addressing bias in workplace
and educational settings, the typical components of anti-bias training, and the theoretical
assumptions underlying popular models of anti-bias training. The literature highlights that
effective anti-bias training is rooted in theories of authentic and adult learning. Third,
institutional capacity to implement effective anti-bias training is reviewed. Internal factors, such
as organizational dynamics and knowledge, and external factors, such as state laws and funding
levels, impact colleges’ ability to implement effective anti-bias training. Finally, a conceptual
framework is proposed that identifies three factors impacting colleges’ ability to implement
effective anti-bias training to ensure a positive campus climate for student success: External
Factors, Internal Factors and Training Approach.
Bias in Higher Education
Bias concerns explicit or implicit negative evaluations of a group of people compared to a
different group, and is closely related to stereotyping and prejudice, both methods groups of
people use to categorizing and evaluate others (Blair et al, 2011; Devine, 1989; FitzGerald et al.,
2019). Explicit bias occurs when a person is aware of, endorses, and acts on their negative
evaluation of a group (Blair et al., 2011). Implicit bias is an unconscious association comprised
17
of implicit stereotypes and implicit prejudices (Fitzgerald, et al., 2019). Implicit stereotypes are
mental associations related to attributes, while implicit prejudices are negative evaluations or
feelings about a group (Fitzgerald et al., 2019). While explicit bias has declined due to social
unacceptability (Blair et al., 2011; Carmines et al., 2011), implicit bias, as measured by the
Implicit Association Test, remains a societal problem that impacts many realms of human
interaction, including the medical profession (Chapman et al., 2013), policing (Swencionis et al.,
2017), courts (Eacho, 2013), and higher education (Applebaum, 2019; Wyatt et al., 2019).
Related concepts include racism, homophobia, cultural competence, cultural sensitivity,
discrimination, intolerance, microaggression, diversity, and stereotyping.
Prevalence of Staff-Student Bias in Higher Education
Bias in higher education has been studied in relation to structural issues, such as
gatekeeper testing (Sackett et al., 2008), student evaluations of faculty (Basow, 1995; Sohr-
Preston et al. 2016), faculty hiring (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017) and university and college
admissions (Callahan et al., 2018; Davis, 2008) to name a few prominent areas of research.
These behaviors include harassment, bullying, microaggression, and discrimination in the
college settings where faculty, staff, and students interact. The theory of action behind higher
education anti-bias training is that biased behavior can be reduced via awareness, and that
eliminating bias in hiring will have a net impact of creating a more diverse workforce. A more
diverse workforce is assumed to be less likely to engage in biased behavior on campus and to
help with the retention and success of students from minoritized groups (Bustillos et al., 2018;
Kayes, 2006). Training occurs in two broad arenas. General training, provided for all employees,
is designed to comply with legal requirements and increase awareness of implicit biases,
harassment, bullying and other undesirable behaviors. Specific training is provided to some
18
employees, typically as part of hiring processes, and is designed to encourage a fair, non-
discriminatory assessment of candidates for positions resulting in a more diverse workforce.
Bias in Hiring and Retention of Faculty
Hiring and retention of minority faculty in higher education have led to a workforce that
does not reflect the diversity of the student body (Bustillos et al., 2018; Kayes, 2006). Data
collected by the United States Department of Education in 2013-2014 showed large disparities in
the proportion of Black, Latinx and White students compared to faculty (USDE, 2016). In
degree-granting, post-secondary institutions 74% of the faculty was White, yet only 57% of the
student body was White. Thirteen percent of the student body was Black compared to 5% of the
faculty (USDE, 2016). Eight percent of the student body was Latinx compared to 4% of the
faculty (USDE, 2016). The Pew Research Center (Davis & Fry, 2019) reported that although
college faculty were more diverse now than in the past, three-quarters of the faculty were White,
compared to 55% of students. Both Black and Latinx faculty are underrepresented compared to
the student body. A study of diversity in California higher education by the Campaign for
College Opportunity (Bustillos et al., 2018), a nonprofit advocacy group, argued that community
colleges and state universities have a workforce that does not reflect the racial and gender
diversity of students. Community colleges were identified as having inclusivity challenges in the
compositions of their boards of trustees, which tend to be mostly White. Latinx individuals are
15% of tenured faculty, 17% of senior leaders, but 44% of the student body (CCO, 2018).
Community colleges in other large state systems report similar findings. For example, in Texas,
Austin Community College’s data dashboard reports that although classified staff closely mirror
the White and Latinx student population the faculty are more than 70% White while the student
19
body is less than 45% White. Latinx student make up 36% of the student body, but only about
14% of the faculty (Austin Community College, 2020).
Students from minoritized groups cite the positive impact of a faculty and staff that
reflects themselves on their own feelings of belonging in an institution. (Caplan & Ford, 2014;
Hurtado et al., 2011; McDougal et al., 2017, 2018; McClain & Perry, 2017; Parker & Trolian,
2019; Rendon, 1994, 2002; Strayhorn, 2019). The values and behaviors of faculty and staff play
important roles in campus inclusivity and student persistence and success (Hurtado et al., 2011).
Of particular importance is academic and interpersonal validation of students by faculty and staff
(Hurtado et al., 2011; Rendon, 1994, 2002). Students from minoritized groups, including Black,
Latinx, and Native American students, express frustration at institutional inability to effectively
address diversity and cite feeling marginalized and excluded on their campuses (Harper &
Hurtado, 2007). Students from minoritized groups have a greater sense of alienation when the
percentage of minority faculty is low (Strayhorn, 2019). Students see higher education faculty
and staff from minoritized groups as understanding allies and role models with the potential to
support and mentor them (Caplan & Ford, 2014; McClain & Perry, 2017; McDougal et al., 2017,
2018). Studies of higher educational workplaces cite implicit or unconscious bias as impacting
the diversity of the professorate, graduate and undergraduate admissions policies, the ability to
effectively address legacies of racism, and overall campus climate (Dickerson, 2019). Bias
among faculty and staff may lead to instances of microaggression towards student members of
minoritized groups that is both interpersonal and environmental (Mills, 2020). Hiring a more
diversified faculty and staff is considered critical in reducing instances of overt bias and
microaggression on college campuses, both of which have a deleterious impact on minority
student success.
20
Biased behavior in the form of microaggression is widely studied in higher education
contexts and is implicated in negative student outcomes, such as reduced persistence, failure to
complete educational goals, and heightened emotional stress. A microaggression is defined as
“brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, and environmental indignities, whether
intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory or negative…slights and
insults” to a target person or group (Sue et al., 2007, p. 271). Interpersonal and environmental
microaggression can take the form of microassaults (deliberately hurtful communications),
microinsults (unintentional rude and demeaning remarks), and microinvalidations (comments
that exclude, negate or nullify) (Mills, 2020; Sue et al., 2007). Nadal et al. (2012) identified
twelve types of microaggressions targeting transgender and gender nonconforming individuals,
including use of transphobic terminology, exoticization, and denial of personal body privacy.
Environmental microaggression is expressed systemically via institutional, economic, legal and
cultural settings (Mills, 2020). Many groups on college campuses are the targets of
microaggression, including Black students (Pierce, 1970; Solorzano et al., 2000; Kanter et al.,
2017; Kim & Hargrove, 2013; McClain & Perry, 2017), student who identify as Asian (Ong et
al., 2013;), LGBTQIA+ individuals (Balsam et al., 2011; Nadal et al., 2017; Goldberg et al.,
2019), Native American students (Drywater-Whitekiller, 2017), Latinx persons (Huynh &
Fuligni, 2012; Gloria et al., 2017; Castellanos et al., 2018; Hernandez & Villodas, 2019), women
(Lewis et al., 2013), single mothers (Duquaine-Watson, 2007), persons with disabilities (Harris,
2017) and others (Sue et al., 2007). Mills’ (2020) study of Black students at predominantly
White institutions noted environmental microaggression in the form of purposeful segregation of
White and non-White students, lack of representation of Blacks in the professorate and campus
21
organizations, institutional assumptions of criminality targeting Black students, cultural bias in
courses, tokenism, and pressure to conform to White cultural standards.
A review of the literature on microaggressive forms of bias in higher education reveals
that there are two domains that mediate student success in biased environments: the individual
and the institutional. Individual factors are further subdivided into emotional factors and
behavioral factors. These factors are consistent with resilience theory (Mills, 2020), which posits
that successful outcomes in difficult environments are based on three components: risk factors
(such as biased behavior and its associated negative impact on emotional wellbeing), protective
factors (such as social and institutional supports), and adaptations (such as the positive
processing of emotions and adoption of coping strategies).
Impacts of Bias in Higher Education
This section explores the impacts of bias in higher education on students and institutions.
Bias in higher education takes a serious emotional toll on students. Behaviorally, bias may
paradoxically trigger resilience and determination. At the same time, bias is linked to poorer
student performance outcomes. To counteract the presence of bias, institutions can and do offer
effective supports to students and staff designed to foster more student engagement, connection,
and community.
Emotional Impacts of Bias in Higher Education
Biased behavior in higher education, which often takes the form of microaggression, has
a deleterious impact on the emotions of students, including increased suicidal ideation (O’Keefe
et al., 2015), increased anxiety (Liao et al., 2016), increased mood disorders and substance abuse
(Clark et al., 2015), feeling unwelcome on college campuses (Solorzano et al., 2000; Duquaine-
Watson, 2007), and feeling like they do not belong (Caplan & Ford, 2014; Castellanos et al.,
22
2018). In their study of 91 gender non-conforming (GNC) graduate students, Goldberg et al.
(2019) found that students frequently felt frustrated by the pressure to conform to cisnormativity.
Some GNC students feared for their physical and emotional safety. Nadal et al. (2014) reported
that GNC students felt anger, betrayal, distress, hopelessness, and invalidation. Focus groups of
Black male university students at predominantly White institutions described a culture of
stereotyping, marginality, microaggression and Black misandry, inducing traumatic stress or
“racial battle fatigue” (Smith et al., 2007, p. 552). Smith and colleagues identified 16 psycho-
emotional stress responses: frustration, anger, exhaustion, surprise, shock, denial, hypervigilance,
worry, anxiety, and resentment. Latino male undergraduates facing microaggressions and
microassaults feel isolated, uncomfortable, alienated, unwelcome and unprepared (Gloria et al.,
2017).
Behavioral Impacts of Bias in Higher Education
Despite the emotional toll of biased educational environments, students often display
self-efficacy and resilience in the face of microaggression (Kim & Hargrove, 2013). Resilience
theory posits that risks, such as expressions of bias, can be counteracted by behavioral protective
factors and adaptions, such as social supports and coping strategies (Mills, 2020). Gloria et al.
(2017) report that Latino male undergraduates use both problem-focused and emotion-focused
coping strategies, such as seeking more information about the biased situation and taking
planned, positive action in response to encountering displays of bias. The emotion of anger can
be turned into motivation for academic success (Castellanos et al., 2018). Furthermore, some
Latino male undergraduates adopt an “angry face” or “walking angry” demeanor to discourage
biased interactions (Castellanos et al., 2018, p. 185). Students who practice forbearance coping
strategies, defined as ignoring and internalizing microaggression, demonstrate lower persistence
23
in higher education. In contrast, students who seek social support display greater persistence
attitudes (Hernandez & Villodas, 2019). Such social supports involve creating communities to
“culturally nourish and replenish themselves” (Yosso et al., 2009). A study of Black student
engagement at San Francisco State University found that peer-to-peer social support was a key
factor in student resilience in the face of microaggressive displays of bias (McDougal et al.,
2018).
Impact of Staff-Student Bias on Student Performance and Success
Campus climate and social factors are strong contributors to student success, defined as
student persistence to completion of a degree (Jones-White, et al., 2010). Graduation rates for
Latinx, African American and Native American students are significantly lower than for White
and Asian-American students and instances of discrimination have increased, despite efforts to
increase diversity in higher education (Caplan & Ford, 2014). Microaggressions cause attrition
(McClain & Perry, 2017), hurt student performance on exams (Whaley, 2018), impact
persistence (Hernández & Villodas, 2019), and are associated with behaviors such as dropping
classes, changing majors, and leaving school (Solorzano et al, 2000).
Institutional Impacts of Bias in Higher Education
Higher education institutions can utilize hiring, training, student services, and student life
activities to provide support for student coping strategies and persistence. Yosso et al. (2009)
argue that higher education institutions would benefit from institutionalized self-examination
using a critical race theory lens, which encourages the adoption of policies and practices centered
on appropriate supports for minoritized groups. Central to such self-examination are anti-bias
trainings and professional development. Hiring faculty and staff from underrepresented groups is
an important strategy, as students of color typically view such higher education staff as
24
understanding allies and role models with the potential to support and mentor them (McDougal
et al., 2018; McClain & Perry, 2017; Caplan & Ford, 2014). Faculty, staff, and administrators
can be trained in methods of creating safe and respectful spaces for diverse groups of students
(Castellanos et al., 2018; Caplan & Ford, 2014; Ogunyemi et al., 2019). Ellis et al. (2019) reports
on the effectiveness of microaffirmations in providing hope and encouragement for students in
otherwise microaggressive environments. Microaffirmations are statements that confirm and
validate the unique identities of students (Ellis et al., 2019). Goldberg et al. (2019) convey the
importance of advisor support and identity affirmation for the decisions of some GNC students to
persist in graduate school. Institutions can create a supportive environment for the creation of
student associations clubs and groups that provide identity support and cultural spaces for
marginalized groups (McDougal et al., 2018; McClain & Perry, 2017; Caplan & Ford, 2014).
Groups with collectivist cultures, such as Latinx students, will find support groups, culturally
congruent spaces, and formal and informal social and academic activities helpful in creating a
feeling of belonging on campus (Hernandez & Villodas, 2019; Castellanos et al., 2018).
Although bias is pervasive in institutions of higher education (Boysen et al., 2009) and
takes an emotional toll on students (Smith, Allen & Danley, 2007), a combination of individual
and institutional factors helps students persist. Individually, students use behavioral adaptations
and coping strategies to address bias, including taking positive action, using negative emotions,
such as anger, as a protector and motivator, and reaching out to others for social and identity
support (Castellanos et al., 2018; McDougal et al., 2018). Institutions of higher education can
impact student persistence by providing environmental supports for student coping mechanisms
(Caplan & Ford, 2014; McClain & Perry, 2017) and by utilizing critical self-evaluation, training,
25
and policy and practice changes to reduce instances of microaggression on campus (Yosso et al.,
2009).
Despite what we know about student persistence and success in the face of institutional
bias, students from minoritized groups still face higher levels of attrition and a lower sense of
belonging at college than do White students. The expression of bias in colleges, whether through
hiring and retaining a non-diverse faculty, staff and administration or in the form of
microaggression, has a profound impact on student persistence, success and emotional wellbeing.
A safe and welcoming campus climate is an important factor in minoritized students reaching
their educational goals. Recognizing the connection between diversity, equity, and student
achievement, community college systems in the United States have invested in equity and
inclusion initiatives, some of which address anti-bias training. Anti-bias training has been
identified by researchers as a critical element in providing identity and emotional support for
minoritized students and for improving the campus climate around issues of diversity and
inclusion. But, as noted by Dowd and Bensimon (2015), higher education faculty may not have
the knowledge, expertise, or cultural competency required to create campus culture change
around bias and equity, pointing to the need for additional education and training directed at bias
and equity.
Anti-Bias Training in Higher Education
Anti-bias training is workplace learning program designed to make participants aware of
their hidden, unconscious or implicit biases with the goal of making their interactions with others
less prejudicial, less prone to stereotype and to reduce workplace inequalities (Atewologun et al.,
2018). Anti-bias training is distinct from other types of job skills training in that it may elicit
emotional discomfort in participants (Bezrukova et al., 2016; Kowal et al., 2013). In Hartman v.
26
Pena (1995), an employee of the Federal Aviation Administration sued for sexual harassment of
White males and won a settlement due to mental distress and complaints of unfair treatment due
to participating in anti-bias training (Bader, 2007). Following Paluck and Green’s (2009)
exploration of anti-prejudice training, the term anti-bias training may also include diversity
training, multicultural education, cultural competence training, anti-prejudice training, and anti-
harassment training. Anti-bias training varies in duration from a few minutes to a few months; by
an in-person or online or combined modality; by its audience reach to all or some employees; by
its mandatory or voluntary nature; by whether its subject matter is narrow or comprehensive; and
by its assumptions about how participants learn best, whether through awareness raising or skills
building (Bezrukova et al., 2016).
Historical Context of Anti-Bias Training
Anti-bias training has its roots in diversity training, which began after passage of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Anand & Winters, 2008). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act made
workplace discrimination illegal in institutions with more than 15 employees. Mandatory training
was one of the remedies mandated by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
when discrimination suits were filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Anand & Winters,
2008). To avoid negative publicity and expensive litigation, many companies voluntarily opted
to adopt anti-discrimination training (Anand & Winters, 2008). The overarching theme and
motivation for diversity training from the late 1960s to the late 1980s was compliance-oriented
diversity training focusing on including more women and minorities in the workplace (Anand &
Winters, 2008). During the late 1980s and through the 1990s, diversity training began to
incorporate the wider concept of “sensitivity” and “inclusivity,” typically combining
compliance-oriented topics with social justice and the valoration of individual differences
27
(Anand & Winters, 2008). With the advent of the Implicit Association Test, by the late 1990s
through the early 2000s, diversity training began to combine the concepts of implicit or
unconscious bias, inclusion and “cultural competence” (Anand & Winters, 2008) and was often
deployed to breathe life into stalled efforts to improve workforce diversity (Dobbin et al., 2006;
Dobbin & Kalev, 2018). For institutions of higher education, Title IX of the Civil Rights Act
added new impetus for training to prevent racial and gender-based bias, prejudice, and sexual
assault on college campuses and also introduced institutionalized processes of investigation
(Kipnis, 2017). In the early 2000s, state legislatures, beginning with Connecticut, Maine, and
California, began passing laws requiring anti-harassment training for all or some employees
(Martucci & Lu; 2005). Although Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not explicitly
require anti-harassment training, federal guidelines advise employers to convey anti-harassment
information to employees and courts view training as evidence of employer due care (Bisom-
Rapp, 2018-2019). Coupled with the pre-existing diversity and anti-bias mandates emanating
from federal law, the state mandates heightened the importance of training for public educational
institutions such as Community College System. As a result, institutions of higher education
have more anti-bias training requirements than business and industry. In response, a variety of
training modules have been introduced into higher education that address the numerous
mandates, recommendations and self-protections required under anti-harassment, diversity, and
anti-bias statutes.
Critics of anti-bias training argue that its methods and assumptions are incorrect or
insufficiently tested, that it does not lead to improvements in diversity or the reduction of
microaggressive behaviors, and that the training may even make bias worse (Applebaum, 2019;
Dobbin et al., 2006; Dobbin & Kalev, 2018; Oswald et al., 2013; Oswald et al., 2015). Often,
28
anti-bias training centers on the Implicit Association Test (IAT) (Greenwald et al., 1998), which
may be used to pre-test and post-test participant implicit biases towards race, gender, age,
weight, disability, political leanings, and more (Sleek, 2018). The IAT presents participants with
combinations of words or images onscreen and asks them to respond on a keyboard. How much
time it takes to respond is supposed to indicate unconscious mental associations that the
participant may be unaware of. The IAT has been the subject of critique by researchers who
argue it is a poor predictor of real-world discriminatory behavior (Oswald et al., 2013; Oswald et
al., 2015). Applebaum (2019) argues that the psychological and contextual assumptions behind
anti-bias training are flawed. Anti-bias training tends to assume that bias is based on individual
belief rather than socially constructed systemic injustice and that individual beliefs may be hard-
wired psychological traits, thereby absolving participants of responsibility for unconscious bias
(Applebaum, 2019). Dobbin & Kalev (2018, 2016) also argued that participants may be
complacent after training, which encourages inaction and limits its organizational impact. They
also noted that participants resent mandatory training programs, that training is often too short-
term to be effective, and that it may actually activate stereotypes and White resistance (Dobbin &
Kalev, 2018). Kowal et al. (2013) noted that up to a fifth of participants in diversity training had
increased levels of racial prejudice following the training.
Key Stakeholders in Anti-Bias Training
Identifying stakeholders hinges on defining the term, which, according to Miles (2012)
had more than 435 definitions in her survey of 493 articles on stakeholder theory. Freeman
(1984) defines a stakeholder as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the
achievement of the organization’s objectives,” (p. 46), a definition so broad that it can include
nearly anyone. In an attempt to clarify and narrow the concept, Kaler (2002) argued that
29
stakeholders are “claimants towards whom businesses owe perfect of imperfect moral duties
beyond those generally owed to people at large” (p. 91). All of these definitions are planted
firmly in the realm of business ethics and an attempt to determine what services and duties an
organization owes to which groups of people. Business stakeholders exist internally and
externally, including owners, employees, governments, suppliers, competitors, and the media
(Freeman, 1984). In healthcare, stakeholders include government, patients, healthcare
professionals, managed care plans, payers, the community, investors, professional associations,
managers, nonprofessional employees, and the legal system (Werhane, 2000). In law
enforcement, stakeholders include federal and state governments, review boards, the community,
and members of police agencies. Unpacking “the community” reveals additional stakeholders,
such as vulnerable groups, minority advocacy groups, neighborhood watch, homeowner
associations, business owners, religious leaders, elected officials, the military, the media, and
social service organizations (Simmons, 2013). In public higher education, stakeholders are
diverse, and may include government entities, administrators, employees (such as faculty and
staff), regulators, partners, customers (e.g., students), suppliers, competitors and donors (Alves et
al., 2010). The stakeholders in community college system at the system-wide are depicted in
Table 1.
30
Table 1
Stakeholders in Community College System
Level Stakeholder Groups
Federal/State/Regional State System Office, State Faculty Governance
Association, Regional Accreditation Agencies
District Chancellors, Boards of Trustees, Local Unions,
Administrators, Staff, Individual colleges
within multi college districts
College (Internal) Faculty, Staff, Administration, Students
College (External) General Public, Former Students, Donors,
Business & Educational Partners, Employers,
Media
Moving the stakeholder lens to specific instances of anti-bias training, despite variations
in large-scale institutional context, a common stakeholder pattern emerges. Alves et al. (2010)
noted that a stakeholder’s importance depends on the degree of power, legitimacy and urgency
possessed by the stakeholder. These attributes are defined in relation to whether stakeholder
demands or needs can be ignored or left unmet. Stakeholders may be latent or peripheral to a
situation or central, expectant, and dominant. A closer examination of anti-bias training reveals
three primary stakeholder groups emerging as central to anti-bias training and learning: the
instructor, the student, and institutional decision makers. Adult learning theory provides us with
two critical stakeholders: The instructor and the student (Adams & Bell, 2016; Merriam &
Bierema, 2013; Stevens et al., 2008). Within the realm of adult education, which includes
workplace training, instructors and their instructional practices are critical factors in anti-bias
training. Ideally, instructors would engage with their audience and adapt their instructional
design and curriculum to the needs, interests, and sense of personal relevance of their students,
31
thereby creating a problem- and learner-centered classroom (Henson, 2003; Merriam & Bierema,
2013). Adams and Bell (2016) noted the importance of the instructor, both in choice of
pedagogical material and in making students feel supported while working through material that
may be emotionally challenging. The adult student is self-directed and motivated by learning that
is deemed personally relevant and connected to life experiences (Henson, 2003; Merriam &
Bierema, 2013). In addition, studies of anti-bias training highlight that student identity and
positionality must also be considered critical and that it would be a mistake to view all
participants in anti-bias training as monolithic. Stevens et al. (2008) argued that learners who
identify as members of minoritized and non-minoritized groups must both be separately
considered to avoid feelings of alienation and exclusion that could undermine the positive
learning outcomes and organizational change that are supposed to be the by-products of anti-bias
training. The third stakeholder group is comprised of institutional decision makers who decide
when and how to offer anti-bias training and deploy institutional resources to make training
happen. Typically, these stakeholders are leaders in human resources, whose job it is to ensure
compliance with state and federal laws and who may lobby executives for resources to support
training. There is triadic relationship among the central stakeholders in anti-bias training, with
human resources leaders influencing both the instructor and the participants. Human resources
leaders choose to handle anti-bias training either in-house or with an outside facilitator. They
also decide who participates in the training, and if that training will be mandatory or voluntary.
Following adult learning theory, instructors and students are in mutual and interactive
relationship in which the instructor creates a learner-centered environment and guides the adult
learner to become more self-directed while at the same time being flexible in response to learner
feedback (Henson, 2003; Merriam & Bierema, 2013).
32
The stakeholder lens can be widened to include additional stakeholders that may
influence human resources leaders in their choice of anti-bias training scope, type, and duration.
Necessarily, the specific constellation of stakeholder influence may vary significantly by higher
education institution. Focusing on the Alves et al. (2010) identification of expectant stakeholders
as those possessing at least two of three attributes of urgency, power, and legitimacy, we now
consider additional potential sources of stakeholder power and influence over anti-bias training.
These are individuals and groups that can, through a combination of political power, opinion
influence, and control over institutional resources, influence what anti-bias training looks like in
a college or district. Such expectant stakeholders could include executive leadership at the
college and district, faculty and staff governance leaders, boards of trustees, and donors. Table 2
provides a listing of key stakeholders that may influence human resources leaders’ decisions
about the frequency, duration, and scope of anti-bias training. While these stakeholders may
influence a human resources leader directly, they also exert influence on college leadership and
on each other. For example, a chancellor may communicate directly with a human resources
leader regarding their personal views on anti-bias training, setting specific goals or parameters
for the training. A member of the board of trustees may communicate about bias and diversity to
the chancellor or to any leader at the college level that they may encounter or deliberately reach
out to college presidents and faculty and staff leadership. A significant donor to a college may
communicate with the college president expressing values and opinions surrounding anti-bias
training. As a whole, stakeholders at the meso-level may influence the nature and frequency of
anti-bias training by leveraging their control over decisions and resources, which enables them to
project their values and agendas on the anti-bias training process. While human resources leaders
have authority and legitimacy to make decisions for colleges or districts about the nature and
33
scope of anti-bias training, they are not operating in a vacuum. Other powerful people and
groups at the meso-level may constrain the decision-making freedom of human resources leaders
or, conversely, provide legitimacy and authority to back up human resources leaders’ decisions
about anti-bias training.
Table 2
Stakeholders in Anti-Bias Training
Level Stakeholder Groups
External (District and College) Donors, Community Partners
District Executive Leaders, Board of Trustees
College Executive leaders, Faculty leaders, Staff
leaders
District or College Human Resources Leaders (Primary
Responsible Party)
Training Environment Training Instructors, Training Participants
34
Determinants of Effective Anti-Bias Training
Ultimately, the effectiveness of training rests on the ability of the training to stimulate
authentic learning. Authentic learning focuses on real-world problems, uses open-ended inquiry
and meta-cognition, takes place among a community of learners, and involves student directed
project work (Rule, 2006). Although theories of authentic learning were developed in the context
of K-12 education, the applicability of authentic learning to adult learning and workplace
learning has been noted by Webster-Wright (2009). Furthermore, adult educational theory, which
has strong roots in both humanism and radicalism, posits an important relationship between adult
learning and the psychological, social and political context of learning in a variety of arenas,
including human resource development (Yang, 2004), medical education (Wood, 2008) and even
missionary learning (Beard, 2015). Thus, theories of authentic learning are strongly rooted in a
research tradition that unifies individual-level, group-level and societal-level influences on
learning.
The review process revealed that anti-bias training and the associated learning outcomes
are complex phenomena that can be understood within a framework of individual, group and
environmental factors that influence learning. Research suggests that workplace learning and
training targets individuals, whose cognition, attention and reflection influence what lessons are
absorbed (Devine et al., 2012; Dobbin & Kalev, 2016; Kulik et al.,2007; Rogers, 2002; Webster-
Wright, 2009). Training may be deployed individually or in a group setting, generating as a
substantial literature that highlights the impact of group dynamics on learning (Allport, 1954;
Fujimoto & Härtel, 2017; Hewstone et al., 2002; McKay, 2018; Monroe et al., 2000). Training
also takes place in an environment comprised of complex social relationships and power
dynamics, which themselves impact what information is retained by the learner (Buhin & Vera,
35
2009; Furman, 2012; Goldstein Hode, 2018; Howard, 2000). This review covers literature under
three topic areas that emerged from the review process: Individual factors that influence learning,
group factors that that influence learning, and environmental factors that influence learning.
Individual Factors that Influence Learning
Studies of individual factors influencing learning focus on reflection, cognition, and
motivation (Devine et al., 2012; Dobbin & Kalek, 2016; Kulik et al., 2007; Rogers, 2002;
Webster-Wright, 2009). Following the work of Dewey (1933), Rogers (2002) and Webster-
Wright (2009) argued that reflection is a critical component of meaning-making and authentic
learning. In her article on the four criteria that encompass reflective thinking, Rogers (2002)
argued that the value of an experience is derived from its meaning, and reflection is what gives
meaning to experience. Webster-Wright (2009) focuses on professional development in the
context of competence, expertise and workplace evaluation, providing insights relevant to anti-
bias, diversity, and social justice learning. She argued that authentic learning cannot take place in
atomized, brief spurts—characteristics of much anti-bias training in higher education and
elsewhere—but, rather, should take place holistically, reflectively, in community, and imbedded
in a socially constructed practice that is meaningful to the learner (Webster-Wright, 2009).
Echoing Webster-Wright’s (2009) observations on the importance of community and
socially constructed practice, Dobbin and Kalev (2016), in their study of mandatory workplace
anti-bias trainings, argued that the most effective anti-bias training leverages people’s desire to
appear fair minded and may not follow typical notions of training. These practices may include
team building, social accountability, and mentoring programs. Furthermore, any training that
attempts to force a person to learn mandated anti-bias material may lead to resistance and
36
retrogressive behavior, with the counterintuitive result that bias may become more pronounced in
the workplace after the training (Dobbin & Kalev, 2018).
It is not merely reactions to training that impact its effectiveness. Individual
predispositions also impact the effectiveness of training. Kulik et al. (2007) argued that
participation in and outcomes of diversity training depend on individual interest in and openness
to diversity prior to the training. Training must therefore be sophisticated enough to take pre-
dispositional information into account via pre-training assessments. Based on the results of the
assessments, training content can be adjusted to the learners’ motivation, predispositions and
attitudes toward bias and diversity. A later study by Devine et al. (2012) found evidence that a
well-conducted training can reduce bias in all individuals, even those with poor initial levels of
interest and motivation. Their randomized, controlled, twelve-week training protocol resulted in
measurable improvements in implicit bias reduction for all participants regardless of the
participants’ initial motivation level. Their training intervention, which was structured as a
randomized and controlled study, focused on cognitive, habitual behaviors rooted in human
psychology that contribute to persistent implicit bias (Devine et al., 2012). The intervention
utilized five strategies: 1) stereotype replacement, 2) counter-stereotypic imaging, 3)
individuation, 4) perspective taking, and 5) increasing opportunities for contact. Each of these
strategies requires that the participant engage in reflective practice between training and
measurement sessions over a twelve-week period (Devine et al., 2012). Their findings confirm
that “one-and-done” training methods do not work, but that a multi-week intervention that
encompasses strategy reinforcement, reflection, and measurement can lead to a reduction in
implicit and explicit bias regardless of participants’ pre-existing levels of motivation (Devine et
al., 2012).
37
Individualized approaches to anti-bias training focus on cognition, reflection and
motivation and are informed by cognitive psychology and learning theories (Devine et al., 2012;
Dobbin & Kalev, 2016; Kulik et al.,2007; Rogers, 2002; Webster-Wright, 2009). However, even
these theorists recognize that an individual’s learning experience is influenced by factors outside
of the individual. For example, although Webster-Wright (2009) and Dobbin and Kalev (2018)
focus on individual reflection and motivation, respectively, they recognize that both reflection
and motivation take place in a workplace community. Although Devine et al. (2012) are research
psychologists focusing on how to break an individual’s implicit bias “habit” (p. 1267), the
training methods employed in their study took place in a community, a factor integral to their
training protocol but not discussed in their findings. The next section of the literature review
explores additional ways that groups and community influence anti-bias training.
Group Factors that Influence Learning
Studies of the influence of groups on bias and learning focus on intergroup dynamics and
identity (Allport, 1954; Fujimoto & Härtel, 2017; Hewstone et al., 2002; McKay, 2018; Monroe
et al., 2000). It is via intergroup relationships that new learning and reframing of identities and
biases take place. Chief among theories about the creation and reduction of stereotypes and
biases is Allport’s (1954) contact theory, which posits that relationships among people are
improved through interpersonal contact. For intergroup contact to have a positive impact on
reducing prejudice, four components must be present: equal status among group members,
cooperation among group members, personal interaction among participants, and support or
structure provided by an authority figure (McKay, 2018).
At the socio-political level of analysis, Allport’s ideas find support in the notion that
cross-cutting cleavages reduce intergroup conflict, first promulgated by Lipset (1960, 1994) and
38
elaborated by Lipset and Rokken (1967). In their review of identity theories and their
relationship to political behavior, Monroe et al. (2000) argue that cross-cutting cleavages provide
new sources of bonding and identity that may reduce racial and religious prejudices and the
social expression of bias through violence and other means. Such bonds can be based on multiple
group memberships and interactions. Public policy, constitutional law, and democratic political
participation work in tandem to encourage and reinforce societal cross-cutting cleavages,
mitigating inter-group conflict.
In addition to contact and cross-cutting bonds, superordinate goals may also help mitigate
deeply rooted, hostile identities centered on in-groups and out-groups. Gaertner et al. (2000)
review the research on the halo and horns effects of group membership and argue that when a
superordinate goal is introduced, members of competitive groups transcend their in-group biases
to form common bonds with members of other groups. Superordinate goals trigger processes of
de-categorization and re-categorization. Thus, the authors note that creating opportunities for
intergroup contact is critical for reducing bias. According to Hewstone et al. (2002),
decategorization, recategorization, dual identity and crossed categorization approaches to
desensitizing racial identity are to be seen as “complementary, reciprocal, not competing and
exclusive” models of reducing bias (p. 593).
Fujimoto and Härtel (2017) apply the cross-cutting identity model to workplace decision-
making. By integrating three theoretical perspectives—diversity learning, organizational
diversity integration and learning perspective, and deliberative democracy—they argue that
effective diversity learning must be relational, interdependent, applicable and ongoing.
Specifically, they call for including members of minoritized groups in organizational decision-
making, using sampling to establish heterogeneous work teams, providing equal opportunity to
39
participate in discussions, and utilizing a “positive dissensus” decision-making model (p. 1121).
The model is based on crossing “demographic and hierarchical boundaries” (p. 1122) such that
cross cutting identities, functions and statuses are involved in workplace decisions, which
through daily practice reduces bias. This can be viewed as an accoutrement to other forms of
diversity learning, such as providing anti-bias content to employees via organizational
publications or training seminars but has the advantage of providing an arena for ongoing
practice and reflection as well as creating bonding via the pursuit of superordinate organizational
goals.
Psychologists, political sociologists and many others have noted that biased behavior
often finds expression in group dynamics, and that those dynamics can be mitigated with contact,
superordinate goals, cross-cutting bonds, and democratic participation. The research highlights
that group dynamics are largely similar in both large-scale settings, such as states, and small-
scale settings, such as workplaces. The solutions are also similar – apply principals of social
engineering rooted in group psychology to reduce inter-group biases and prejudices. Important in
group theories of bias is the wider social and political context that influences group behavior. For
example, authority—whether from political leaders or human resources—is required to
intentionally and deliberately alter inter-group dynamics. Both the groups and the authorities,
operate in a multilayered ecological setting, a topic examined in the next section of the literature
review.
40
Environmental Factors that Influence Learning
A variety of models have been posited to convey the importance of environmental factors
in the success of anti-bias training and adult learning (Buhin & Vera, 2009; Furman, 2012;
Goldstein Hode, 2018; Howard, 2000). Such models are based on the notion that the individual is
at the center of circles of influence, starting with the family and expanding and widening to
larger organizations, such as the state. Thus, an individual’s biases, prejudices, stereotypes,
predispositions, motivations, cognitive processes, and ability to learn are influenced by external
factors.
Buhin and Vera (2009) utilized Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model (1994 to provide a
system for understanding the origins of bias and methods of combatting bias. Bronfenbrenner
(1994) argued that humans are influenced by five systems that provide a context for their
development: microsystems, mesosystems, exosystems, macrosystems, and chronosystems.
Buhin and Vera (2009) focus on three of Bronfenbrenner’s systems, arguing that efforts to
combat racism must address the microsystem of family and peers, the mesosystem of schools,
workplaces and religious institutions, and the macrosystem of racist policies. Individualized
approaches, such as therapy or individualized training, cannot address all systems of bias that are
operational, and thus are limited in their ability to prevent societal bias. Promising models should
promote repetitive interaction across minoritized and dominant groups over a period of weeks or
months; be led by authority figures that model non-biased interactions; include a formal,
structured curriculum; and create safe environments for discussion and interaction (Buhin &
Veira, 2009). Freire’s critical learning theory (1970, 2018) provided another lens for examining
anti-bias learning within the wider environmental context of influence on individuals. Buhin and
Vera (2009) argued that an effective anti-bias training curriculum should provide an analytical
41
approach that allows students to develop an awareness of systems of privilege and oppression,
their roles in those systems, and self-examination regarding how to liberate themselves and
others from systems of oppression. An individual’s identity and attitudes towards others are
shaped and formed within multiple external systems. Howard (2000) provides the foundations
for an ecological approach to understanding identity and bias, explaining how the development
of identity is constructed and embedded in individual psychology as well as socio-economic and
political structures. Identity is also intersectional, and variable over space and time. The
implication of this complexity is that any approach to anti-bias training must acknowledge that
learners’ and others’ constructed identities are mutable and deeply influenced by external arenas
of time and place.
One attempt to operationalize a multi-layered model for anti-bias training is posited by
Goldstein Hode et al. (2018), who argue that an ecological “value of diversity” (p. 347) model
should be used in trainings. The model places the individual in a personal and interpersonal
sphere of influence, a team-group sphere of influence, an institutional environment, and a
societal arena. These four spheres of influence impact the individual’s valuation of diversity and
ability to benefit from workplace diversity training. Similarly, Furman (2012) argues that
leadership preparation programs must provide opportunities for both reflection and action
(praxis) in several specific social justice capacities, including commitment, persistence,
authenticity, reflection, and building relationships and community. This education takes place
within five dimensions or arenas for action (praxis) that closely follow Bronfenbrenner: personal,
interpersonal, communal, systemic, and ecological (Goldstein Hode et al., 2018).
42
Characteristics Associated with Effective Anti-Bias Training
An analysis of themes common among the individual-, group-, and environmental-
focused studies reveals ten characteristics associated with best practices in anti-bias training,
summarized in Table 3.
Table 3
Characteristics Associated with Anti-Bias Training
Characteristic Description Research
Reflective Allows time for self-reflection and
reflective practice.
Rogers, 2002; Wilson, 2008;
Webster-Wright, 2009; Buhin &
Vera, 2009; Devine et al., 2012;
Barley, 2012; Adams & Bell,
2016
Motivational Social rewards and incentives are
imbedded.
Kulick et al., 2017; Devine et al.,
2012; Dobbin & Kalev, 2016
Critical Includes study of systems of
oppression, dominance,
subordination and privilege.
Buhin & Vera, 2009; Bell &
Adams, 2016
Interactive Includes interaction among and
across identity groups.
Monroe et al, 2000; Gaertner et
al., 2000; Hewstone et al., 2002;
Fujimoto & Härtel, 2017; McKay
2018
Relevant Training viewed as important and
meaningful to learner.
Knowles, 1990; Wright, 2009;
Dobbin & Kalev, 2016; Goldstein
et al., 2018
Ongoing Training should take place over at
least three months.
Devine et al., 2012; Adams &
Bell, 2016
Measured Pre- and post-assessments of
training effectiveness are
administered.
Paluck & Green, 2009; Devine et
al., 2012; Adams & Bell, 2016
Facilitated An experienced facilitator is
required to ensure a safe space for
learning.
Knowles, 1990; Devine et al.,
2012; Beard, 2015; Adams &
Bell, 2016
Outcomes-
Oriented
Clear learning outcomes are needed
to guide learning and assessment.
Devine et al., 2012; Adams &
Bell, 2016
Comprehensive Covers a broad array of implicit and
explicit biases, privilege and power.
Adams & Bell, 2016
43
Research suggests that prominent features of effective training include elements that are
reflective, motivational, critical, interactive, relevant, ongoing, facilitated, measured, outcomes-
oriented, and comprehensive. These characteristics are consistent with Knowles (1990) theory of
andragogy, defined as the methods and assumptions underpinning adult learning, and with the
Social Justice Education model promulgated by Adams and Bell (2016). The key principles of
andragogy are that the adult learner tends to be self-directed, that personal experiential learning
is critical, that learning tends to be voluntary, the subject matter must be perceived as relevant to
the learner’s life, that internal motivation is more salient than external motivation, and that adults
need to know why they are learning prior to embarking on a learning experience (Beard, 2015).
In their guide to Social Justice Education, Adams and Bell (2016) emphasize the importance of
critical instruction, the role of the teacher or facilitator in providing a safe arena for learning, the
critical role of reflection in learning, and engagement with learners’ intellectual, social-
emotional, and skills-behavioral domains, thus combining cognition, affect, and practice. Each of
the ten characteristics of effective anti-bias training is discussed below.
The literature suggests that authentic learning should allow opportunities for self-
reflection (Adams & Bell, 2016; Buhin & Vera, 2009; Devine et al., 2012; Rogers, 2002;
Webster-Wright, 2009) and include social rewards and incentives (Devine et al., 2012; Dobbin &
Kalev, 2016). The learner, after being exposed to new material, may engage in reflection and
praxis (Adams & Bell, 2016; Harvey and Jenkins, 2014). Within the knowledge, reflection,
praxis modality, the learner will have an opportunity to employ Schon’s four stages of reflective
practice: Reflection before action, knowing in action, reflection in action, and reflection on
action, each an important part of metacognition and learning (Barley, 2012). The learner may
also utilize reflection on the future, an addition to reflective practice recommended by Wilson
44
(2008). Dobbin and Kalev (2016) argue that embedding social rewards and incentives into
diversity training is an important component of training effectiveness. Trainees who are most
interested in diversity prior to training, tend to have the most positive outcomes from diversity
training (Kulik & Roberson, 2008). With proper incentives and supports, even highly biased
individuals without any pre-dispositional interest in diversity will show improvement in a well-
structured training process (Devine et al., 2012).
Research findings suggest that addressing positionality (Adams & Bell, 2016; Buhin &
Vera, 2009) and providing opportunities for social interaction (Fujimoto & Härtel, 2017;
Gaertner et al., 2000; Hewstone et al., 2002; McKay 2018; Monroe et al., 2000) may make
training more effective. Buhin and Vera (2009) argue that anti-bias training should use a Freirian
approach that critically evaluates the learner’s positionality in society and culpability in
perpetuating dominance, subordination and privilege. Adams and Bell (2016) take the matter
further by arguing that anti-bias or diversity training must be viewed through the lens of “social
justice education” which includes “awareness and understanding of oppression,
acknowledgement of one’s role in that system (as a privileged or disadvantaged social group
member), and a commitment to develop the skills, resources, and coalitions needed to create
lasting change” (p. 96). Many studies indicate that the most effective anti-bias training involves
interaction among members of different identity groups (Gaertner et al., 2000; Hewstone et al.,
2002; Monroe et al., 2000). Group interaction assists with breaking down stereotypes, building
common goals and bonding over shared interests. If the organization is large and diverse enough,
opportunities for interaction can be built into workplace training and decision structures
(Fujimoto & Härtel, 2017; McKay 2018), otherwise opportunities for interaction external to the
organization can be built into the training model.
45
Anti-bias training may be more effective when it is viewed by the learner as important
and meaningful for meeting personal or professional goals (Webster-Wright, 2009; Goldstein et
al., 2018). Dobbin and Kalev (2016) argue that workplace anti-bias learning may need to be
imbedded in the workplace, which provides intergroup contact, social accountability and
engagement, all factors that increase the relevance of anti-bias behaviors for workers and
encourage learning that does not feel forced.
Based on a randomized, controlled study, effective anti-bias training is most effective
when it takes place over a period of time that allows for a combination of exposure to bias
reduction strategies, time to practice and apply the strategies, sufficient time to reflect on the
strategies, and opportunities for discussion and measurement of progress, a period of time lasting
at least three months (Devine et al., 2012). Adams and Bell (2016) propose a social justice
education curriculum that can be delivered in person or online over the course of a semester.
This approach provides sufficient time, exposure, and practice to change biased habits (Devine et
al., 2012).
Research suggests that anti-bias training effectiveness has been insufficiently tested and
would benefit from systematic learning outcomes and assessments. According to Paluck and
Green (2009), most anti-bias training protocols have not been subjected to scientific inquiry
using randomized sampling and controlled studies. Kirkpatrick (1994, 2006) urged trainers to
conduct a four-step evaluation procedure that includes assessing reactions to training, measuring
learning from training via pre- and post-testing, determining the degree to which knowledge is
transferred into the work environment, and results for the organization in terms of measurable
improvements. Adams and Bell (2016) include pre- and post-assessments in their social justice
education curriculum designed to both measure the achievement of learning outcomes and to
46
inform the pedagogical approach based on student characteristics. Theorists stress the importance
of identifying clear learning outcomes for anti-bias training in order to assess training
effectiveness and provide learning cues for participants (Adams & Bell, 2016; Devine et al.,
2012).
Studies emphasize the importance of a facilitator or authority figure in providing
motivation, support, structure and guidance for anti-bias training (Adams & Bell, 2016; Beard,
2015; Devine et al., 2012; Knowles, 1990). Training should take place in a safe environment for
sharing. Providing a safe environment with appropriate opportunities for interaction and learning
requires forethought and guidance by an experienced facilitator. Training formats that provide no
oversight or guidance, such as self-paced online modules, are unlikely to provide long-term
changes in biased attitudes and behavior. Anti-bias training must cover a broad array of implicit
and explicit biases, including racism, White privilege, sexism, heterosexism, trans* oppression,
classism, religious oppression, ableism, youth oppression, and elder oppression. It must also
interrogate the causes, consequences and solutions associated with privilege and power (Adams
& Bell, 2016).
The data indicate that effective anti-bias training must take into account individual-level,
group-level and environmental factors that influence learning and the origin and perpetuation of
bias. The research literature also yields best practices that can be used to inform and improve
models of anti-bias training that are ineffective in reducing instances of bias, stereotyping,
prejudice and microaggression on college campuses. Under pressure by state laws and federal
Title IX regulations designed to prevent gender discrimination and harassment, higher education
institutions tend to rely on externally produced modules to address their training needs. While
these courses and modules, many of them online, provide legally compliant training that offers a
47
degree of liability protection for institutions (Bisom-Rapp, 2018-2019), they are unlikely to have
any impact on bias, harassment, microaggression or bullying (Chang et al., 2019). Such “one-
and-done” approaches fall far short of promising practices rooted in experimental research and
cognitive science.
Institutional Capacity for Effective Anti-Bias Training in Higher Education
The most prominent features of effective anti-bias training that emerge from the literature
review are that the training is reflective and motivational, utilizes a critical lens, is interactive, is
deemed relevant by the learner, and has clear learning outcomes that are assessed. In addition,
the research literature suggests that authentic anti-bias learning occurs through facilitated
training with content of sufficient breadth and duration to allow for reflection and rehabituation
away from biased thoughts and behaviors. The ability of an organization to offer training of
sufficient scope and duration, with sufficient breadth and focus, and in a modality and teaching
environment that motivates participants to engage and learn, is rooted in organizational capacity.
Institutional capacity can be understood in the context of an institution’s specific goals,
objectives and values, and is the institution’s ability to achieve something valued using resources
it has or can marshal. Thus, researchers study the capacity of states to exert sovereignty over a
territory and perform basic administrative functions, such as collecting taxes (Back & Hadenius,
2008) or a state’s willingness and ability to carry out policy, control its agents, and police its
citizens (Englehart, 2009). In the context of business, capacity is studied in relation the ability of
an enterprise to adopt specific policies or practices (Harris, 2005), and, more generally, the
ability of firms to learn from new information, and adapt and change in response (Cohen &
Levinthal, 1990; Todorova & Durisin, 2007). In higher education, capacity is related to an
institution’s ability to practice mission- and vision-driven strategic management within a
48
complex environment, including resource management, student success, and navigating the
external policy environment (Toma, 2010). Overall, capacity has to do with an organization’s
ability to reach its goals, to absorb information and learn, and to fulfill its mission and potential.
The mission and goals of community colleges are similar across states. In California, a
community college’s mission is embedded in the state education code, which emphasizes
academic and vocational training to people of all ages, the availability of remedial and noncredit
instruction, and advancing the states’ economic growth and competitiveness via workforce
improvement (California Education Code, 2020). In addition, the California State Chancellor’s
Office Vision for Success (2018), adds the goals of closing equity gaps and improving
completion and transfer rates for all students. Similar to California, the State University of New
York (SUNY) system of 30 community colleges has a fundamental mission of open access, high
quality education to help upskill the workforce and provide opportunities for degrees and transfer
(SUNY, 2020). In 2007, SUNY established the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (ODEI)
with the goal of implementing programs that implement meaningful diversity and equity
programs throughout the system that address the workforce, the curriculum, and the student
experience (ODEI, 2020). The Texas administrative code states that the purpose of community
colleges is to offer career, technical, workforce, and academic awards, and to provide open
access and continuing, remedial, and compensatory education (Texas Administrative Code,
2020). The mission, vision, and values statements of specific Texas community colleges include
additional goals, such as increasing persistence and completion, ensuring social equity and
diversity, supporting personal enrichment, serving traditionally underserved populations, and
maintaining a sustainable, safe, and healthy educational environment (Austin Community
College, 2020).
49
Some of the largest community college systems in the United States have placed
diversity, equity, and inclusion at the center of their missions, visions and goals (ACCC, 2020;
Austin Community College, 2020; California Education Code, 2020; CCCCO, 2017; SUNY,
2020; Texas Administrative Code, 2020). As the ability to reach goals is at the center of the
concept of institutional capacity, the ability to address equity and diversity is an important
measure of institutional capacity within community colleges. Achieving a safe and equitable
campus climate is connected to a college’s capacity to address the biases that make students feel
unwelcome, and addressing such biases is linked to an institution’s capacity to engage in training
programs focused on anti-bias awareness and behavior change. Thus, within the context of
community colleges’ stated values, capacity to produce student success and equity is linked to a
welcoming institutional climate (Doan, 2011; Love, 2009; Vogel et al.,2008), which in turn is
linked to the capacity of the institution to effectively address bias (Love, 2009). Finally,
addressing bias effectively is linked to training programs and the overall capacity of the
institution to produce effective training (St. Armour, 2020). More specifically, the present study
provides a framework for analyzing the capacity of Community College System’s primary
stakeholders in anti-bias training, human resources leaders, to deliver effective training.
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Model
Clark and Estes (2008) offered a critique of popular quality improvement approaches,
arguing that organizational improvement can only be achieved if there is a marriage of business
and performance goals with an understanding of the critical role of individuals, or human capital,
in reaching those goals. Their analytical framework includes both individual factors and
institutional context that impact performance outcomes. They proposed a gap analysis approach
50
that focuses on three factors that all or individually are implicated in organizational performance
failures: knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Knowledge Factors Influencing Stakeholders in Anti-Bias Training
The authors argue that individuals must know how, when, what, why, where, and with
whom to perform tasks or exercise skills (Clark & Estes, 2008). Communication, the free flow of
information, and active listening are critical for improving individual knowledge of performance
tasks. In the context of anti-bias training, and focusing on human resources leaders as the
primary decision makers in regards to anti-bias training, if anti-bias training is failing to perform
or have the intended results on behavior and campus climate, it is imperative that the
organization probe, via active listening, interviews, focus groups and surveys, if human resources
leads have adequate knowledge of what good, effective anti-bias training looks like. Such an
investigation, which is the purpose of the present study, may uncover critical gaps in knowledge,
training, or information flows surrounding anti-bias training. Krathwohl (2002) identifies four
levels of knowledge and six dimensions of cognition to produce a taxonomy for classifying
educational objectives, goals, and standards. Stakeholders’ factual, conceptual, procedural and
metacognitive knowledge is linked to their ability to cognitively remember, understand, apply,
analyze, evaluate and create. This framework can be used to both measure the results of anti-bias
training in its participants, which is beyond the scope of this study, and to assess the level of
knowledge of stakeholders responsible for choosing the frequency, scope, modality and duration
of anti-bias training. Stakeholders’ factual knowledge regarding anti-bias training could focus on
their ability to define key terms, such as “bias,” and knowledge of the elements that comprise
anti-bias training. Conceptual knowledge would go deeper into the theories and models used in
anti-bias training, such as the cognitive roots of bias and historical structures of dominance and
51
power. Procedural knowledge regarding anti-bias training delves into stakeholder understanding
of the techniques and methods of anti-bias training, such as how, when, and why a trainer would
utilize specific teaching modalities and techniques. Metacognitive knowledge regarding anti-bias
training focuses on stakeholders understanding of their own role in the process of anti-bias
training, including the purpose of training within their institution and the ability to reflect and
have self-knowledge of their own positionality, power and biases.
Motivational Factors Influencing Stakeholders in Anti-Bias Training
Motivational factors are concerned with the willingness of individuals to prioritize and
persist in a task and the energy and enthusiasm the individual devotes to the task (Clark & Estes,
2008). In the context of anti-bias training, and utilizing the tools of active listening, interviews,
focus groups, and surveys, a researcher would attempt to identify motivational flags, such as
excuse-making and evidence of refusal, delay, or avoidance of a task. In a study of anti-bias
training practices, human resources leaders who indicate lack of enthusiasm for anti-bias training
or who say negative things about the perceived efficacy or importance of anti-bias training could
be said to have motivational problems surrounding the training.
Organizational Factors Influencing Stakeholders in Anti-Bias Training
Organization barriers to performance improvement include work processes that are mis-
aligned with organizational goals, inadequate facilities, resources, or equipment, and problems
with organizational culture (Clark & Estes, 2008). In the context of anti-bias training, and
utilizing tools such as interviews, surveys, and studying work records, a researcher would
attempt to determine which elements of the organization—culture, material resources, or work
processes—might contribute to the performance problem. Organizational factors that can impede
effective anti-bias training include an organizational culture that is skeptical of anti-bias training,
52
a workforce that is generally uninterested in professional development and training activities, the
failure of the organization to provide employees adequate time to participate in effective anti-
bias training, and the failure of the organization to devote adequate financial or material
resources to support high quality anti-bias training.
Together, examining human resources leaders’ knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors can provide valuable insights regarding the capacity of community
colleges to offer high quality anti-bias training. However, these factors do not paint a complete
picture of the performance challenges faced by public education institutions in general and
human resources leaders in particular. They are influenced by stakeholders and decisions located
outside public higher education institutions that directly impact resources devoted to anti-bias
training. These outside influences include the state system office, the state legislature, and the
federal government, which together impact the resources available inside specific colleges.
Funding levels impact staffing levels, and insufficient staffing—an organizational problem—can
impact the quality of anti-bias training. Changing state and federal regulations governing
diversity and bias may have an impact on motivation—both negatively in regards to “initiative
fatigue” (CCCCO, 2017, p. 43; Moore & Shulock, 2014, p. 17) and positively in regards to
“compliance urgency” (Badke, 2016, p. 103). Pressures on human resources leaders to stay
abreast of a variety of regulations and to maintain compliance with them can strain their
knowledge base, leading leaders to rely on canned, sub-optimal anti-bias training modules that
“check off the box” of compliance, but do not actually change biased behavior. The Burke-
Litwin Organizational Performance model (Burke, 2018) provides a wider lens for bringing
external factors into the gap analysis.
53
External Factors Influencing Stakeholders in Anti-Bias Training
The Burke-Litwin Organizational Performance Model (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Burke,
2018) identifies 11 variables that impact institutional performance capacity, divided into what
can be termed transformational and transactional factors (Olivier, 2017). Transformational
factors include the external environment, organizational mission, organizational culture, and
executive leadership behavior. Transactional factors include functional arrangements,
management practices, standardized policies and systems, work unit climate, knowledge and
skills, individual psychological factors, and motivation (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Burke, 2018;
Olivier, 2017). While there are many salient processes and interactions associated with the
Burke-Litwin model that have proven useful for analyzing organization performance (Cummings
& Worley, 2015; Olivier, 2017), there are also many areas of overlap between the Burke-Litwin
and Clark and Estes models, including an emphasis on psychological factors and motivation, the
role leadership plays in identifying organizational mission and goals, an emphasis on knowledge
and skills, a role for organization culture, and the importance of organizational policies and
practices. Clark and Estes cover most of the same ground more parsimoniously. However, the
Burke-Litwin model’s emphasis on the external environment, which includes political,
governmental, economic, societal and global factors that influence an organization (Olivier,
2017), is pertinent to an analysis of external influences on public education institutions.
According to Burke and Litwin (1992), organizations must be viewed as “open systems”
subject to the “causal nature of environments” (p. 535). Public educational institutions such as
Community College System are exemplars of open systems with high levels of outside influence
coming from governmental and political actors. They are held accountable for compliance with
state and federal mandates, are dependent on state and federal funding policies, and are subject to
54
competing market pressures (Crow, 2005). A combined framework the adds external factors to
the Clark and Estes gap analysis provides a comprehensive framework for analyzing
performance gaps in Community College System. Table 4 provides a summary of the gap
analysis framework used to study the decisions of stakeholders regarding the duration,
frequency, mode, and scope of anti-bias training in community colleges.
Table 4
Gap Analysis Framework for Stakeholders in Anti-Bias Training
Gap Analysis Elements
Influence Type Key
Constructs
Specific Measures
Knowledge Factual,
Conceptual,
Procedural,
Metacognitive
Knowledge
Degrees of
knowledge of best
practices in anti-bias
training
Motivation Task Value,
Expectancy,
Outcome,
Values associated
with anti-bias
training and its
perceived efficacy
Organization Cultural
Models,
Cultural
Settings
Values and beliefs
about anti-bias
training and their
manifestations in
organizational
practice
External Political,
Economic,
Legal
Constraints
Factors located
outside of a specific
college or district
that may constrain or
expand stakeholders’
choices regarding
anti-bias training
55
Conceptual Framework
Using a gap analysis framework that combines Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis and
Burke-Litwin Organizational Performance models (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Burke, 2018), this
study investigates Community College System human resources leaders’ capacity to implement
effective anti-bias training. The study asks why human resources leaders at colleges and districts
choose to deploy specific anti-bias training protocols and how they test for the effectiveness of
anti-bias training. The study focuses on internal and external influences on human resources
leaders’ choices regarding anti-bias training, including the content of training, the mode of
training, and the duration and frequency of training. Using a capacity building lens, the study
seeks to identify what would need to change to enable human resources leaders to deploy more
effective training practices within Community College System.
Theoretical Overview
This study addresses the topic of anti-bias training using a constructivist paradigm of
inquiry, which sees institutional capacity, bias, learning, and change as socially constructed and
embedded in specific and unique organizational contexts (Creswell, 2014; Saunders, 2019). The
idea that change is not simply a matter of knowledge, but of organizational context, has been
observed by Beer and Nohria (2000) and Eisenbach et al. (1999). The Aspen Institute (2013), a
Washington D.C.-based, privately funded, non-partisan policy studies organization, identifies
surfacing contradictions between values and reality as an important mechanism for change
related to equity work. Thus, the study seeks to uncover the decision process regarding anti-bias
training of human resources leaders, including the interplay of their personal values and ideas
about best practices in anti-bias training with internal organizational and external environmental
influences that may constrain leaders’ choices about what kind of anti-training to offer.
56
Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis combined with the Burke-Litwin Organizational
Performance models (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Burke, 2018) provides a comprehensive conceptual
framework for identifying factors that influence human resources leaders’ decisions on anti-bias
training protocols. The key insight of Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis is that performance
problems stem from three factors: knowledge, motivation, and organization-related factors.
Human resources leaders’ choices regarding which anti-bias training protocols to offer could be
rooted in their knowledge of best practices in anti-bias training. Decisions about training are also
part of an organizational context in which budgets and workforce constraints, such as the time
allowed for training, may make it difficult for leaders to adopt effective anti-bias training.
Finally, human resources leaders may have varying degrees of motivation to overcome obstacles
related to deploying effective training. Such motivational factors may be deeply rooted in human
resources leaders’ personal values and identities.
The Clark and Estes model does not take into consideration additional factors addressed
in the Organizational Performance model such as external influences. External influence on
human resources leaders’ decisions regarding anti-bias training can be significant, include both
state and federal laws, and may lead to compliance-focused anti-bias training, rather than
training that achieves best practices for actually changing biased behavior. Combining the two
models by incorporating the influence of external factors, yielded comprehensive insights on
institutional capacity for learning and change, and enabled the researcher to identify specific
barriers to implementing effective anti-bias training practices in Community College System.
Summary of Core Concepts
In the conceptual framework depicted in Figure 1, external factors, such as society,
regulatory laws, and college funding, influence internal factors at colleges and districts such as
57
organizational resources. In addition, individual characteristics of human resources leaders—
such as their knowledge levels, levels of motivation to learn, and transformational leadership
capacity—influence the organization’s capacity for implementing effective anti-bias training.
Finally, the effectiveness of training impacts campus climate insofar as biased behaviors,
including microaggression and harassment, persist on campus. As noted earlier, campus climate
influences students’ psychological stress, persistence behavior, stress levels, and completion of
degrees. The present study focuses on three elements of the conceptual framework: External
Factors, College Capacity, and Training Approach focusing specifically on the primary
stakeholder group of human resources leaders.
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
58
Conceptual Framework Summary Discussion
The conceptual framework for this study recognizes that factors at multiple levels of
analysis impact the capacity of human resources leaders in Community College System to
provide anti-bias training that is effective. Drawing on both the Clark and Estes (2008) and
Burke (2018) approaches to capacity gap analysis, the framework combines the strengths of both
frameworks. Clark and Estes offered individual-level and organizational-level approach to
distilling the elements of individual choice in knowledge, motivation, and resource constrained
settings. However, Clark and Estes do not emphasize the environmental or external context,
choosing instead to focus on individual responses to constraints. While this is an elegant,
parsimonious approach that yields actionable insight into how to improve organizational
performance in virtually all settings, it leaves out factors that must be considered when studying
public educational institutions. Community College System is heavily constrained by federal and
state laws. In the context of anti-bias training, it is necessary to borrow from a more systems
focused model, such as Burke’s, to bring in the important role of external societal, legal and
funding constraints on internal and individual decision-making surrounding training. The
conceptual framework depicts the causal chain that leads to human resources leaders’ decisions
regarding anti-bias training and identifies the impact of training quality on campus climate and
student success.
Conclusion
This review of literature addressed four primary topic areas surrounding bias and anti-
bias training in higher education institutions. The first section defined bias and addressed its
prevalence in higher education institutions in the United States. The review of literature
established that biased behavior on college campuses has serious impacts on campus climate,
59
student feelings of alienation, student progress toward degrees and transfer, student emotional
health, and levels of faculty and staff diversity. Anti-bias training is an important method of
addressing and mitigating biased behavior and hiring bias on college campuses. The second
section addressed the practice of anti-bias training, situating it in historical context, identifying
key anti-bias training stakeholders within Community College System, and reviewing research-
informed best practices in anti-bias training. The conclusions drawn in this section were that
institutions of higher education have additional compliance pressures in the form of Title IX and
state regulations governing training in public institutions that private businesses do not have,
leading higher education institutions to deploy a variety of disjointed training modules that fall
short of best practices. The review of best practices in anti-bias training focused on individual,
group and environmental factors influencing adult learning, which led to the identification of 10
components of effective anti-bias training. These 10 components were used to evaluate training
effectiveness in a field study of Community College System’s anti-bias training practices and to
assess human resources leaders’ knowledge of best practices in anti-bias training. The third
section reviewed the literature on institutional capacity to engage in performance improvement.
A review of quality management approaches in higher education, including Total Quality
Management, Lean, Six Sigma, the Baldridge framework, and regional accreditation self-study,
argued that the approaches suffered from being too broad, too focused on tangible outcomes of
discrete processes, and not sufficiently focused on intangible values such as anti-bias, diversity,
and a positive campus climate or on individual contributions to institutional capacity. Instead, an
approach combining the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis with the Burke-Litwin
Organizational Performance Model (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Burke, 2018) was proposed, which
maintains the parsimony of the knowledge, motivation, and organization focus of Clark and
60
Estes with the external environmental context of the Burke-Litwin model. It was argued that a
combined model is more suitable for the complex, externally constrained, environment of
Community College System, which is subject to state and federal laws concerning diversity, bias,
harassment, and funding. Finally, the conceptual framework for the study was presented, which
identifies a chain of influence surrounding human resources leaders’ decisions about anti-bias
training. The conceptual framework summarizes the external and internal influencers drawn from
the Clark and Estes (2008) and Burke (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Burke, 2018) capacity
performance gap analysis frameworks. These factors influence human resources leaders’
decisions about the modality, scope, breadth and duration of anti-bias training. The quality of
anti-bias training influences campus climate, which is impacted by the degree to which bias is
expressed behaviorally via harassment or microaggression. Finally, the framework depicts the
impact of campus climate on student persistence, completion, and mental health.
The next chapter addresses the methodology of the study, which utilizes mixed methods
to uncover information about the capacity of human resources leaders in Community College
system to deliver effective anti-bias training. The research study delves into the field to
determine actual practice surrounding anti-bias training in Community College system, evaluate
that practice against best practice models derived from the present research review, and utilize
surveys, interviews, and documentary analysis to identify the external, organizational, and
knowledge factors that impact human resources leaders’ decision-making processes surrounding
anti-bias training.
61
Chapter Three: Methodology
This study examines the nature of current anti-bias training in Community College
System, identifies gaps between existing and recommended training approaches, and to assesses
human resources leaders’ capacity to improve anti-bias training, focusing on their knowledge of
best practices, perceptions of training effectiveness, organizational influences on training, and
external factors impacting training. This chapter presents the research methodology of the study.
The first section presents the research questions. The second section provides an overview of the
data sources. Section three addresses the positionality of the researcher. The fourth section
presents each of the methods of data collection—a survey, interviews, and document analysis—
and focuses on participants, instrumentation, procedures, and data analysis for each method.
Validity, reliability, credibility, and trustworthiness are also addressed. The fifth section focuses
on ethics. The final section presents limitations and delimitations of the study.
Research Questions
The research questions that guided this study are the following:
1. What anti-bias training protocols are currently being implemented in the Community
College System?
2. What anti-bias training protocols are held up by Community College System human
resources’ leaders as ideal and why?
3. How do current anti-bias training protocols in Community College System align with
best practices?
4. How do Community College System human resources’ leaders perceive and evaluate
the effectiveness of anti-bias training?
62
5. In what ways do external factors and internal organizational influences impact human
resources leaders’ ability to implement effective training?
Overview of Methodology
Human resources leaders are the primary stakeholders responsible for anti-bias training in
Community College System and are therefore the focus of the study. The study utilized an
explanatory sequential mixed methods design (Creswell, 2014). This design provided rich
contextualization for a census survey of the approximately 70 human resources leaders in
Community College System. The survey instrument addresses internal and external factors
impacting training, the approach used for institutional anti-bias training, methods used to
evaluate training, and knowledge, organizational and leadership factors impacting training.
Following the survey, in-depth interviews were conducted with a sample 10 human resources
leaders in Community College System, who volunteered for interviews via the survey instrument
and emails. The interviews enabled the researcher to collect more nuanced and contextual
information about human resources leaders’ choices surrounding anti-bias training, including the
impact of organizational and external factors. Finally, analysis of representative exemplars of
publicly available training material provided additional descriptive information on anti-bias
training approaches and training evaluation methods. Gap analysis and a capacity building
conceptual framework guided the questions and contextual investigation. Table 5 describes the
tools used to collect data on the research questions. A mixed methods approach combines the
strengths of quantitative and qualitative approaches allowing the researcher to achieve insights
not possible using a single method approach (Morgan, 2014). Quantitative data on anti-bias
training provided a general overview of practices in Community College System, while
qualitative interviews provided rich, contextual detail gleaned in a more personal setting.
63
Table 5
Data Sources
Research Questions Survey Interviews Document
Analysis
1. What anti-bias training
protocols are currently
being implemented in the
Community College
System?
X X X
2. What anti-bias training
protocols are held up by
Community College
System human resources
leaders as ideal and why?
X X X
3. How do current anti-
bias training protocols in
Community College
System align with best
practices?
X X
4. How do Community
College System human
resources leaders perceive
and evaluate the
effectiveness of anti-bias
training?
X X
5. How do internal and
external factors in
Community College
System work to facilitate
or hinder human resources
leaders’ ability to
implement training?
X X
Table 6 provides a crosswalk between research instruments and the gap analysis model
that identifies knowledge, motivational, organizational and external factors influencing
stakeholder decision making regarding anti-bias training.
64
Table 6
Data Sources for Gap Analysis Model
Gap Analysis Elements Data Collection Method
Influence
Type
Key
Constructs
Specific Measures Survey Interview Document
Analysis
Knowledge Factual,
Conceptual,
Procedural,
Metacognitive
Knowledge
Degrees of
knowledge of best
practices in anti-bias
training
X X
Motivation ask Value,
Expectancy
Outcome, ,
Values associated
with anti-bias
training and its
perceived efficacy
X X
Organization Cultural
Models,
Cultural
Settings
Values and beliefs
about anti-bias
training and their
manifestations in
organizational
practice
X X X
External Political,
Economic,
and Legal
Constraints
Factors located
outside of a specific
college or district
that may constrain
or expand
stakeholders’
choices regarding
anti-bias training
X X
The Researcher
Positionality and relationships in qualitative research present challenges and
opportunities for the researcher. Researchers considered “insiders,” who have intimate
knowledge of the social group being studied (Hellawell, 2006) or who consider themselves
members of the group (Greene, 2014), may enjoy easy access to the field and rich and nuanced
understanding of context, culture, norms, and values (McDermid et al., 2014; Ross, 2017). On
the other hand, insiders may be too close to the subject to be objective, may be emotionally
65
invested in the outcome of the research, and may overlook important areas of common
knowledge due to familiarity (Mc Dermid et al., 2014; Ross, 2017). I am an insider in
Community College System, having worked at one of its colleges for more than 25 years, first as
a professor and during the last five years as an instructional dean. As an administrator with many
years in the system, I am in some ways a peer to my stakeholder group of human resources
leaders and in other respects a subordinate. I was outranked by most of the human resources
leaders that are part of my study, and the culture and imperatives of human resources are
different from the instructional world I inhabit. I was therefore sensitive to organizational
cultural biases that may prevent me from having an objective understanding of the world of
human resources leaders.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) make a distinction between relational status on an insider-
outsider continuum and positionality, which refers to the researcher’s race, gender, social class
and sexual identity. Positionality assumes particular importance when studying marginalized
groups. As a middle class, white, female, cisgender researcher, I must be aware that some
elements of my identity are privileged and associated with power and dominance (being middle
class, white, cisgender) while others (being female) have put me in a position of personally
experiencing gender bias and sexual harassment. While the study is not exploring the lived
experiences of bias among marginalized groups, it does address training to mitigate biased
behaviors that have an impact on minoritized groups of students and employees in Community
College System. Therefore, I must be aware that my own lived experiences of bias have the
potential to influence the lens through which I view anti-bias training.
Reflexivity, or a practice of active self-questioning and reflection regarding one’s role,
positionality, and biases, allows the researcher to understand how their personal experiences and
66
attitudes influence the shape, themes, and interpretation of the study (Creswell, 2014).
Researchers must determine an appropriate level of social and emotional distance from their
work (Greene, 2014). To aid in reflection and help determine appropriate distancing, I used tools
such as personal logs and reflection diaries as a supplement to field notes and methodological
logs (Green, 2014).
Data Sources
The study is a sequential mixed methods field study of current anti-bias training practice
in Community College System, a comparison to best practice models, and an analysis of how
knowledge, organizational factors, and external factors influence decision making on anti-bias
training. The stakeholder group is human resources leaders, a group totaling approximately 70
individuals. The sources of data were a survey, interviews, and electronic document analysis. In
October and November 2020, the entire group of 72 human resources leaders was invited to
participate in a census survey administered via Qualtrics. Following the census survey, I
conducted focused, semi-structured interviews with 10 human resources leaders in December
2020. The data collected were analyzed and coded in January 2021 and triangulated and
contextualized via document analysis of a small selection of publicly available anti-bias training
and evaluation practices in February 2021.
Quantitative Data Source: Census Survey
Survey research is an efficient and fast method of rendering a numeric description of
broad trends in a population (Creswell, 2014). In a mixed-methods study, surveys can assist the
researcher in identifying topics to probe in further depth via interviews and document analysis.
They are ideal vehicles for capturing the attitudes, behaviors, abilities, and thoughts of large
groups of respondents (Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
67
Survey Participants
The target population in the present study is a group of 72 human resources leaders in
Community College System. Because this population is small and easy to reach based on
publicly available data, statistical sampling was not used, but the survey was a census of the
entire population of stakeholders (Pazzaglia et al., 2016). Human resources leaders are in charge
of human resources departments that are housed at either district or college levels. Their rank and
titles in the institutional hierarchy range from director to vice chancellor. Human resources
leaders are the primary stakeholder group in charge of anti-bias training, making decisions about
the nature, scope, and frequency of training for entire colleges or college districts.
Survey Instrumentation
Although many methods texts advise utilizing or modifying an existing survey whenever
possible (Creswell, 2014; Salkind & Frey, 2020; Robinson & Leonard, 2019), a review of
research on anti-bias training yielded no survey instruments that measured or could be modified
to measure the constructs with appropriate context specificity. Therefore, the survey instrument,
provided in Appendix A, is the original design of the author. The survey is divided into six topic
areas, as described in Table 3, and includes a description of the survey and informed consent.
Each section contains a brief description to help the recipient understand the purpose of the
questions.
68
Table 7
Organization of Survey Instrument
Section
Number
Topic Area Question Numbers Constructs
Measured
n/a Survey Description and Informed
Consent
n/a n/a
I Workplace Demographics 1-4 n/a
II Anti-Bias Training Description 5-10 Practice
III Evaluation of Training 11-15 Evaluation,
Practice
IV Influences on Training & Impressions
of Training Quality and Impact
16-22 Internal and
external
influences
V Standard Demographic Questions 23-26 n/a
VI Request for Interview 27 n/a
The survey was comprised of 65 questions designed to understand external and internal
factors influencing the choices surrounding anti-bias training protocols and stakeholder group
(human resources leaders’) knowledge, attitudes and beliefs regarding anti-bias training
protocols. The questions focus on the first three areas of the conceptual framework and research
questions one, four, five and six, which cover the constructs of knowledge of best practices in
anti-bias training, beliefs and attitudes about the importance and effectiveness of anti-bias
training, and stakeholder evaluations of the primary internal and external influencers on anti-bias
training.
The survey also served the purpose of collecting information on actual anti-bias training
practices, which, to date, has not been done for anti-bias training in Community College System.
Following Robinson and Leonard (2019), the survey did not pose research questions directly to
the participants, but instead sought to serve the research questions by probing relevant topic
areas related to respondents’ personal experiences with anti-bias training.
69
Survey Data Collection Procedures
The survey was conducted during October and November 2020 utilizing Qualtrics, an
online survey tool. Respondents were emailed an introductory letter with the survey link and
received scheduled reminders to complete the survey, following the survey administration plan
recommended by Robinson and Leonard (2019). The approach was cross-sectional, meaning that
data were collected at one point in time (Creswell, 2014). This procedure was selected based on
cost effectiveness, convenience, and data availability (Creswell, 2014). A pilot study conducted
with peers in the USC Rossier Organizational Change and Leadership program in April 2020
indicated that the survey would take no more than 15 minutes to complete.
The survey utilized anonymity rather than confidentiality. Anonymous surveys, by
definition, require that no information be linked back to a respondent (Robinson & Leonard,
2019). Confidential survey responses may be linked back to the respondent, but the identity of
respondents is known only to the researcher (Pazzaglia et al., 2016; Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
Anonymity was preferred over confidentiality as research indicates that social desirability bias
may be reduced when responses cannot be traced back to individuals (Robinson & Leonard,
2019).
Survey Data Analysis
Data analysis followed procedures recommended by Pazzaglia et al. (2016), which
included developing a data analysis plan that linked survey items to research questions and
constructs and identified potential methods of analysis and presentation of results. Next, data
files were checked and coded based on themes and constructs aligned with the research
questions. Response rates for the survey and individual items were calculated to determine if
non-response bias was a concern. Following Pazzaglia (2016), a response rate of less than 85%
70
on the survey or on individual questions required additional checks for non-response bias. The
response rate in the present survey was 49%. The impact of low response rate on the
generalizability of the survey is addressed in the discussion of limitations in Chapter 5. Finally,
summary statistics were calculated and presented using tables and figures.
Survey Validity and Reliability
In mixed methods research, there are numerous methods that can be used to check the
qualitative validity, or accuracy, of research findings, including triangulation, the use of rich
description, presenting negative or discrepant information and member checking (Creswell,
2014). Survey results were compared to interview data and document analysis, a process called
triangulation, which is a method of ensuring that data is correct by utilizing multiple
measurement points, multiple methods of data collection, or multiple theories to compare and
cross check findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Multiple methods of data collection ensured
qualitative validity in the overall study.
Focusing on the survey instrument itself, the concept of validity means that the
instrument measures what it purports to measure (Salkind & Frey, 2020). There are several ways
to ensure the validity of an instrument, the first being to use an instrument for which validity has
already been established (Creswell, 2014; Robinson & Leonard, 2019: Salkind & Frey, 2020).
As mentioned earlier, the present survey is original work, so validity had to be established
utilizing content validity, criterion validity, or construct validity (Salkind & Frey, 2020).
Criterion validity requires a longitudinal approach of testing over time (Salkind & Frey, 2020),
which was inappropriate for a survey that is cross sectional. Content validity can be established
by asking an expert to review the survey content (Salkind & Frey, 2020), a method that the
researcher employed in September 2020 by asking two persons knowledgeable about anti-bias
71
training and human resources in the community college system to review the instrument.
Construct validity means that the survey items are consistent with the theory informing the
survey (Salkind & Frey, 2020) and that the scores “serve a useful purpose” and “have positive
consequences when…used in practice” (Creswell, 2014, p. 160). The table in Appendix A
provides linkages between the theoretical constructs, the research questions, and the survey
questions, which is indicative of construct validity. In addition, triangulation with document
analysis and semi-structured interviews also provided verification of content validity.
Reliability in quantitative research refers to the repeatability or replicability of the study
and findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In survey research, reliability means the survey “does
what it is supposed to” by providing consistent scores non-randomly (Salkind & Frey, 2020, p.
105). The consistency of a survey can be measured by the degree to which similar questions are
answered the same way inside the survey, defined as internal consistency, the degree to which
the survey responses are the same over time, or test-retest reliability, and the degree to which the
survey responses are consistent across researchers, called inter-rater reliability (Jhangiani &
Chiang, 2020; Salkind & Frey, 2020). Because this survey was not longitudinal nor being
conducted by multiple researchers, test-retest and inter-rater reliability were not feasible methods
of ensuring reliability. Internal consistency over some survey questions provided some
information on internal reliability, but in a relatively brief survey there is not a robust ability to
measure internal reliability based on answer comparisons for all items. Robinson and Leonard
(2019) suggest pilot testing as a method of determining reliability. The referred to pilot testing is
more robust than the pilot test performed in Spring 2020, as it involves a strategically selected
set of respondents that are, presumably, from the target population. If respondents in a robust
pilot test answer similar questions differently or if groups of respondents that should provide
72
similar answers do not do so, the reliability of the survey instrument can be called into question
(Robinson & Leonard, 2019). In the Spring 2020 pilot test with peers, the respondents
interpreted the questions consistently. In September 2020, the researcher conducted a small pilot
test with two human resources middle managers who took the survey and provided expert
review. No concerns about reliability or internal consistency emerged from the pilot test and
expert review.
Qualitative Data Source: Interviews
A sequential mixed methods approach utilizes in-depth interviews to follow up on more
generalized survey data (Creswell, 2014). Utilizing mixed methods has the advantage of
providing opportunities to engage in triangulation, and to explore anti-bias training from more
than one angle, which complements and expands on single approaches, providing a richer range
of data for analysis and interpretation (Maxwell, 2013).
Interview Participants
Fifteen human resources leaders volunteered to participate in an interview delving into
their practices and opinions surrounding anti-bias training. Volunteers made themselves known
in two ways. Some offered to participate via email. Others volunteered via a link to a Google
document provided inside the survey. The researcher numbered each volunteer one through 15
and used a random number generator at Calculator.net to select ten interview participants.
Although the selection process was opportunistic and random, the survey participants met two of
Maxwell’s (2013) criteria for purposeful selection. Respondents were heterogeneous,
representing colleges of various sizes, locations, and demographics. Respondents were those
with whom the researcher could establish a productive relationship as signaled by their eagerness
73
to participate in an interview. The generalizability of findings from this small, self-selected
group is discussed in the limitations section of Chapter 5.
Interview Instrumentation
The interview protocol, which can be reviewed in Appendix B, utilizes a standardized,
open-ended approach, with questions and probes specified in advance. Although standardized,
open-ended interviews are less flexible and natural than conversational interviews or those
guided by a flexible outline, they have the advantage of providing data that can be readily
organized, compared and analyzed (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). The interview protocol is
comprised of 15 questions that address research questions and the first three elements of the
conceptual framework. Table 4 depicts the organization of the interview protocol and the
relationship to key constructs rooted in the research questions, including actual practice, decision
maker knowledge, internal organizational influences on decision making, external influences on
decision making, and evaluation practices.
74
Table 8
Organization of Interview Protocol
Section
Number
Topic Area Question
Numbers
Constructs Measured
n/a Interview Description and
Informed Consent
n/a n/a
I Interview Subject Organizational
Role
1-2 n/a
II Anti-Bias Training Description 3-5 Knowledge, Practice
III Decision Process Regarding Anti-
Bias Training
6-8 Internal Influences,
External Influences,
Knowledge
IV Training Reception and Impact 9-12 Evaluation
V Ideal Anti-Bias Training 13-14 Knowledge, Internal
Influences, External
Influences
VI Open Ended Question 15 n/a
Interview Data Collection Procedures
To prepare the qualitative interview protocol, in early March 2020, Pilot Study Alpha
was conducted with the researcher’s doctoral student peers to determine the adequacy of draft
interview questions. Based on peer feedback, changes were made to some questions to provide
clarity. The changed questions were submitted to the researcher’s inquiry II professor for
additional feedback. Based on the feedback, an additional question was added and wording on a
question was changed to add clarity and breadth. Thus, at the Alpha stage, the interview protocol
went through three iterations of peer and mentor feedback that resulted in the development of the
interview protocol that was used in Pilot Study Beta, which can be found in Appendix B.
Pilot Study Beta took place in late March 2020. As a course assignment in the
researcher’s doctoral program, the interview protocol was tested on three participants, whose
identities are confidential. These participants work closely with anti-bias training in Community
75
College System, but per assignment instructions are not the same human resources leaders that
were interviewed for the present research. The interview lengths ranged from thirty minutes to
one hour, with the variation attributable to the engagement level and conversational style of the
interviewees. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, interviews were conducted via Zoom, recorded in
Zoom, and transcribed by Zoom. The researcher checked the Zoom transcriptions and edited
them for accuracy.
For the dissertation, interviews were conducted via Zoom. Each interview took about one
hour, depending on the depth of responses provided by participants. Interviews were recorded in
Zoom. Transcriptions provided by Zoom were edited for accuracy by the researcher. Pilot Study
Beta demonstrated that interviews, transcriptions, and recordings can be handled successfully
through the Zoom platform, but that Zoom transcriptions require careful editing for accuracy. In
addition to the transcriptions, the researcher took field notes that include rich description of the
sights, sounds, thoughts and experiences associated with each interview (Bogden & Biklen,
2007). Finally, as recommended by many qualitative methods scholars, analytic memos were
written to provide a record of researcher insights, thinking and analysis of the subject matter
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Bogden & Biklen, 2007).
Interview Data Analysis
Qualitative data analysis of field notes and interview transcripts were conducted
simultaneously to data collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This method allowed for a
reflexive and iterative process of analysis and adjustment, preventing the researcher from being
overwhelmed by the volume of data, and assured that the data were “parsimonious and
illuminating” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 197). Field notes and interviews were coded
manually utilizing the two-stage open coding method presented by Charmaz in Constructing
76
Grounded Theory (2014), which began with line-by-line coding followed by focused coding to
synthesize larger segments of data (Belgrave & Seide, 2019). This process allowed the
researcher to simultaneously identify key data elements and assign meaning to them,
contributing to an emergent theory of action and providing valuable contextual information
(Charmaz, 2014). Specific to the topic of study, human resources leaders’ knowledge of and
choices surrounding anti-bias training, initial coding was informed by the constructs in the
research questions, including knowledge, internal and external influences on their decision
processes, and beliefs about training. Open coding on additional emergent themes followed
initiatl coding. All coding of interview transcripts was conducted using the ATLAS.ti platform.
Interview Credibility and Trustworthiness
There are numerous methods that can be used to check the credibility and trustworthiness
of qualitative research findings, including triangulation, the use of rich description, presenting
negative or discrepant information, and member checking (Creswell, 2014). In the present study,
interviews were electronically transcribed by the Zoom platform and then carefully proofread by
the researcher. The sound recording was of high enough quality that member checking, a
common procedure used to verify the accuracy of interview transcripts, was not needed to verify
the accuracy of the transcriptions (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interview Findings
were compared to a survey and document analysis, a process called triangulation, which is a
method of ensuring that data is correct by utilizing multiple measurement points, multiple
methods of data collection, or multiple theories to compare and cross check findings (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). In the current research, multiple methods of data collection ensured qualitative
validity. The researcher strove to achieve saturation, a point in data collection in which the
77
researcher ceases to make new discoveries in the field (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), while at the
same time striving to find data that support alternative explanations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
While it cannot be said with certainly that a sample of 10 interviews out of a population of
approximately 70 human resources leaders achieved “saturation” the interviews did yield a
number of common themes and repeated elements that suggested wider applicability to the field.
Reliability in quantitative research refers to the repeatability or replicability of the study
and findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). However, in qualitative research, since replication will
be unlikely to yield identical results, reliability has to do with consistency between results and
collected data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) or that the researcher uses an approach consistent with
that used by other researchers for other similar research projects (Creswell, 2014). Both
triangulation and the audit trail are methods of ensuring the reliability of a qualitative study
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and were used in the current study. As mentioned previously,
triangulation used mixed methods approach combining survey research, qualitative interviews,
and documentary analysis. An audit trail provided detailed description on the data collection
process, based on project history logs compiled by the researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Qualitative Data Source: Document Analysis
Document analysis provides a method of triangulation to corroborate findings from
survey data and qualitative interviews (Bowen, 2009; Gross, 2018; Johnson & Christensen,
2014), and to act as a safeguard against interpretive bias (Bowen, 2009; Gross, 2018). Document
analysis provides insight into culture, social meaning, institutional relations, and political and
economic context (Altheide & Schneider, 2013) and also is a source of rich description for case
studies of programs, such as training, providing details on goals, objectives and content (Bowen,
2009). Anti-bias training provides a rich trove of documentary material, including artifacts that
78
depict the nature and scope of training such as slides, handouts, manuals, videos, and online
modules, and artifacts that indicate how training is evaluated, such as reaction sheets and
surveys. In addition, documents provide corroboration of factors found in the institutional or
organizational environment that impact the nature, scope, and frequency of anti-bias training.
Such documents could include organizational policies and procedures and state and federal laws.
Document Data Collection Procedures
Gross (2018) stated that document sampling must be systematic with clearly stated
inclusionary criteria. Publicly available documentary evidence was collected after interviews to
provide richer context and detail regarding specific anti-bias training methods employed in
Community College system. Table 9 summarizes the types of documentary evidence that was
collected, what data was analyzed, and which research questions are relevant.
79
Table 9
Anti-Bias Training Documents and Data Analysis
Research Questions Documents Selected Data Analyzed
1.What anti-bias
training protocols are
currently being
implemented in
Community College
System?
Training Descriptions Topics Addressed in Anti-Bias
Training; Scope and Breadth of
Training; Length of Training
2. What anti-bias
training protocols are
held up by Community
College System human
resources leaders as
ideal and why?
n/a n/a
3. How do current anti-
bias training protocols
in Community College
System align with best
practices?
Training Descriptions Topics Addressed in Anti-Bias
Training; Scope and Breadth of
Training; Length of Training
4. How do Community
College System human
resources leaders
perceive and evaluate
the effectiveness of
anti-bias training?
n/a n/a
5. How do internal and
external factors in
Community College
System work to
facilitate or hinder
human resources
leaders’ ability to
implement effective
training design?
n/a n/a
80
Document Data Analysis
Document analysis centered on content and thematic analysis through a process of
skimming, focused reading, and interpretation (Bowen, 2009). Skimming is a quick examination
that separates pertinent from non-pertinent information. Focused reading brings out emergent
themes via pattern recognition and data coding linked to research questions. Interpretation and
analysis is an evaluatory process that focuses on the relevance, completeness, accuracy, purpose
and audience of documents. Via these analytical procedures, emergent themes were identified
that corroborated findings gleaned from surveys and interviews or pointed to the need for
additional investigation. This process was consistent with Altheide and Schneider’s (2013)
qualitative document analysis protocol, which holds that document analysis is an iterative and
reflexive process in which the researcher identifies a research topic; engages in ethnographic
study or literature review; identifies a few documents that seem relevant to the setting, context or
culture being studied; drafts a document analysis protocol, and amends the protocol based on
document examination, study and reflection. This leads to more document sampling and data
collection and a more refined protocol that allows the researcher to effectively query the
document for data relevant to the research questions. Following Gross (2018), coding was
developed based on keywords from the literature review, coding established during analysis of
interviews, and researcher knowledge of the subject.
Ethics
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) pointed out that the credibility and trustworthiness of a study
are rooted in the ethical behavior of the researcher. The present study serves the interests of
people who would like to see campus spaces transformed into safer spaces, free of
microaggression, harassment, bullying, and bias. From the perspective of the researcher, all
81
members of the campus community gain from an improved campus climate. All participants in
the survey were asked to provide informed consent via a USC IRB-approved Information Sheet
for Exempt Studies (Appendix D). To protect individuals and colleges from reputational harm
that could arise from discussion of training gaps, anonymity was preserved. The survey was
designed to avoid sources of potential bias, such as social desirability bias, question order
effects, and primacy bias (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). The interview protocol was beta tested in
Spring 2020, which provided an opportunity for the research direction to be shaped by initial
findings via qualitative interviews with three individuals. This allowed the research subjects to
have influence over the direction and scope of the study and to provide meaning and context for
the research (Maxwell, 2013). The study results will be shared with the participants (Creswell,
2014). Interview participants were reminded that they have the right to stop the interview at any
time and that their responses would be confidential and anonymous. In the general scope of the
study, the names of workplaces have been omitted, and the community college system in which
respondents work has been referred to by a pseudonym without identifying where in the United
States it is located. References to size or demographics of institutions in the study are highly
generic without any mention of specific locations or identifying factors.
82
Chapter Four: Findings and Results
Quantitative and qualitative data were collected to understand anti-bias training in
Community College System. Specifically, survey, interview, and artifact data were collected to
identify current anti-bias training practices and the internal and external influences on decisions
made by human resources leaders regarding anti-bias training. The study employed a sequential
mixed methods approach, beginning with a survey of practitioners followed by semi-structured
interviews. Document analysis of samples of training and evaluation materials provided
additional insight on anti-bias training practice in Community College System. Data was
collected between October 2020 and February 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Social
distancing protocols required that data be collected remotely, via email, phone calls, and virtual
meetings using the Zoom platform.
Participating Stakeholders
A list of 72 human resources leadership positions was identified by reviewing the district
and college websites for each Community College System site. The names, position titles, and
contact information was obtained for 68 human resources leaders. One leader was eliminated
from the study due to position vacancy and three were eliminated due to the inability to obtain
accurate contact information. Attempts were made to obtain accurate contact information via
both phone and email. The study focused only on top human resources leaders due to their
positionality and responsibility for employee training within their organizations, which were
either single- or multi-college districts.
83
Survey Participants
A link to a non-random census survey hosted on the Qualtrics platform was sent to all 68
human resources leaders via email. Thirty-five leaders responded to the survey, yielding an
overall response rate of 52%. The survey collected information about the jobs, workplaces, and
demographics of the participants.
Human Resources Leaders ’ Job Data
About 75% of respondents held vice president or vice chancellor titles, with most other
respondents serving in director-level positions. Seventy-eight percent of respondents had been in
their position for 1-5 years. Although most respondents were relatively new to their positions, a
large number had a decade or more of experience in Community College System. Thirty-five
percent of respondents had been working in the Community College System for 1-5 years and
more than half the respondents had been in the system for over 10 years. Table 10 summarizes
the job data for human resources leaders.
84
Table 10
Human Resources Leaders’ Job Data
n = 33 Count Percent of Data
Vice chancellor 11 33.30%
Vice president 14 42.40%
Executive or Senior Director 1 3.00%
Director 6 18.20%
Chief Officer 1 3.00%
How many years have you worked in your current position?
n = 32 Count Percent of Data
1-5 25 78.10%
6-10 3 9.40%
11-15 2 6.30%
16-20 1 3.10%
21 or more 1 3.10%
How many years have you worked in the community college syste?
n = 32 Count Percent of Data
1-5 11 34.40%
6-10 4 12.50%
11-15 5 15.60%
16-20 6 18.80%
21 or more 6 18.80%
Human Resources Leaders Workplace Data
About 60% of survey respondents work in single-college districts. Single-college districts
make up about 68% of the administrative units in Community College System, so they are
slightly underrepresented in the survey compared to multi-college districts, which make up 32%
85
of statewide administrative units but nearly 40% of the respondents to the survey. Multi-college
districts face additional challenges when delivering anti-bias training, including coordinating
activities with college-based administrators and faculty groups, and addressing institutional
cultures that vary from college to college. The sizes of the administrative units—whether multi-
college or single-college—varied from single colleges with fewer than 10,000 students to large,
multi-college districts with more than 50,000 students, yielding perspectives from a wide variety
of institutional sizes across the system. Urban, suburban, and rural areas of Community College
System were well represented in the survey, with 37% of respondents describing their district as
“mostly urban,” 34% as “mostly suburban” and 28% as “mostly rural.” Table 11 summarizes the
workplace data for human resources leaders.
86
Table 11
Human Resources Leaders Workplace Data
At what organizational level is your position?
n = 33 Count Percent of Data
District (Multi-College) 13 39.40%
College or Single-College District 20 60.60%
Approximately what size is your district, based on the number of students enrolled per
semester?
n = 13 Count Percent of Data
Large (50,000 +) 4 30.80%
Medium (25,000-49,999) 6 46.20%
Small (5,000-24,999) 3 23.10%
Approximately what size is your college or single-college district, based on the number of
students enrolled per semester?
n = 20 Count Percent of Data
Large (20,000 +) 3 15.80%
Medium (10,000-19,999) 8 42.10%
Small (1,000-9,999) 8 42.10%
Which of the following best describes the area served by your organization?
n = 32 Count Percent of Data
Mostly urban 12 37.50%
Mostly suburban 11 34.40%
Mostly rural 9 28.10%
Human Resources Leaders Demographic Data
Twenty-six out of 35 survey respondents provided information on their age, gender and
race. Most of the respondents (over 80%) were between 40 and 59 years old. Sixty-five percent
were female, and 35 percent were male, which closely mirrors the gender breakdown in
87
Community College System of 32% male and 64% female human resources leaders. Survey
participants were 54% White, 23% Latinx, 11.5% Black or African American, 8% Multi-racial,
and 4% Asian. While it is unclear if this is representative of the entire population of human
resources leaders in Community College System, it is clear that compared to statewide
demographics there are gaps in Latinx and Asian representation among human resources leaders
while those identifying as White are overrepresented compared to state data. Females are also
overrepresented in the field compared men based on statewide data. Table 12 provides data on
the demographics of human resources leaders.
88
Table 12
Human Resources Leader Demographics
Which category below includes your
age?
n = 26 Count
Percent
of Data
30-39 years 2 7.70%
40-49 years 10 38.50%
50-59 years 11 42.30%
60 years or older 3 11.50%
What is your gender?
n = 26 Count
Percent
of Data
Statewide
(Percent of
Data)
Male 9 34.60% 49.80%
Female 17 65.40% 50.20%
What is your race?
n = 26 Count
Percent
of Data
Statewide
(Percent of
Data)
Asian 1 3.80% 15%
Black or African
American
3 11.50% 6%
Latinx 6 23.10% 39%
Multi-racial 2 7.70% 3%
White 14 53.80% 37%
89
Interview Participants
Ten human resources leaders were randomly selected from 15 volunteers to take part in a
semi-structured interview. Interviews were conducted on Zoom, lasted approximately one hour,
and contained 15 questions, not including probes and follow ups. The participants represented a
wide range of college district types: Large, medium, small, urban, suburban, and rural.
Participants also represented a diverse array of backgrounds and experiences inside Community
College system, ranging from being in their first year working in the system to having many
years of experience in community college human resources. Only one interview participant was
male, which meant that among interview participants females were overrepresented in the
sample. A rudimentary name analysis of 71 human resources leaders statewide indicated that 46
(65%) were ascriptive female, 23 (33%) were ascriptive male, and two were of unknown
ascriptive gender. Among interview participants, nine (90%) were female and one (10%) was
male. Table 13 summarizes pertinent data on the workplace, experience, and demographic
characteristics of interview participants.
90
Table 13
Characteristics of Interview Participants
Participant Name Gender District
Size
(Student
Headcount)
District
Type
Location Years in
Position
Years
in
CCS
1 Sam F 19,000
Single-
college Suburban < 1 < 1
2 Alexander M 77,000
Multi-
college
Urban,
Suburban < 1 1-5
3 Lynn F 28,000
Multi-
college
Urban,
Suburban 1-5 1-5
4 Mary F 14,000
Single-
college Rural < 1 < 1
5 Danni F 42,000
Multi-
college Suburban 1-5 6-10
6 Moe F 68,000
Multi-
college Urban, Rural 1-5 >10
7 Betty F 89,000
Multi-
college
Urban,
Suburban 1-5 >10
8 Gladys F 36,000
Single-
college Rural < 1 6-10
9 Rose F 29,000
Multi-
college
Urban,
Suburban 1-5 1-5
10 Elizabeth F 38,000
Single-
college Rural < 1 >10
Research Question 1: What Anti-Bias Training Protocols are Currently Being
Implemented in the Community College System and Why?
Survey and interview findings reveal that anti-bias training in Community College
System tends to be compliance driven, is offered both online and in-person (prior to the COVID-
19 pandemic), and sometimes exceeds minimum compliance standards in topics covered. Human
resources leaders’ positionality, identity, and life experience influence their attitudes toward anti-
bias training.
91
Theme 1: Compliance Driven Training
Survey results and interview findings indicate that the majority of anti-bias training
offered is mandatory and centered on Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) training and anti-
sexual harassment training. Human resources leaders sometimes think of the term “anti-bias”
training in narrow terms centered on EEO training. Compliance-related training is often used as a
vehicle upon which to attach other forms of anti-bias training.
Survey Results
Survey data indicate that most training provided in Community College System is
centered on compliance with state and federal mandates, which include Title IX training, sexual
harassment training, and Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) training. The survey asked
respondents to identify which of 19 topics were included in anti-bias training. The most common
topics included in training were implicit or unconscious bias (87%), diversity (83%), equity
(83%), sexual harassment (74%), and the impact of bias on job applicants (63%), all of which are
connected to training mandated by law. Table 14 provides data on the prevalence of different
topics included in anti-bias training in Community College System, ranging from compliance-
related topics to those rooted in critical theories of racism and bias.
92
Table 14
Topics Included in Anti-Bias Training
Which of the following topics are included in anti-bias
trainings offered by your organization? (check all that
apply).
Topics related to compliance with federal and state
mandates
n = 35
Checked
Percent
Checked
Count
Bias (Implicit or Unconscious) 88.60% 31
Diversity 82.90% 29
Equity 82.90% 29
Sexual Harassment 74.30% 26
Impact of Bias on Job Applicants 62.90% 22
Additional topics beyond compliance (non-theoretical)
n = 35
Checked
Percent
Checked
Count
LGBTQIA+ 45.70% 16
Cultural Competence 42.90% 15
Impact of Bias on Students 42.90% 15
Micro-aggression 42.90% 15
Bullying 40.00% 14
Impact of Bias on Colleagues 37.10% 13
Equality 34.30% 12
Safe Space 28.60% 10
Additional topics beyond compliance (theoretical)
n = 35
Checked
Percent
Checked
Count
Identity 25.70% 9
White Privilege 20.00% 7
Prejudice 17.10% 6
Power 14.30% 5
Positionality 11.40% 4
Critical Race Theory 8.60% 3
None of these 0.00% 0
93
Interview Findings
When asked what comes to mind when they hear the term “anti-bias” training or what
anti-bias training looks like in their organizations, most interview subjects discussed EEO
training, first, before delving into other training topics. Mary reported that they had made a “big
effort to incorporate anti-bias into EEO trainings” at her small, rural college, describing the “first
hour and a half is spent on looking at our culture and examining how we view race and ethnicity
through a variety of examples.” Moe, who works in a large, multi-college district, described
how EEO training had evolved from “very compliance oriented” to include “cultural competence
and unconscious bias and, over the last six to eight months, we’ve added an anti-racist
component.” Sam likened mandatory training to a “train” that she “bolted nine or 10 more cars
on” covering additional topics. Gladys echoed a theme that emerged from the discussion of
mandated training: it was evolving in response to social events, such as protests following
George Floyd's killing in May 2020 and becoming a vehicle for additional topics related to bias.
Gladys shared that “we have some canned type of trainings and we also have some more
specialized training, but our anti-bias training right now is in evolution. I don’t know that it’s
anti-bias, but it’s actually more about implicit bias and anti-racism.” On her urban, multi-college
district, Rose spoke of a human resources priority to diversify hiring through mandated anti-bias
training, but also if a widening of that purview to include bias awareness and disruption in other
committee settings. As she put it, “we’re having conversations about privilege, and being aware
of their own practices, and taking a more linear approach or focus on some of the practices that
may be creating obstacles for students and employees.”
94
Discussion
Considering that Community College System is required by state law to provide sexual
harassment training to every employee every two years,
2
it is surprising that sexual harassment
was not identified by 100% of respondents as a topic included in anti-bias training. Interviews
revealed that participants in the study do not necessarily consider sexual harassment training to
be associated with bias or anti-bias training, viewing it as a distinct topic. Elizabeth, who leads
human resources in a rural, single-college district, first thought of anti-bias training as focusing
only on recognizing and understanding bias in the context of hiring committees, but after further
consideration recognized “that it can be offered in a more full spectrum way to all of our district
employees outside the hiring process.” The first topic that came to most interview participants’
minds when thinking of anti-bias training was in relationship to EEO training for hiring
committees. Anti-bias training for participants on hiring committees is mandatory under state
law.
3
However, it is given to only those who volunteer to serve on hiring committees, and thus is
not extended to all employee groups. Overall, human resources leaders’ understanding of what is
included in the concept “anti-bias” training varies and tends to center on compliance-related
training. That compliance-related training then becomes a vehicle for adding additional training
topics, often in response to societal events and pressures.
2
Reference is suppressed to protect the identity of Community College System.
3
Reference is suppressed to protect the identity of Community College System.
95
Theme 2: Desire to Exceed Minimum Compliance Standards
Although most anti-bias training is motivated by compliance imperatives, surveys and
interviews indicated that human resources leaders generally seek to offer training that goes over
and above minimum compliance standards. Some human resources leaders use mandated
compliance training as a means of conveying additional anti-bias topics to employees. Additional
topics include non-theoretical subjects, such as implicit and explicit bias, but may also cover
more theoretical topics, such as critical race theory.
Survey Results
Although most anti-bias training centers on compliance-driven topics, survey data
indicates that additional topics are included in about 30% to 40% of the Community College
System's anti-bias training. Topics that go above and beyond the mandated minimum include
LGBTQIA+ (46%), cultural competence (43%), the impact of bias on students (43%), micro-
aggression (43%), bullying (40%), the impact of bias on colleagues (37%), equality (34%), and
safe space (27%). An additional tier of topics includes those that delve into the theory of bias,
such as identity (26%), White privilege (20%), prejudice (17%), power (14%), positionality
(11%), and critical race theory (9%). Table 14 provides data on training topics that go beyond
compliance.
Interview Findings
Interview subjects uniformly expressed an interest in including topics in training that go
above and beyond compliance minima. Sam, who heads human resources in a medium-sized
single-college district, stated that she “created a train and bolted nine or ten more cars on there,”
by which she meant that she attached additional topics to the “train” of Title IX training. Human
resources leaders frequently worked closely with faculty leaders to identify training needs
96
beyond compliance topics. Lynn, who has a background in psychology, expressed that she delves
deeply into the brain and bias during her trainings, hoping that participants will come to embrace
bias as an organic part of themselves. Rose seeks to include explorations of privilege in her
trainings. Gladys, who heads human resources in a small, semi-rural, multi-college district,
described working with the faculty professional development leaders and the faculty union to
implement anti-bias training. Together they provided an in-depth, semester-length,
“academically rigorous” anti-bias course focused on African-American studies currently being
taken by more than 30 faculty and classified employees. Other leaders described partnering with
outside facilitators, such as the University of Southern California’s Center for Urban Education,
to provide deeper explorations of bias over several months to small groups of employees. Nearly
all human resources leaders described using mandatory training as a vehicle upon which to
introduce additional bias-related topics, such as privilege and anti-racism, to the campus
community. But many human resources leaders also described non-mandated trainings, often
facilitated by someone hired from an outside organization, that are sponsored jointly by human
resources and faculty, that delve more deeply into the roots and impacts of bias than mandated
trainings typically provide.
Discussion
Both the survey and interviews revealed a commitment of all human resources leaders to
bring additional topics beyond mandatory minima into anti-bias training. One of the most
common topics mentioned was delving more deeply into implicit bias and its causes, but other
topics included anti-racism, privilege, and African American studies. Such trainings could be
provided by human resources alone, human resources partnering with faculty professional
development leaders, or entirely by faculty. Although many human resources leaders enjoy
97
leading training personally, an outside facilitator can be an asset for addressing more topics in
different ways. As Lynn put it, “sometimes you don’t want to hear ‘mom’ [referring to herself]
tell you the same thing over and over again. Sometimes it is more beneficial to hear a different
voice and see a different face.”
Theme 3: Multiple Modes of Training Delivery
Based on survey and interview data, human resources leaders tend utilize both in-person
and online modules for anti-bias training. Although human resources leaders prefer in-person (or
live online) training, asynchronous self-paced online modules continue to be a training stand-by.
Live, facilitated training is lauded by human resources leaders as an excellent way to adjust
content and create a positive connection with the audience. Yet online modules are relatively
quick to complete, are readily accessible to large groups of people, and assist human resources
leaders in meeting compliance goals.
Survey Results
Survey respondents were asked how anti-bias training was typically offered in their
organization on a five-category scale ranging from all online to all in person. More than half
(53%) of respondents reported that prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, anti-bias training was
offered mostly in person. One-fifth (20%) of respondents reported anti-bias training was offered
“all in person.” About a quarter (26%) of respondents provide their training half or more online.
Table 15 summarizes these results.
98
Table 15
Online v. In-Person Modes of Delivery for Anti-Bias Training
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020),
how was anti-bias training typically offered in
your organization?
n = 30 Count
Percent
of Data
All online 3 10.00%
Mostly online 2 6.70%
About half online, half in-
person
3 10.00%
Mostly in-person 16 53.30%
All in-person 6 20.00%
Interview Findings
A theme that emerged from interviews is that human resources leaders highly value in-
person training and recognize it as superior in key respects to online training, but they continue
to see value in using online training modules. According to participants, online training was used
prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to be used afterwards because of its
convenience in delivering information to large numbers of individuals. Regarding online
training, Rose said, “it’s great to build awareness, but I don’t know that you’re going to get the
rich discussion out of a module, but it’s good to build some content knowledge.” Elizabeth
characterized the importance of different training delivery modalities for serving different
purposes:
The preventing sexual harassment is mostly online modules where you go in and track
your progress and eventually get through to completion. The hiring orientation we try and
do face-to-face whenever possible so that there is an opportunity for questions, but we
99
have recorded the training so there is an opportunity for those who cannot attend in
person to view if needed. And then our ‘Embracing a Culture of Inclusion’ trainings have
not been recorded at all. We have intentionally done those in person to preserve
confidentiality and promote the ability to interact and have those courageous
conversations.
Although in-person, facilitated training is considered a best practice in anti-bias training,
human resources leaders’ opinion of online training was pragmatic. As Sam put it:
I think it’s fair that some people just want to take their online training and don’t want to
be in there with that heavy dialogue. At this point people are a little shell-shocked by so
much anger and hate and stress and trauma. People are probably just a little fatigued by it.
Alexander stated:
The best training is in-person, synchronous, with a lot of opportunity for small group
discussion, personal reflection, and directed activities that get people to engage. I am not
a fan of asynchronous, self-directed training. But there is a group of people that will work
for just fine and having that as an option available certainly doesn’t hurt so that you can
capture that group. With some degree of synchronous, online, via Zoom, you can do
things more regularly with people that otherwise would not be able to participate.
Discussion
Survey data and interviews revealed that human resources leaders rely on a combination
approach to anti-bias training, blending online and in-person modalities even prior to the
COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, in-person approaches shifted to synchronous, online
sessions delivered via Zoom, which were still deemed superior to self-paced, asynchronous
100
approaches. There was widespread recognition that “courageous conversations” and deeper
reflection are only likely to occur in a facilitated training environment, but also a pragmatic
recognition that some members of their organizations will not attend trainings that make them
feel uncomfortable. Human resources leaders must balance ensuring that compliance-related
topics and basic information is conveyed to as many people as possible while at the same time
providing more in-depth training opportunities to smaller groups of willing individuals.
Theme 4: Impact of Human Resources Leaders’ Positionality on Implementing Training
Positionality and identity influence individuals’ biases or lenses through which they
experience the world and relate to others. As noted previously, positionality of the learner is an
important factor in the effectiveness of anti-bias training (Adams & Bell, 2016) and positionality
of the researcher influences the framing and interpretation of data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The survey and interviews indicated that the positionality and identity of the human resources
leader impacted their outlook and motivation surrounding anti-bias training, fueling their interest
in promoting training and their sense of urgency surrounding training. Human resources leaders’
multiple identities and lived experiences influenced their perceptions of anti-bias training.
Survey Results
The survey probed respondents’ perceptions of anti-bias training's effectiveness in
changing behavior, the overall quality of anti-bias training, their satisfaction levels with anti-bias
training, and the impact of anti-bias training on their organizations. Stats iQ was used to run a
chi-squared test for relating categorical variables. A p-value of less than .05 indicates that the
relationship is unlikely to be the result of chance. Identity issues such as race and gender had no
statistically significant relationship with human resources leaders’ perceptions of anti-bias
training. In all related pairs, the p-values ranged from .105 to .379, indicating no statistically
101
significant relationship between variables. In other words, any observed relationship between
gender or race and perceptions of effectiveness, quality, satisfaction, and impact is likely to be
the result of chance. In small samples, an effect size (Cramér’s V) greater than .10 is considered
large. Although effect size (Cramér’s V) is large in each of the pairings of race and perception
tested, that effect could be coincidental. Effect size is medium to small for gender-perception
pairings. Table 16 summarizes the results of significance tests for each pair of categorical
variables.
Table 16
Relationship of Race and Gender to Perceptions of Anti-Bias Training
What is your race?
n = 26
How satisfied are you with anti-bias training in your organization?
Statistical Significance (p-value)
Not
significant 0.105364596
Effect Size (Cramér’s V) Large 0.5037065
What is your personal opinion of the quality of anti-bias training in your organization?
Statistical Significance (p-value)
Not
significant 0.366922077
Effect Size (Cramér’s V) Large 0.409380743
What impact does anti-bias training have on your organization?
Statistical Significance (p-value)
Not
significant 0.379118429
Effect Size (Cramér’s V) Large 0.406082502
How effective is anti-bias training in changing behavior in your organization?
Statistical Significance (p-value)
Not
significant 0.128748555
Effect Size (Cramér’s V) Large 0.491043422
What is your gender?
102
n = 26
How satisfied are you with anti-bias training in your organization?
Statistical Significance (p-value)
Not
significant 0.28255307
Effect Size (Cramér’s V) Medium 0.311804782
What is your personal opinion of the quality of anti-bias training in your organization?
Statistical Significance (p-value)
Not
significant 0.185585218
Effect Size (Cramér’s V) Medium 0.359940284
What impact does anti-bias training have on your organization?
Statistical Significance (p-value)
Not
significant 0.245312191
Effect Size (Cramér’s V) Medium 0.399709408
How effective is anti-bias training in changing behavior in your organization?
Statistical Significance (p-value)
Not
significant 0.395665054
Effect Size (Cramér’s V) Small 0.267061971
Although sample sizes are too small for tests of significance and effect sizes to be
meaningful, there are some findings that warrant further study. Survey results revealed a
tendency for human resources leaders who are Black and Latinx to be less satisfied with anti-bias
training than are Asian and White respondents. Latinx human resources leaders tended to rate the
effectiveness in changing the behavior of anti-bias training as “somewhat ineffective” more often
than Asian, Black, or White human resources leaders. A future study with larger samples would
allow a researcher to run a chi-square test to probe for statistical significance. Table 17
summarizes training satisfaction and perceptions of training effectiveness by race.
103
Table 17
Satisfaction and Perceptions of Anti-Bias Training Effectiveness by Race
How effective is anti-bias training in changing behavior in your organization?
n = 26 Asian
Black or
African
American Latinx Multi-racial White
Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count
Very
effective 0.0% 0 33.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Somewhat
effective 100.0% 1 33.3% 1 50.0% 3 100.0% 2 85.7% 12
Somewhat
ineffective 0.0% 0 33.3% 1 50.0% 3 0.0% 0 14.3% 2
Very
ineffective 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
How satisfied are you with anti-bias training in your organization?
n = 26 Asian
Black or
African
American Latinx Multi-racial White
Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count
Very
satisfied 0.0% 0 33.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 7.1% 1
Somewhat
satisfied 100.0% 1 0.0% 0 33.3% 2 100.0% 2 78.6% 11
Somewhat
dissatisfied 0.0% 0 66.7% 2 66.7% 4 0.0% 0 14.3% 2
Interview Findings
Although survey data did not render statistically significant relationships between
positionality and satisfaction with and perceptions of anti-bias training effectiveness, interviews
yielded rich data indicating that human resources leaders’ positionality and lived experiences
served as frames through which they viewed anti-bias training. Six of 10 interview participants
104
cited identity and positionality as factors motivating them to seek more and better anti-bias
training in their institutions.
At an earlier period in her life, Sam struggled with addiction, single-motherhood, and
lived at or below the poverty line. Her past struggles fueled her desire to expand anti-bias
training beyond race, incorporating more awareness of students who struggle with poverty,
disabilities, addiction, and incarceration. Lynn, who identifies as Black, is highly motivated to
share her lived experiences of racism but is also cognizant that her positionality as a Black,
female anti-bias trainer could impact the reception of her message for some audiences. For this
reason, rather than immediately sharing her lived experiences of racism to illustrate bias, she first
approaches the topic using more generic “favorite sports team” analogies. Danni expressed a
high level of passion and enthusiasm for anti-bias training, in part based on her lived experiences
as a lesbian woman who had been treated as an “other” at various times in her life. Rose, who
identifies as a Latinx woman, discussed using stories about her reflections on and lived
experiences with bias to convey the meaning of bias to the employees in her organization.
Alexander described having an interest in bias from a young age and spent many years as an
anti-bias trainer for the federal government before moving into Community College System as a
human resources leader.
Discussion
Survey data did not reveal a significant relationship between race or gender and
satisfaction with and perceptions of anti-bias training effectiveness. Still, positionality and
identity emerged in interviews as important factors impacting human resources leaders’ attitudes
toward anti-bias training. Human resources leaders cited their personal experiences of struggle as
factors motivating their passion and enthusiasm for anti-bias training in their organizations. The
105
lived experiences of human resources leaders based on race, ethnicity, sexual identity, gender,
personal struggles, past work experience and family upbringing were held as frames or prisms to
view the training offered in their organizations. In all cases in which identity issues entered the
discussion, those issues fueled a passion and drive to offer the highest quality training possible
within organizational constraints.
Research Question 2: What Anti-Bias Training Protocols are Held Up by Community
College System Human Resources Leaders as Ideal and Why?
Although anti-bias training tends to be compliance-oriented with some colleges going
above and beyond compliance standards, many human resources leaders see in-person facilitated
training as a best practice, even though the COVID-19 pandemic and campus resources limit the
ability to offer such training. Human resources leaders tend to recognize that online training is
inferior to facilitated, in-person training. Nonetheless, they viewed online training as a
necessary, if imperfect, way to easily reach large numbers of employees and achieve compliance
with state and federal training mandates. Human resources leaders tend to highlight lack of
participation in voluntary anti-bias training as a hindrance to improving awareness of bias. Still,
they cited time, money, and unions as barriers to gaining more widespread participation.
Theme 1: Facilitated Training as a Best Practice
Human resources leaders are aware that live, facilitated anti-bias training is ideal. A
skilled facilitator can adjust training content to the learners’ needs and ensure a safe space for
effective learning. In interviews, some human resources leaders expressed skepticism about the
ability of asynchronous, self-paced, online anti-bias training to change biased behavior.
106
Survey Results
In the previous section survey data was presented on the prevalence of in-person,
facilitated training versus online training, summarized in Table 15. What emerged from that data
is that 90% of human resources leaders utilize at least some in-person, facilitated training. Only
10% of leaders indicated that all of their anti-bias training was online. In addition, more than half
of human resources leaders reported that their anti-bias training was “mostly in-person,” and
one-fifth reported that it was “all in-person.” Survey data indicate that in-person training appears
to be a common practice and a norm for anti-bias training, a finding corroborated in interviews.
Interview Findings
Human resources leaders expressed recognition of the advantages of in-person anti-bias
training for creating learning that goes beyond mere “awareness” that bias exists. Rose stated
that online training is acceptable for conveying, “maybe just foundational skills…but for the
deeper conversations, nothing beats in-person.” Mary cited facing a dilemma about having to
put training online during the COVID-19 pandemic and thereby losing engagement, saying “I
just couldn’t put much in that allowed for variation in real-time or questions. I tried to put in
engagement pieces, but by putting it online, you are going to lose some interaction with the
audience.” Gladys stated, “I don’t think a two-hour webinar is going to change a person. I think
it is a longer, systemic experiential process that will truly help a person be aware. I just find little
value in thinking that you’re going to change somebody in an hour.” Danni echoed these
sentiments, stating:
If we truly want to change the culture and the hearts and minds of individuals at a district
or within a group...it takes time-intensive and thorough training with an experienced
107
mediator or presenter that can really begin to deal with the 400 years of racism in our
society and about how White folks have consistently benefitted without having to really
examine the fact that we’ve benefitted or how we’ve benefitted at the expense of people
of color.
In addition to guiding learners' audience through difficult conversations and topics,
human resources leaders also pointed out the need for nuanced training to individual needs based
on the learner’s attitudes, experiences, and positionality. Rose stated, “I think it is important to
differentiate topics, because somebody may be further along in their understanding… Some
people are continually discussing these topics and live it on a day-to-day basis. Others are not.”
Lynn also differentiated her training based on audience needs, stating that she will alter her
approach
based on who’s in front of me. I actually enjoy it. I think people learn differently. And so
I don’t mind changing my format or changing what I do because I recognize it’s
important that this gets well received. It’s more important than my time or inconvenience
that it’s well-received.
Discussion
Survey data and interviews revealed that human resources leaders value in-person
training. Most institutions utilize in-person training for at least some of their training. Leaders
point out the utility of in-person, facilitated content delivery for audience engagement and
shepherding difficult conversations and challenging topics. They also describe the importance of
trainers being nimble in adjusting content to the audience's needs, recognizing that different
learners have different lived experiences, levels of awareness, and openness to discussing topics
associated with anti-bias. Human resources leaders seem to recognize that the more complex the
108
learning needs, the less useful self-paced, asynchronous models are. While some believed that
online modules can help increase awareness of basic anti-bias topics, other leaders expressed
disdain for their ability to accomplish awareness effectively.
Theme 2: Persistent Reliance on Online Training Modules
Human resources leaders see online training modules as part of a multi-pronged anti-bias
training strategy. Alongside live, facilitated training, online training modules provide a means of
delivering anti-bias training to large numbers of people. Easily accessible online training reduces
barriers to completing training and makes it quicker and easier for human resources leaders to
meet compliance requirements.
Survey Results
As previously noted and summarized in Table 15, about a quarter (26%) of survey
respondents provided half or more of their training online prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ten
percent of respondents provided all of their anti-bias training online—another 10% of
respondents provided about half of their anti-bias training online. Although several participants
expressed a desire to improve training in an open-ended survey question about what they would
like to change about their current anti-bias training, none explicitly stated they wanted to
eliminate online training. Several stated they want to increase the frequency and participation in
anti-bias training. Table 23 provides a listing and categorization of open-ended comments
regarding human resources leaders’ desired changes in anti-bias training.
Interview Findings
Interviews provided additional insight into human resources leaders’ attitudes toward
online training, which, as mentioned previously, are pragmatic. Leaders recognize that online
training provides fewer opportunities for reflection, deep discussion, and guided inquiry into
109
anti-bias topics. However, leaders also see it as an avenue to bring more training to more people,
including those who would not attend an in-person anti-bias training. The COVID-19 pandemic
has required human resource leaders to move previously in-person training into an online
modality. Once those modules are developed, although imperfect, they are likely to persist due to
the convenience factor, as well as learners, becoming more accustomed to the online
environment. Sam mentioned attempting to “roll out” a large library of online trainings and a
training dashboard provided by the Community College System central office that was unpopular
with faculty professional development leaders prior to the pandemic. Still, she now believes that
“COVID may change that a little bit, and sure enough, it probably has.” Mary, who moved in-
person training into Canvas modules and is struggling to create more engagement, said, “I don’t
know if I’d rather have the training available this way [online] or not as available to people but
with more interaction. It’s just a trade-off.” A key takeaway is that online training is part of a
multi-pronged approach to training that is unlikely to go away any time soon. Human resources
leaders, including Sam, Lynn, Mary, Danni, Gladys, and Alexander, described relying on online
training vendors, such as Keenan Safe Schools, Franklin Covey, for at least part of their anti-bias
training as well as their state system office online training dashboard. Ultimately, as Lynn put it,
human resources leaders “need to serve, and everyone receives differently. It’s okay if you do
better in a Zoom environment, Keenan, or a computer.”
Discussion
Survey data and interviews revealed that human resources leaders have used online anti-
bias training before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, and are likely to continue to do so
afterwards. As discussed elsewhere, human resources’ leaders would like to offer more
reflective, interactive, and facilitated training. There is a continued need to use online modules to
110
“raise awareness” and reach people who would otherwise not attend a face-to-face, live training.
Online modules are frequently used to deliver compliance-related training, such as sexual
harassment prevention and EEO training. Using online modules expands the convenience and
reach of training, even if the mode of delivery falls short of the facilitated, in-person ideal.
Theme 3: Preference for Mandatory Training
Federal and state laws make some types of training mandatory, including Title IX, EEO,
and anti-sexual harassment. Interviews revealed that human resources leaders tend to be
frustrated about lack of participation in and engagement with anti-bias training. Many human
resources leaders wish anti-bias training could be made mandatory so that those on campus with
low motivation to attend and learn would be exposed to material.
Survey Results
Human resources leaders were asked if seven types of anti-bias training were mandatory
for all employee groups, mandatory for some employee groups, or voluntary for all employee
groups. Their answers to that question are summarized in Table 18. The trainings more likely to
be mandatory for some or all employee groups are implicit and unconscious bias training, sexual
harassment training, and diversity training. Nearly 54% of human resources leaders said that
implicit and unconscious bias training was mandatory for some employee groups, while nearly
43% offered the training on a voluntary basis for all employee groups. Sexual harassment
training was offered on a mandatory basis to all employee groups by 73% of human resources
leaders and to some employee groups by 27% of human resources leaders. Due to state law,
sexual harassment training is mandated for all employees in Community College System, so it is
not surprising that no one stated that the training was voluntary. Diversity training, which is a
common topic covered in mandated EEO training, was mandatory for some employees (42%)
111
and in half, the cases were voluntary for all employees. Only in about 8% of cases was diversity
training mandated for all employees. Equity, cultural competence, and bullying training were
also rarely mandated for all employees. Equity training was voluntary for all employees in 60%
of the reported cases and mandatory for some employees in 30% of the reported cases. Cultural
competency and bullying training were voluntary for all employee groups in more than 70% of
the reported cases. Safe space training was voluntary in all reported cases. The key takeaway
from the survey data is that participation is voluntary in most instances of anti-bias training
outside of legally mandated training.
Table 18
Mandatory v. Voluntary Anti-Bias Training
Is implicit or unconscious bias training mandatory?
n = 28 Count
Percent
of Data
Voluntary for all employee groups 12 42.90%
Mandatory for all employee groups 1 3.60%
Mandatory for some employee
groups
15 53.60%
Is sexual harassment training mandatory?
n = 26 Count
Percent
of Data
Voluntary for all employee groups 0 0.00%
Mandatory for all employee groups 19 73.10%
Mandatory for some employee
groups
7 26.90%
112
Is diversity training mandatory?
n = 26 Count
Percent
of Data
Voluntary for all employee groups 13 50.00%
Mandatory for all employee groups 2 7.70%
Mandatory for some employee
groups
11 42.30%
Is equity training mandatory?
n = 23 Count
Percent
of Data
Voluntary for all employee groups 14 60.87%
Mandatory for all employee groups 2 8.70%
Mandatory for some employee
groups
7 30.40%
Is cultural competence training mandatory?
n = 16 Count
Percent
of Data
Voluntary for all employee groups 12 75.00%
Mandatory for all employee
groups
1 6.30%
Mandatory for some employee
groups
3 18.80%
Is training about bullying mandatory?
n = 14 Count
Percent
of Data
Voluntary for all employee groups 10 71.43%
Mandatory for all employee
groups
3 21.40%
Mandatory for some employee
groups
1 7.10%
Is safe space training mandatory?
n = 11 Count
Percent
of Data
Voluntary for all employee groups 11 100.00%
Mandatory for all employee
groups
0 0.00%
Mandatory for some employee
groups
0 0.00%
113
The answers to the open answer question “If you could change anything about anti-bias
training in your organization, what would you change?” are listed in Table 19. Among the
eighteen responses to this question, five respondents stated that they wanted to make anti-bias
training mandatory.
Table 19
What Human Resources Leaders Would Like to Change about Anti-Bias Training
If you could change anything about anti-bias training in your organization, what would you
change?
Statement Theme 1 Theme 2
I would hold the executive team and Trustees more
accountable for ensuring anti-bias training is a top priority at
the District instead of a passive check the box exercise just to
say you checked the box. Accountability Importance
A goal of a measurable outcome of the impact of the training Accountability n/a
I would make it a half day training for all employees. Duration n/a
Timeliness Duration Frequency
Frequency, and additional budget to form a stronger anti-bias
training program Frequency Resources
The college-wide commitment to self-reflection Importance Quality
Dispersion to Classified staff Participation n/a
Having an internal mechanism in order to ensure training
tracking Participation n/a
Increase participation Participation n/a
Level of engagement of people who are skeptical about or
disagree with the need for and importance of anti-bias training Participation Engagement
Make it mandatory Participation n/a
Make it mandatory and offer it more frequently Participation Frequency
Make it mandatory for all and provide semester offerings. Participation Frequency
Make it mandatory, make it practical Participation Quality
Participation Participation n/a
Participation by all constituent groups Participation n/a
frequency, making mandatory Participation Frequency
Need better training module Quality n/a
114
Interview Findings
Interviews echoed survey results. They revealed that many human resources leaders are
seeking more engagement in anti-bias training and harbor a desire that training could be made
mandatory, although leaders recognize that collective bargaining, time, and financial barriers
prevent this from being a realistic solution to eliciting more participation in training. Gladys
expressed her frustration this way:
I just think it’s difficult when you have a system set up where things are voluntary. The
believers will always show up and it’ll just reinforce items. The ones that are on the fence
or they want to learn, training does help. The ones who don’t, they don’t show up
anyway.”
When asked how she decides what training to offer, Sam stated that the first thing she
thinks about is resources and the second is collective bargaining. “Are we going to make it
mandatory? Can we make it mandatory? If we can make it mandatory, how do we operate that
with collective bargaining?” Betty stated that training at her institution is always voluntary
“unless you wind up having issues on campus or a group of people complaining about
discrimination, retaliation, harassment, bullying, and then it becomes a matter of the ability to
require training, which is helpful at times.” Elizabeth has approached the faculty union in her
district with a proposal to make anti-bias training mandatory for all faculty, but has found the
negotiation process a difficult one that leads to resources trade-offs, saying
Of course they want to be paid and that negotiation process might take away from some
other areas that they want to be paid for and that they feel are more important… But there
115
has to be a point at which we say, okay, how do we get everyone at the table and not
continue to allow people to choose not to participate.
Discussion
Most anti-bias trainings offered in the community college system are voluntary, except
some legally mandated training offered to some or all employees centered on sexual harassment
and equal opportunity in hiring. Several human resources leaders in the survey and interviews
expressed a wish that training could be made mandatory. At the same time, they identified
specific barriers to making training mandatory, such as allocating resources to pay faculty to
attend training and negotiating with faculty collective bargaining organizations.
Research Question 3: How Do Current Anti-Bias Training Protocols in Community
College System Align with Best Practices?
According to research, effective anti-bias training may be reflective, motivational,
critical, interactive, relevant, ongoing, measured, facilitated, outcomes-oriented, and
comprehensive. Survey and interview data indicated that some colleges are engaging in
facilitated trainings designed to raise “awareness” of bias but that in most cases the training
offered falls short of providing the facilitation, duration, interactivity, and reflection required to
move “awareness” into behavioral change. Participation in voluntary training was reportedly
low, especially among faculty, indicating that motivation to attend and the perceived relevance
and salience of training may be low for some segments of employees. Finally, the content of
training tends be fairly limited, focusing mostly on implicit bias. According to participants,
training tends to avoid more comprehensive and controversial topics centered on power,
positionality, and critical race theory.
116
Theme 1: Human Resources Leaders’ Knowledge of Best Anti-Bias Training Practices
The construct of knowledge of anti-bias training best practices was measured via
qualitative interviews. Most human resources leaders were aware of many of the characteristics
of effective anti-bias training, including the importance of facilitated training, training of long
duration, and training that offers time for reflection and communal interaction. The findings
indicate that some elements of best practices are currently part of current anti-bias training while
other characteristics are reach goals for training improvement.
Interview Findings
Human resources leaders indicated a high degree of knowledge about best training
practices, including interactive, relevant, facilitated, reflective, sufficient duration, and ongoing.
When asked to describe an ideal anti-bias training, Sam, Alexander, Lynn, and Danni all
described in-depth, long-term, highly reflective, facilitated, and interactive training. They
believed such training would change “hearts and minds” and the “culture” of their institutions.
Sam thought anti-bias training should incorporate relevancy by utilizing engaging scenarios to
illustrate points about bias. Similarly, Alexander wanted training to include scenarios so that
participants could “see the world through the lens of someone from a very different cultural
background.” Lynn emphasized that training should be “very, very interactive” and ongoing,
offering that “just having a one-time deal is never a good idea for something that we want to
continuously embed in someone or to change how we think.” Danni suggested that “true
transformation takes place with very intensive training, open dialogue, and uncomfortable
dialogue.” Mary opined that ideally, a skilled facilitator would lead the training and “facilitate in
a respectful way to everybody.” According to Moe, truly effective anti-bias training would be
“more immersive,” would last “six months to a year,” and involve highly relevant, institution
117
specific, project-based learning. To Betty, training should be highly reflective and personal, “an
interactive process to get someone to recognize how they view the world and affect their
environment.” An “organic” interactive, vulnerable dialogue that would unfold over many hours
or days and involve intensive bonding among participants and “phenomenal conversation” is
Gladys’ vision of ideal anti-bias training. Vulnerability, sharing, storytelling, and “personal
testimony” were also central to Rose’s concept of ideal anti-bias training.
Discussion
Survey and interview data revealed that human resources leaders are aware of and
embrace many of the tenets of good training, including facilitated training, that is reflective,
interactive, relevant, and ongoing. Survey results showed that most anti-bias training is already
in person and interviews revealed that leaders want more in-person training. Together, these
findings indicate that facilitated training is already a practice and a norm for human resources
leaders. When asked what their ideal models of training would include, leaders chimed in with
enthusiastic and vivid accounts that included ample time for reflection, communal interaction,
personal introspection, bonding, guidance, shepherding, storytelling, personal testimony, and
inquiry, that would take place over many days or months. In other words, the barriers to offering
more and better anti-bias training are not the knowledge, attitudes, or norms of human resources
leaders themselves. Institutional challenges to offering effective training. These institutional
challenges include motivating attendance at training, marshalling resources to pay for training,
ensuring that leaders prioritize training, and negotiating with collective bargaining units to
ensure that some or all employees must attend training.
118
Theme 2: Alignment of Anti-Bias Training with Best Practices
Facilitated training is considered a best practice in the research literature on anti-bias
training. Facilitated training allows for nuanced and guided conversations about bias, helps
ensure that safe-space ground rules are followed, and provides an arena for answering participant
questions in real time. Facilitated training may be conducted live, online, via modalities such as
Zoom, but the traditional means of offering facilitated training in the Community College
System has been in-person. Survey results revealed that facilitated training is the most common
anti-bias training practice in Community College System and interviews confirmed that
facilitated training is also a norm for the ideal training models that human resources leaders wish
they could offer.
Survey Results
As described earlier, more than half (53%) of respondents reported that prior to the
COVID-19 pandemic, anti-bias training was offered mostly in person. One-fifth (20%) of
respondents reported anti-bias training was offered “all in person.” In an open-ended question on
what they would change about anti-bias training, human resources leaders indicated they wanted
more meaningful training, longer-term training, more frequent training, “better” training, and
more college wide “self-reflection” on bias. Those desired changes are associated with promising
practices for facilitated training.
Interview Findings
In interviews, human resources leaders described the value of facilitated trainings that
they currently utilize and described a desire for additional facilitated training. Lynn described
how one can tailor facilitated trainings to the specific needs of the audience and states that
employees in her district “crave” face-to-face training. Elizabeth designed and spearheaded an
119
“embracing a culture of inclusion” program that includes many facilitated workshops. Moe’s
colleges participated in workshops facilitated by a university that have had a “tremendous”
impact on the participants. They prefer intensive four-hour in-person training at Betty’s multi-
college district that is facilitated by an outside expert that covers EEO and other anti-bias topics.
At Gladys’ college, they preferred full-day, in-person EEO trainings that are now moving toward
including anti-racism components. Sam and Mary described how facilitated training with a
skilled presenter can allow for the careful shepherding of difficult conversations around bias.
Exemplar Programs
Human resources leaders described many in-person, facilitated trainings during
interviews. Still, two stood out as embodying many of the promising practices for anti-bias
training addressed in this study based on a review of web-based program resources. Elizabeth’s
college has developed an inclusion initiative that offers a comprehensive series of anti-bias
themed workshops and trainings that are facilitated, ongoing, interactive, build community, and
designed to create sustained “culture change” through skills building at disrupting bias and
racism. This program attempts to bridge the gap between awareness of bias and the skills needed
to address bias and racism in the workplace. Her college and some others in the study are
beginning to implement climate surveys that focus on diversity and inclusion. That practice will
allow for better evaluation of the longitudinal impact of anti-bias efforts at her college and
others. Gladys’s college offers a course for employees that delves into African American history
and covers topics informed by critical race theory, such as systemic anti-blackness. The course
identifies clear learning outcomes, which is an important component, enabling evaluation of anti-
bias training, and motivates participation by allowing faculty to use the course as continuing
education for salary advancement. Together, these approaches exemplify long-term, ongoing
120
training that experts facilitate, contain topics that provide a critical context for understanding
bias, provide knowledge and skills that can be applied to disrupt bias in the workplace, are of a
long enough duration to encourage effective learning that contributes to institutional culture
change.
Discussion
Human resources leaders indicated on both the survey and in interviews that in-person (or
live online due to the COVID-19 pandemic) facilitated trainings are a common and preferred
anti-bias training practice in Community College System. Furthermore, when asked to describe
ideal anti-bias training, in all cases, human resources leaders described a facilitated training
model. These findings indicate that awareness of the value of facilitated anti-bias training is
widespread among human resources leaders in Community College System. Exemplar programs
exist that embody many of the best practices for anti-bias training suggested by research
literature and more colleges are deploying climate surveys to get baseline measures of bias at
their institutions, which lays a foundation for better longitudinal evaluation of training impact in
the future. The knowledge, norms, and practices surrounding effective anti-bias training are
clearly present in Community College System, but, as will be addressed in the next section, they
are not systematically or sustainably practiced.
Theme 3: Departures from Best Practices
The norms and values of human resources leaders embrace many of the major tenets of
promising anti-bias training practices, but resource barriers, described in more detail later in this
chapter, prevent ideal models of anti-bias training from being implemented at scale or in a
sustained manner in Community College System. This section outlines departures from best
practices in four areas: design, content, participation, and evaluation. Design addresses whether
121
the training is facilitated by a skilled leader (Adams & Bell, 2016; Beard, 2015; Devine et al.,
2012; Knowles, 1990), the duration of the training (Adams & Bell; 2016; Devine et al., 2012),
and the extent to which anti-bias training allows for interactive and relevant learning experiences
(Hewstone et al., 2002; Fujimoto & Härtel, 2017; Gaertner et al, 2000; Knowles, 1990; Monroe
et al., 2000; Wright, 2009). Content addresses the topics covered in anti-bias training, including
how wide-ranging the subject matter, and whether it delves into critical race theory (Adams &
Bell, 2016). Participation addresses the degree to which the campus community is motivated to
attend anti-bias training, which to some extent is based on the perceived salience or relevance of
the training to the participant (Dobbin & Kalev, 2016; Goldstein et al, 2018; Knowles, 1990;
Wright, 2009). Evaluation addresses whether the institution regularly evaluates and measures the
learning outcomes associated with anti-bias training (Adams & Bell, 2016; Devine et al., 2012;
Paluck & Green, 2009).
Design (Facilitation, Duration, Interactivity, Reflection)
Anti-bias training in Community College System tends to fall short of best pedagogical
practices designed to ensure learning. According to participants, at least half of the anti-bias
training offered is in online, asynchronous, self-paced modules that last less than three hours.
This mode of training does not allow for interaction across community or identity groups, a
practice that assists with internalizing anti-bias learning (Hewstone et al., 2002; Fujimoto &
Härtel, 2017; Gaertner et al., 2000; McKay 2018; Monroe et al., 2000). Short-term training also
does not allow sufficient time for reflection and practice (Adams & Bell, 2016; Barley, 2012;
Buhin & Vera, 2009; Rogers, 2002; Wilson, 2008).
Survey Results. As previously noted and summarized in Table 15, about a quarter (26%)
of survey respondents provided half or more of their training online prior to the COVID-19
122
pandemic. Ten percent of respondents provided all of their anti-bias training online—another
10% of respondents provided about half of their anti-bias training online. The survey asked
respondents if they offered seven types of anti-bias training—implicit or unconscious bias,
diversity, equity, cultural competence, sexual harassment, safe space, and bullying—and then
asked them to identify the duration of the training from a few hours to several months.
Regardless of the type of anti-bias training offered, the most common duration for training was
1-3 hours. Table 20 summarizes the results for anti-bias training duration.
Table 20
Anti-Bias Training Duration
Which of the following best describes the duration of implicit or
unconscious bias training in your organization?
n = 28 Count Percent of Data
Less than an hour 6 21.40%
1-3 hours 17 60.70%
Half-day 3 10.70%
Full-day 1 3.60%
Several days 0 0.00%
Several weeks 0 0.00%
Several months 1 3.60%
123
Which of the following best describes the duration of diversity
training in your organization?
n = 26 Count Percent of Data
Less than an hour 3 11.50%
1-3 hours 20 76.90%
Half-day 3 11.50%
Full-day 0 0.00%
Several days 0 0.00%
Several weeks 0 0.00%
Several months 0 0.00%
Which of the following best describes the duration of sexual
harassment training in your organization?
n = 26 Count Percent of Data
Less than an hour 0 0.00%
1-3 hours 26 100.00%
Half-day 0 0.00%
Full-day 0 0.00%
Several days 0 0.00%
Several weeks 0 0.00%
Several months 0 0.00%
Which of the following best describes the duration of equity training
in your organization?
n = 23 Count Percent of Data
Less than an hour 3 13.00%
1-3 hours 17 73.90%
Half-day 1 4.30%
Full-day 1 4.30%
Several days 0 0.00%
Several weeks 1 4.30%
Several months 0 0.00%
124
Which of the following best describes the duration of cultural
competency training in your organization?
n = 15 Count Percent of Data
Less than an hour 1 6.70%
1-3 hours 10 66.70%
Half-day 4 26.70%
Full-day 0 0.00%
Several days 0 0.00%
Several weeks 0 0.00%
Several months 0 0.00%
Which of the following best describes the duration of training about
bullying in your organization?
n = 14 Count Percent of Data
Less than an hour 4 28.60%
1-3 hours 9 64.30%
Half-day 0 0.00%
Full-day 1 7.14%
Several days 0 0.00%
Several weeks 0 0.00%
Several months 0 0.00%
Which of the following best describes the duration of training about
safe space in your organization?
n = 14 Count Percent of Data
Less than an hour 1 9.10%
1-3 hours 7 63.60%
Half-day 1 9.10%
Full-day 1 9.10%
Several days 1 9.10%
Several weeks 0 0.00%
Several months 0 0.00%
125
Opportunities for interactivity and reflection are embodied in learning methods. The
survey asked respondents to identify teaching and learning methods and tools typically included
in anti-bias trainings at their organizations. Individualized learning methods identified in the
survey included handouts, assigned readings, exams or quizzes, journaling, homework, and time
for reflection, as well as self-paced, non-facilitated online modules. Interactive activities
included group work, sharing lived experiences, and acting out scenarios/role play in either in-
person facilitated sessions or facilitated virtual sessions. Table 21 summarizes the results for
individualized versus interactive methods of teaching anti-bias. A key finding is that while live,
facilitated sessions predominate, interactive activities that build community and connection are
used in only about a quarter of trainings. Time for reflection was incorporated in training only
about a quarter of the time.
126
Table 21
Individualized v. Interactive Methods in Anti-Bias Training
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020), which of the following
teaching and learning methods and tools were typically included in anti-
bias trainings offered by your organization? (check all that apply)
Individualized Methods
n = 35
Checked
Percent
Checked
Count
Online modules (self-paced/not facilitated) 37.10% 13
Handouts 28.60% 10
Time for Reflection 25.70% 9
Practical Exercises (Apply, reflect, report
back)
11.40% 4
Assigned Readings 11.40% 4
Exams and/or quizzes (online) 5.70% 2
Journaling 2.90% 1
Exams and/or quizzes (in-person) 2.90% 1
Homework 2.90% 1
Interactive Methods
n = 35
Checked
Percent
Checked
Count
Live, facilitated presentations (in person) 82.90% 29
Group Work 25.70% 9
Sharing Lived Experiences 22.90% 8
Live, facilitated presentations (virtual) 8.60% 3
Acting Out Scenarios/Role Play 2.90% 1
Interview Findings. When asked what ideal anti-bias training would look like human
resources indicated that they were well aware of best practices on contrast to current practice. As
stated previously, human resources leaders recognized that effective anti-bias training is
facilitated. Further, they know that it should be interactive (Alexander, Lynn, Mary, Moe, Betty)
and reflective (Betty, Elizabeth). They know that it should be “immersive” (Moe), “intensive”
127
(Danni), “tangible” (Sam, Rose), and offered over several months (Elizabeth, Rose, Moe,
Danni). They recognized that the training they currently offer does not meet the ideal.
In some cases, campus culture hinders effective engagement with anti-bias training.
Gladys stated that on her campus, people are reluctant to engage in “open-minded discussion”
due to “fear of retribution.” Betty described a campus climate polarized between “radical and
conservative” in which the “scales have tipped drastically” to the point where there is little
middle ground for discussion of all points of view. Danni was concerned that typical anti-bias
training does not facilitate “open, uncomfortable dialog.” Sam described her college’s culture
around anti-bias “broken”, with uncivility and competing priorities making it impossible to
deliver effective training. Moe was concerned about “a lot of pushback in our district against this
training.”
Discussion. The data collected in the survey and interviews indicate that anti-bias
training offered in Community College System tends to fall short on duration, interactivity, and
time for reflection. Although the preferred method of offering anti-bias training prior to the
COVID-19 pandemic was in-person and facilitated, the trainers tend to focus on more
individualized activities that are not conducive for building community. Reliance on online
training for half or more of anti-bias training is not a suggested best practice. Online modules do
not provide an opportunity to engage in interactive learning with others. Interviews revealed that
human resources leaders are aware of best practices and would like to incorporate more
interactivity and reflection into their training, as well as delivering some trainings in a more
intensive, long-term format.
128
Content (Criticality, Comprehensiveness)
Most anti-bias training offered in Community College System is rather narrow in scope.
Training tends to focus on compliance-related topics. When training includes topics beyond the
mandated minima, the topics tend to be non-theoretical. When participants leave anti-bias
training sessions, they may not have the skill set needed to disrupt their own or others’ biases in
the workplace.
Survey Results. Respondents identified which topics are included in anti-bias training in
their organizations. Figure 2 provides a visualization of the results previously summarized in
Table 14. The first five topics are compliance-related, primarily driven by federal and state
mandates. The next set of topics go over and above compliance-related issues, but are non-
theoretical. They widen awareness of bias but do not attempt to address theories about the causes
of bias and racism. The black-colored bars in Figure 2 are topics that provide a comprehensive
understanding and critical theoretical evaluation of the roots of bias in the United States. Such
critical topics are covered in only a small percentage (less than 30%) of anti-bias trainings
offered at respondent organizations. White privilege was covered in only 20% of training, and
critical race theory was included in only a small handful of trainings.
129
Figure 2
Topics Included in Anti-Bias Training
Interview Findings. A theme that emerged from interviews was that human resources
leaders often see anti-bias training as a two- or three-stage process, in which training at first is
designed to raise “awareness” that bias exists. While this training may delve into the
psychological roots of bias, it treads carefully around and typically avoids topics that could
alienate those who are fearful or skeptical of anti-bias training. The next stage is often described
by leaders as “action,” the ability to apply newfound awareness of their own bias to personal
situations they may encounter in the workplace. The action stage is the ability to check their own
expressions of bias. The final stage of anti-bias learning is the ability to interrupt bias when it is
observed. The ability to disrupt or interrupt bias as it is occurring requires a higher level of
knowledge about how to do this—communication techniques and confidence in using them that
130
typical anti-bias training does not provide. Indeed, Moe pointed out that after completing anti-
bias awareness training, participants wanted to know, “How do I actually do this?”
Discussion. Survey data and interview findings suggest that anti-bias training as currently
offered tends to focus on basic bias awareness but does not provide most participants with a
deeper understanding of the roots of bias in U.S. history or a critical understanding of topics such
as power and White privilege. The limited scope of training leaves some participants yearning
for concrete skills and answers to what they are supposed to do with their awareness of bias.
Training could be improved with additional elements added that provide people with a deeper
understanding of the roots of bias and concrete practice and skills in disrupting bias.
Participation (Motivation, Relevance)
Survey data and interview findings indicate that human resources leaders are aware of
and seek to overcome problems by motivating more participation in anti-bias training. This is
described in detail in the next section of the chapter. A key barrier is time to attend training and
perceptions among the workforce members that anti-bias training is irrelevant or unnecessary.
Efforts to overcome participation problems center on making training mandatory, which is
typically not possible due to collective bargaining and resource barriers, such as time and money.
Another approach is to entice people with excellent training, which is typically difficult to offer
at scale, again due to costs associated with time investment. Finally, and this could be deemed as
going in the wrong direction if excellence is the goal, attempts to overcome reach and
participation hurdles center on making training available in convenient online modules.
Providing access in this manner compromises training quality and is a departure from best
practices, yet human resources leaders reason that getting some training to more people is better
than getting very little high-quality training to those who are already versed in anti-bias work
131
and, in some ways, need it the least. Human resources leaders face a dilemma of providing low-
quality training to more people or high-quality training to fewer people and will have difficulties
reaching those who need training the most.
Evaluation (Outcomes, Measurement)
The next section of the chapter describes how anti-bias training is evaluated in
Community College System based on survey data and interviews. Scholars of anti-bias training
best practices emphasize that anti-bias training should have clear learning outcomes that are
measured before, during, and after training. These recommendations closely follow Kirkpatrick’s
(1996, 2004) four-step model of evaluation. As will be described below, human resources leaders
in the community college system do not have robust evaluation systems for anti-bias training.
Their methods rely on reaction sheets and anecdotal evidence of success, and regular, systematic
data collection on anti-bias training does not appear to be happening at the institutions
represented by the participants in this study.
Research Question 4: How do Community College System Human Resources Leaders
Perceive and Evaluate the Effectiveness of Anti-Bias Training?
Survey data and interviews indicate that human resources leaders in Community College
System tend to rely on anecdotal evidence and reaction sheets to determine the effectiveness of
anti-bias training at their institutions, an approach that falls short of evaluative best practices as
outlined by Kirkpatrick (1994, 2006). Interviews revealed that human resources leaders tend to
believe that the impact of anti-bias training is favorable for those who have attended trainings,
but human resources leaders also frequently raised concerns about insufficient participation in
and engagement with anti-bias training, especially among faculty. Some human resources leaders
also expressed concerns about the impact of current events on anti-bias training, arguing that the
132
scope of bias training tends to be focused on racial and ethnic issues to the exclusion of other
forms of bias and that the atmosphere is fraught and polarized, which could lead to fear of
participating in anti-bias training.
Theme 1: Ambivalence Regarding Training Impact
The survey and interviews indicate that human resources leaders have mixed feelings
about the impact of anti-bias training on their campuses. Survey results indicated only moderate
positive feelings about training impact. In interviews, human resources leaders had ambivalent
and mixed reactions to training impact. Many human resources leaders stated they received
positive feedback on reaction sheets or noted their own observations of workplace behavior that
may have changed based on anti-bias training. But others expressed skepticism that the training
could lead to bias disruption on their campuses.
Survey Results
Two survey questions directly addressed the impact of anti-bias training on human
resources leaders’ organizations. One asked how effective anti-bias training is in changing
behavior and the other asked what the impact of training is on their organization. Eighty percent
of respondents believed that anti-bias training was somewhat or very effective in changing
behavior in their organizations. Eighty percent of respondents deemed the impact of anti-bias
training on their organizations as somewhat or very positive. While no respondents felt that
training was “very” ineffective, one-fifth of respondents found anti-bias training to be
“somewhat ineffective” in changing behavior, and more than three-quarters found training to be
only “somewhat effective.” These results indicate that there is potential room for improvement in
the effectiveness of anti-bias training. Only one respondent believed training was “very
ineffective.” In terms of the impact of training on organizations, only three respondents (10%)
133
found anti-bias training to have a “very positive” impact on their organization. Seventy percent
found it to be “somewhat positive.” Four respondents were neutral on the impact of training, and
two found it “somewhat negative.” No respondents found training to be very negative. Overall,
while the trend is to see anti-bias training as having a positive impact, there appears to be room
for potential improvement in anti-bias training. Table 22 summarizes the results on the
effectiveness and impact of anti-bias trainings on human resources leaders’ organizations.
Table 22
Perceptions of Effectiveness and Impact of Anti-Bias Training
How effective is anti-bias training in changing
behavior in your organization?
n = 30 Count
Percent of
Data
Very effective 1 3.30%
Somewhat effective 23 76.70%
Somewhat ineffective 6 20.00%
Very ineffective 0 0.00%
What impact does anti-bias training have on your
organization?
n = 30 Count
Percent of
Data
Very positive 3 10.00%
Somewhat positive 21 70.00%
Neither positive nor
negative
4 13.30%
Somewhat negative 2 6.70%
Very negative 0 0.00%
134
Interview Findings
Interviews yielded additional insights on how human resources leaders perceived the
impact and effectiveness of anti-bias training in their organizations. Their concerns centered on
both positive and negative impacts on campus climate, positive and negative impacts on certain
individuals, the ability of the training to effectively convey anti-bias learning, and the inability of
training to reach segments of the campus community that may need it the most. Danni saw anti-
bias training as one component of a larger equity and inclusion strategy, pointing out that “anti-
bias training alone is not going to get you very far. It has to be one prong of a bigger strategy
with multiple efforts on a college campus or within a district.” Moe, who described a multi-
pronged training approach that had been deployed in her multi-college district for several years,
and that included bringing in outside facilitators and trainings designed to address the specific
needs of the diverse colleges in her district, nonetheless stated that many people leave a training
say it was “great, but how do I actually do this?” The gap in their training that Moe identified
echoes the concern raised by Danni that training would need to be “intensive” and “reinforced
over time” so that “there is some transfer of knowledge” into the workplace. Lynn, who deemed
anti-bias training effective from her personal experience being trained, nonetheless felt that
training could be improved if it were to take place over several months and be “very interactive.”
She also suggested that training scope be expanded to address hiring recruitment and include
topics that would assist with retaining employees.
From Sam’s perspective, changes in bias awareness on her single-college campus are the
result of societal trends rather than anti-bias trainings. As she put it, “The training itself—meh—
maybe it might move a few folks, but I think it’s societal changes that are just thrusting us into a
dialogue” about bias. Sam’s views were echoed by Gladys, who felt that districts need a catalyst
135
to spur culture change around bias, something that will make people say, “Holy crap! We’ve got
to do something!” shaking people out of their complacency, “some type of horrible event or
national situation that really brings [bias] to the forefront.” But, barring that, employees will
lack the motivation and energy to engage, regardless of what kind of training is provided on their
campuses.
Sam expressed cynicism about the ability of training to reach certain individuals, stating:
To me this all starts and ends with emotional intelligence. You’re either emotionally
intelligent enough to understand the impact of human behavior or you’re not. If you are,
you are automatically drawn to listen and benefit from [training]...and if you’re not, you
won’t [benefit from training].
Danni pointed out that even face-to-face trainings with many good evaluations from
participants reveal persistent racist views on reaction sheets, “Probably about 5% of people who
fill those out shocked me with what I would see as a directly racist or sexist or heterosexual view
of the world… With all the good we’re doing, here is an example of the type of employee that
still exists in our district.”
Discussion
While leaning positive toward the effectiveness and impact of anti-bias training on
human resources leaders’ organizations, survey results suggested that there is room for
improvement. With the effectiveness and impact being deemed only “somewhat” by about three
quarters of respondent, and another 20% seeing training as somewhat ineffective or somewhat
negative, it is clear that training is viewed as lacking in some respects. Interviews indicated that
human resources leaders are ambivalent about training. While they typically believe that there
are positive outcomes for some participants, they also express concerns about the impact of
136
training on campus climate, the ability of training to effectively convey anti-bias learning, and
the inability of training to reach those who may need it the most.
Theme 2: Concerns about Participation and Engagement
The survey and interviews indicated that anti-bias training is not reaching all employees
in Community College System. At most institutions participation in anti-bias training is
voluntary. Faculty collective bargaining agreements, time, and money are barriers to mandating
training for all faculty. The employee group least likely to receive anti-bias training is part-time
faculty.
Survey Results
The survey collected data on who receives anti-bias training and what human resources
leaders would change about anti-bias training in their organization. These questions revealed
information about the reach of training and human resources leaders desire to expand training
participation and engagement. Data was collected on who receives seven types of training:
implicit or unconscious bias, diversity, sexual harassment, equity, cultural competence, bullying,
and safe space. Table 23 summarizes the data on which employee groups receive anti-bias
training in their organizations.
137
Table 23
Which Employee Groups Receive Anti-Bias Training
To whom is implicit or unconscious bias training offered? (check all that apply)
n = 29
Checked
Percent
Checked Count
It is offered to all employee groups 86.20% 25
Administrators & Managers 20.70% 6
Full-Time Faculty 17.20% 5
Classified Staff 13.80% 4
Part-Time Faculty 6.90% 2
To whom is sexual harassment training offered? (check all that apply)
n = 27
Checked
Percent
Checked Count
It is offered to all employee groups 85.20% 23
Administrators & Managers 14.80% 4
Full-Time Faculty 7.40% 2
Part-Time Faculty 7.40% 2
Classified Staff 7.40% 2
To whom is diversity training offered? (check all that apply)
n = 27
Checked
Percent
Checked Count
It is offered to all employee groups 88.90% 24
Administrators & Managers 14.80% 4
Classified Staff 11.10% 3
Full-Time Faculty 7.40% 2
Part-Time Faculty 3.70% 1
To whom is equity training offered? (check all that apply)
n = 24
Checked
Percent
Checked Count
It is offered to all employee groups 91.70% 22
Classified Staff 8.30% 2
Administrators & Managers 8.30% 2
Full-Time Faculty 4.20% 1
Part-Time Faculty 4.20% 1
138
To whom is cultural competence training offered? (check all that apply)
n = 17
Checked
Percent
Checked Count
It is offered to all employee groups 82.40% 14
Full-Time Faculty 11.80% 2
Part-Time Faculty 5.90% 1
Classified Staff 5.90% 1
Administrators & Managers 5.90% 1
To whom is training about bullying offered? (check all that apply)
n = 16
Checked
Percent
Checked Count
It is offered to all employee groups 81.30% 13
Classified Staff 6.30% 1
Full-Time Faculty 0.00% 0
Part-Time Faculty 0.00% 0
Administrators & Managers 0.00% 0
To whom is safe space training offered? (check all that apply)
n = 13
Checked
Percent
Checked Count
It is offered to all employee groups 84.60% 11
Full-Time Faculty 7.70% 1
Part-Time Faculty 7.70% 1
Classified Staff 7.70% 1
Administrators & Managers 7.70% 1
Implicit or unconscious bias training, the most frequently offered training (by about 83%
of respondent organizations), is offered to all employee groups by more than 70% of the
respondents. In the approximately 30% of organizations in which anti-bias training is not offered
to everyone, the group most likely to receive it is administrators and managers (17%) followed
by full-time faculty (14%), classified staff (11%), and part-time faculty (about 6%). The key
takeaways are that nearly a third of institutions are not offering bias training to all employees and
that classified staff and part-time faculty are more likely than faculty and administrators to be left
out of training opportunities.
139
Diversity and sexual harassment training are offered at more than three-quarters of the
institutions surveyed. Diversity training is offered at over 80% of the institutions surveyed, and
most of those institutions (nearly 70%) offer anti-bias training to all employee groups. In the
30% of institutions who do not offer diversity training to all employee groups, the employee
groups most likely to receive diversity training are administrators and managers, followed by
classified staff, full-time faculty, and part-time faculty. Part-time faculty are the least likely
group to receive diversity training. Equity training is offered at over 80% of the institutions
surveyed, and is offered to all employee groups in over 60% of those institutions. In the 40% of
institutions who do not offer diversity training to all employee groups, the employee groups most
likely to receive diversity training are administrators and managers and classified staff. Full-time
and part-time faculty are the least likely groups to be offered equity training. Sexual harassment
training is offered at about three quarters of the institutions surveyed, and is offered to all
employee groups in 85% of those institutions. In the 15% of institutions who do not offer sexual
harassment training to all employee groups, the employee group most likely to receive sexual
harassment training is administrators and manager. Faculty and classified staff are the least likely
groups to be offered sexual harassment training.
Cultural competence, bullying, and safe space training were offered at fewer than half the
institutions surveyed. Cultural competence training is offered at just over 40% of the institutions
surveyed. Most of those institutions (just over 80%) offer cultural competence training to all
employee groups. In the 20% of institutions who do not offer cultural competence training to all
employee groups, the employee group most likely to receive cultural competence training is full-
time faculty. Part-time faculty, classified staff, and administrators and managers are the least
140
likely groups to be offered cultural competence training. Bullying training is offered at 40% of
the institutions surveyed. Most of those institutions (just over 80%) offer bullying training to all
employee groups. In the 20% of institutions who do not offer bullying training to all employee
groups, the employee groups most likely to receive bullying training are the classified staff.
Faculty and administrators were the least likely groups to be offered bullying training, having not
been identified as receiving training by any respondents who did not offer training to all groups.
Safe space training is offered at just under 30% of the institutions surveyed. Most of those
institutions (about 85%) offer safe space training to all employee groups. In the 15% of
institutions who do not offer safe space training to all employee groups, faculty, classified staff,
and administrators and managers were equally likely to receive that training.
On the open-ended question “If you could change anything about anti-bias training in
your organization, what would you change?” 18 out of 35 survey respondents provided answers,
and of those 18 responses, 11 responses cited “participation,” making training “mandatory,”
training “dispersion,” and training “tracking” as change priorities. These responses appear to be
motivated by human resources leaders’ interest in increasing participation in and engagement
with anti-bias training. Table 19, above, provided a thematic list of human resources leaders'
open-ended responses regarding desired changes to their organizational anti-bias training.
Interview Findings
Interviews revealed that human resources leaders are often frustrated that they cannot get
“everyone at the table” (Elizabeth). To elicit more participation and engagement, they ponder
strategies like making training mandatory and improving the duration and quality of anti-bias
training. But even mandatory training has its limits. As Mary pointed out in regards to mandatory
sexual harassment training, “I question whether people are fully engaged, and they do that
141
(training) year after year after year.” On the other hand, Alexander felt that mandatory trainings
can act as a vehicle to inspire interest and engagement. Alexander stated:
Where we’ve been able to get that group that would not voluntarily show up is by
building this content into training to serve on hiring committees that is mandatory, so that
give us more leverage… And when we’ve done that, the majority of people have been
willing to verbally express and recognize how pervasive are stereotypes around race, skin
color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
There have, however, been some engagement victories where human resources leaders were able
to successfully negotiate participation in mandatory anti-bias training with collective bargaining
units. Danni described negotiating with the faculty association to contractually require Title IX
training as a professional service for all faculty. Gladys successfully negotiated continuing
education credit for voluntary anti-bias training for faculty and staff. Still, the work of
negotiating participation is difficult which prompts some human resources leaders to seek a state
mandate for training. Alexander shared that, “A lot of my peers are asking the chancellor’s office
or longing for the legislature to make this simple by just making it mandatory,” but doing so
could sacrifice control over what training looks like at the local level.
Discussion
Human resources leaders are concerned that participation and engagement in anti-bias
training is insufficient to actually change institutional culture and practice around bias, a concern
reflected in Elizabeth’s remark that “the people who show up for those [anti-bias] trainings are
oftentimes the ones who don’t need it as much as the others.” While some human resources
leaders have had success in negotiating pay incentives or mandatory contractual language to
elicit more participation in training, others are concerned that forced participation may not be
142
effective, or even possible, given the power and priorities of collective bargaining units.
Overcoming individual reluctance to participate in training will continue to be a challenge in
Community College System absent a system-wide or legislative mandate, or, as Gladys
suggested, a terrible, galvanizing event that motivates a deep desire for change.
Theme 3: Reliance on Reaction Sheets and Anecdotes
Kirkpatrick (1994, 2006) described utilizing pre-testing, reaction sheets, and post-testing
to determine changes in knowledge, behavior, attitudes, and skills resulting from training. Survey
results and interview data indicate that assessment of anti-bias training in Community College
System falls far short of best practices. The most common forms of assessment are the reaction
sheet and anecdotal impressions gleaned from casual observation. Overall, forms of assessment
are insufficient to determine of learning transfer is taking place or if colleges are receiving any
return on their investment in anti-bias training.
Survey Results
Survey data indicate that the most common method used to assess training is a reaction
sheet used on the same day as training, employed by 43% of respondents. About a quarter of
respondents (26%) report using no assessment methods. Only five respondents reported that they
tested people before training, shortly after training, or used other data collection methods to
assess training effectiveness. A few respondents utilized tests during training. No respondent
used follow up testing more than three months after training. In terms of what was being
measured, knowledge and attitudes topped the list for pre-testing while knowledge and behavior
topped during-testing and reaction sheets. Behavior and attitudes were the most commonly tested
attributes in testing up to three months after training. Skills were the least tested learning
outcome, which is an interesting finding given that skills at facilitating conversations about bias
143
are directly related to an individual's ability to disrupt biased behavior (Bates et al., 2019). Table
24 describes the methods used to evaluate training effectiveness.
Table 24
Evaluation of Anti-Bias Training Effectiveness
Which of the following assessment methods are used to evaluate anti-bias training in your
organization? (check all that apply)
n = 35 Checked Percent Checked Count
Reaction sheets on same day as training 42.90% 15
None of the above 25.70% 9
Testing participants before beginning training 14.30% 5
Testing participants shortly after training (up to three
months after)
14.30% 5
Other data collection (please describe). 14.30% 5
Testing participants during training 8.60% 3
Testing participants a long time after training (more
than three months after).
0.00% 0
What information are you collecting about the participants? (check all that apply)
On tests of participants before training
n = 35 Checked Percent Checked Count
Knowledge 11.40% 4
Attitudes 11.40% 4
Behavior 5.70% 2
Skills 2.90% 1
On tests of participants during training
n = 35 Checked Percent Checked Count
Knowledge 8.60% 3
Behavior 8.60% 3
Attitudes 8.60% 3
Skills 5.70% 2
144
On reaction sheets provided on the same day as the training
n = 35 Checked Percent Checked Count
Knowledge 34.30% 12
Behavior 22.90% 8
Attitudes 22.90% 8
Skills 11.40% 4
On tests of participants up to three months after training
n = 35 Checked Percent Checked Count
Behavior 8.60% 3
Attitudes 8.60% 3
Knowledge 5.70% 2
Skills 2.90% 1
On tests of participants more than three months after training
n = 35 Checked Percent Checked Count
Knowledge 0.00% 0
Skills 0.00% 0
Behavior 0.00% 0
Attitudes 0.00% 0
Interview Findings
Interviews with human resources leaders provided additional insights on how training
effectiveness was assessed. Although not mentioned in the survey, several interview participants
referenced state-mandated Equal Employment Opportunity Training as a method of determining
if hiring diversity has improved as a result of state-mandated Equal Employment Opportunity
Training for individuals serving on hiring committees.
Using reaction sheets at the conclusion of trainings was mentioned by most interview
participants as a favored evaluation technique for most, if not all, trainings. Some human
resources leaders are trying to leverage other forms of data collection to determine if the anti-
bias training provided at their institutions is yielding climate or behavior changes. Alexander,
145
who heads human resources in a large, multi-college district, is using longitudinal data on
complaints to determine if anti-bias training is impacting the campus climate. He theorizes that
when anti-bias training is working, the number of complaints may rise, as members of the
college community become more aware of what constitutes bias and the formal complaint
procedures used to investigate and remedy workplace bias. Danni, who heads human resources
in another large, multi-college district, expressed skepticism about that approach's efficacy,
believing that it is difficult to directly link complaint patterns to anti-bias training. Danni, Lynn,
and Rose saw climate surveys as an effective way to determine campus training needs and
impacts.
All interview participants described using anecdotal impressions to gauge the
effectiveness and impact of trainings. Many cited personal observation of behaviors as evidence
that anti-bias training is working as intended. As Lynn stated regarding faculty and classified
staff:
I see it in their behaviors. They may not come back and say that training was amazing,
but I see a change in behavior…They’ll use some examples or bring something up that
lets me know they were listening…And I’ve seen some people change how they treat
each other.
Moe described the effects of anti-bias training on participants as “amazing” based on
“anecdotes every once in a while” that reflect they have absorbed and retained concepts taught in
training. “I hear a lot of people say, ‘I wasn’t aware of my privilege’ or ‘I didn’t understand how
that privilege impacted my way of thinking.’” Betty knows training is working “when it becomes
part of the natural day to day dialogue” which us indicative that training has created an
“environment of awareness” of bias.
146
Anti-bias training is viewed as a staged process by many interview participants. For
example, Mary, Lynn and Alexander described the first purpose of anti-bias training as
“becoming aware” of one’s biases. They viewed the next step as being able to apply that
awareness to the workplace. Lynn shared that, after awareness, the “goal is to give everyone the
tools to recognize and then redirect and retrain that bias so that it doesn’t come out in the work
place or their personal life.” Alexander stated that the key is “building those tools—that
stamina” to actively think about how to mitigate bias. To Alexander, the end result and final step
is to “convert someone out of the passive bystander mode and into an interrupter” of bias. Or, as
Moe put it, the next step is to “identify actual barriers that we have—structural barriers to the
success of our students.” Anti-bias training leaders’ ideas about a progression of knowledge and
skills through anti-bias training is consistent with Kirkpatrick’s emphasis on training imparting
knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behavior (1994, 2006).
Three of the ten human resources leaders interviewed for the study expressed concern
about the ability of participants in training to transfer newfound awareness and knowledge into
behavior that disrupts bias in the workplace. Alexander felt that the training offered in his district
is “effective in raising awareness” but “about the effectiveness at changing behavior—I’m not
convinced.” Danni thought that an ideal training that would result in “some transferred
knowledge” and “personal transformation” would have to be “intensive” and last several days
over a period of months, a duration and intensity that is not reflective of typical training offered
at her institution. Moe pointed out that after training people come away saying, “’That’s great,
but how do I actually do this?’ Because it is really hard when you are in a situation to identify a
racist statement and know how to deal with it.”
147
Discussion
Survey data and interviews indicated that assessment methods currently employed in
Community College System fall short of best practices as defined by Kirkpatrick (1994, 2006).
Human resources leaders rely on reaction sheets and anecdotal impressions to assess training
impact. Pre- and post-testing is rare, and a quarter of respondents did not assess training
effectiveness at all. No respondent indicated the use of long-term impact testing. While some
indicated they use “other data collection” methods on the survey, interview subjects described
using climate surveys, complaint data, and state-mandated Equal Employment Opportunity
reports as additional means of determining training impact. These methods of assessing training
indicate that human resources leaders are attempting to determine training impact beyond the use
of reaction sheets, although the efforts appear to be relatively recent and not systematically
employed throughout Community College System. There continues to be a strong reliance on
anecdotal impressions of training impact. In addition, human resources leaders recognize that a
gap exists between transferring newfound knowledge and awareness of bias into workplace
behaviors that disrupt bias. Survey data indicate that there is very little assessment of the specific
skills needed to transfer knowledge of bias into anti-bias action and very little long-term follow
up to ascertain if transfer has taken place.
Research Question 5: In What Ways do External Factors and Internal Organizational
Influences Impact Human Resources Leaders’ Ability to Implement Effective Training?
Survey data and interviews revealed that external and internal factors influenced human
resources leaders’ choices about the anti-bias training offered at their institutions. External
factors include federal and state laws, community pressures and societal events, and initiatives
emerging from Community College System’s statewide office. Human resources leaders face
148
internal constraints when choosing training modalities. Constraints include leadership, funding,
organizational culture, collective bargaining organizations, time for employees to attend training,
and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Theme 1: Impact of External Factors
Survey results and interview findings indicate that external factors are powerful forces
impacting anti-bias training. Federal and state laws require colleges to offer EEO, Title IX, and
anti-sexual harassment training. Societal events such as the killing of George Floyd in May 2020
and subsequent protests also influence the timing and content of anti-bias training. Overall,
external factors influence the urgency and priorities surrounding anti-bias training in Community
College System.
Survey Results
When asked to identify the top three external influences from a list, nearly 66% of
respondents cited state law as the most important influence on anti-bias training offered at their
organization, followed by federal law (nearly 54%). Industry best practices and societal trends
were in the third and fourth slots, chosen by nearly 34% and 31% of respondents, respectively.
The state system office of Community College System, current events, the local community, and
what other colleges are doing were cited as top-three influencers by 20% or fewer respondents.
Asked which type of influence is most important in determining the anti-bias training offered by
their organization, half of the respondents deemed external and internal factors equally
important, and 10% felt that external factors were the most important factor. Table 25
summarizes the survey findings on the impact of external factors on anti-bias training.
149
Table 25
The Impact of External Factors on Anti-Bias Training
Overall, which type of influence is most important in determining the anti-bias training
offered by your organization?
n = 30 Count Percent of Data
Internal influences 12 40.00%
External influences 3 10.00%
Neither. Internal and external factors
are about equally important.
15 50.00%
Which of the following are the most important external influences on the anti-bias
training offered by your organization? Please identify the TOP THREE influences.
n = 35 Checked Count Checked Percent
State Law 23 65.70%
Federal Law 19 54.30%
Industry Best Practices 12 34.30%
Societal Trends 11 31.40%
State System Office 7 20.00%
Current Events/News Cycle 6 17.10%
Local Community 6 17.10%
What Other Colleges are Doing 5 14.30%
Other (please describe)
2
5.70%
Interview Findings
In interviews, human resources leaders discussed several external factors that impacted
anti-bias training in their institutions. These factors included state laws governing equal
opportunity hiring, federal laws governing Title IX, diversity initiatives sponsored by the
statewide college system office, industry associations, community members, and societal events,
such as the Black Lives Matter movement and protests following the death of George Floyd in
May 2020. Because state and federal laws make certain kinds of anti-bias training mandatory for
150
some or all employee groups, most interview participants’ notions of anti-bias training began
with EEO training, a compliance-related training the responsibility for which rests entirely
within human resources departments. Some human resources leaders either used materials from
the statewide diversity initiative to improve hiring diversity in Community College System. In
contrast, others served on statewide committees and workgroups that created those materials.
Danni cited the statewide initiative as helping districts “not only be thoughtful about their
approach [to diversity, equity, and inclusion], but make meaningful change.” Other human
resources leaders identified industry associations, such as the Society for Human Resources
Management, to provide best practices information on anti-bias training. Alexander and Moe
cited community interactions as an influence on their training practice. Because Alexander’s
district has a police training facility, there has been discussion from the community at board
meetings about the social issues surrounding race and equity intersect with policing, to the point
that it has become a “very hot topic” at board meetings. Moe described a community
collaborative designed to create a pipeline from kindergarten to university as an important
influence on equity training. An important galvanizing event mentioned by several leaders,
including Sam and Gladys, was the killing of George Floyd in May 2020 and the ensuing
protests centered on race and equity that provided “opportunities to have some very robust and
honest dialogue” (Gladys).
Discussion
Human resources leaders’ choices regarding anti-bias training are constrained and
influenced by several external factors. Federal and state laws mandate Title IX and EEO training.
The statewide office of Community College System spearheads diversity initiatives and provides
training and materials to reduce the impact of bias on hiring and retention of employees. Industry
151
associations support human resources leaders with training advice and materials, while societal
events and local communities interact with district leaders to determine how training can address
local concerns and needs. A key finding is that human resources leaders are not operating in a
local bubble, devoid of external influence. In many cases, such as state and federal mandated
training, the law not only tells them what to do, but how to do it. In other areas, outside actors
provide resources and pressures that shape the timing and content of anti-bias training.
Theme 2: Impact of Internal Factors
Internal factors play a critical role in the delivery of anti-bias training in Community
College System. Besides the human resources leaders themselves, the most important
stakeholders in the provision of anti-bias training are executive administration and faculty
leadership. This trio of stakeholders set the training priorities and influence campus norms and
urgency around training.
Survey Results
When asked to identify the top three internal factors influencing anti-bias training in their
organizations, 54% of human resources leaders cited human resources staff as the most important
internal influence. District and college executive leadership were in the second and third spots,
chosen in the top three by 49% and 46% of human resources leaders, respectively. Faculty
leadership was in the fourth spot, deemed a top-three influencer by 40% of human resources
leaders. Boards of trustees were deemed top-three by 31% of respondents, and their own
personal values was cited as a top influencer by 29% of human resources leaders. Classified staff
leadership was deemed important by 17% of participants and student leadership was considered
a top influence by only one participant. No participant cited the district or college foundation as a
major influence. When compared to external factors, internal influences were cited by 40% of
152
participants as the most significant influence on the anti-bias training offered by the institution.
50% of respondents felt that internal factors and external factors were of equal influence and
only 10% of respondents felt that external factors were the most important influencer. Based on
survey results, human resources leaders perceive internal factors to outweigh external factors in
influence over anti-bias training. Table 26 provides a summary of survey findings regarding the
influence of internal factors on anti-bias training.
Table 26
The Impact of Internal Factors on Anti-Bias Training
Overall, which type of influence is most important in determining the anti-bias
training offered by your organization?
n = 30 Percent of Data Count
Internal influences 40.00% 12
External influences 10.00% 3
Neither. Internal and external factors are
about equally important.
50.00% 15
Which of the following are the most important internal influences on the anti-
bias training offered by your organization? Please identify the TOP THREE
influences.
n = 35 Checked Percent Checked Count
Human Resources Staff 54.30% 19
Executive Leadership (District) 48.60% 17
Executive Leadership (College) 45.70% 16
Faculty Leadership 40.00% 14
Board of Trustees 31.40% 11
Your Own Personal Values 28.60% 10
Classified Staff Leadership 17.10% 6
Student Leadership 2.90% 1
District or College Foundation 0.00% 0
Other (please describe) 0.00% 0
153
Interview Findings
The most important internal influencers of anti-bias training that emerged from
interviews with human resources leaders were full-time faculty and executive leadership.
Executive leaders play a critical role in determining institutional priorities, allocating resources,
and setting the institution's cultural tone. Full-time faculty often play an important role in
identifying and providing professional development opportunities to faculty, which results in
human resources leaders not having full decision-making control over the timing and content of
anti-bias training provided in their institutions. The degree of shared control over the provision
of training varied, ranging from human resources leaders being in full charge of all professional
development for their institution to faculty being the dominant player with human resources
handling only the legally mandated trainings. In most cases, human resources leaders believed
that the entire institution “owns” anti-bias training and that multiple stakeholders must cooperate
in prioritizing it and choosing its scope. Moe felt that human resources controls the compliance
aspects of anti-bias training, but that “anti-bias training, anti-racism training, anti-harassment
training is a shared responsibility of all our employees… with our entire district.” Sam related
how allegations of racism in hiring and promotion of executives in her campus exploded into
hostile messaging on a campus listserve after the George Floyd killing in May 2020, leading to a
crisis of civility and acrimonious accusations of institutional bias that involved multiple
stakeholder groups across campus. Ultimately, in her view, the culture of incivility and bias was
abetted by executives and the board of trustees “not taking a leadership role” in addressing and
mitigating incivility and institutional racism. On the opposite end of the leadership support
spectrum is Danni, who praised her district chancellor and the college presidents for prioritizing
anti-bias initiatives, including providing a “healthy pot of money” to pay for training, saying
154
I am tremendously encouraged... I think for the very first time in my career the chancellor
and presidents are completely aligned…and ready to put forward resources in a very
defined effort of action to change the culture in our district. I have not seen that in my 20
years in the system.
The faculty are influential players in the provision of anti-bias training in each of the
human resources leaders’ organizations. Tenured, unionized faculty have the power at most
institutions to resist mandatory training requirements beyond those imposed by federal and state
law. In addition, at many institutions, the faculty control the provision of professional
development aimed at faculty, putting them in the position to choose the content, scope, and
timing of anti-bias training. This limits the locus of control of some human resources leaders to
legally mandated training and classified staff training. Classified staff can be required to attend
training during their workdays as long as their managers allow them to attend, but faculty cannot
be mandated to attend trainings, which by definition lie outside the scope of faculty contractual
teaching duties at most districts. At Sam’s institution, “the leaders on campus are the faculty in a
lot of ways… They have risen up and tried to create important, impactful workshops and just
been change leaders with a voice for racial equity.” Similarly, Gladys the faculty senate
“stepped up and I think that is part of the reason the most recent [anti-bias] efforts have gained
momentum." Faculty are not always supportive. For Moe, she found the administrators and the
board of trustees at her institution “very supportive” of anti-bias training but “it is primarily
faculty we’ve gotten the pushback from. There is a bit of ‘what does this mean for me’
insecurity.”
155
Discussion
Human resources leaders’ abilities to offer high quality anti-bias training to a broad group
of employees in their districts is influenced by each institution’s stakeholder groups, culture, and
practices. Executive leadership and faculty leadership loom large as influencers. Participants
reported that executive leaders determine priorities and lead by example, setting a cultural tone
that can support or hinder anti-bias initiatives. Faculty can also help or hinder colleges’ anti-bias
training efforts. Human resources leaders reported different faculty engagement levels at
different campuses, with faculty sometimes energetically spearheading anti-bias initiatives and
sometimes providing strong pushback against such initiatives. Several human resources leaders
expressed the concept that key stakeholder groups on campus—administration, faculty, and staff-
--must take ownership of and cooperate to offer high-quality anti-bias training.
Summary of Results and Findings
Anti-bias training is offered throughout the community college system, both in-person
and online. Training falls short of practices identified in the literature as associated with effective
training. Training generally also falls short of what human resources leaders deem to be effective
training, particularly in the ability of learners to transfer anti-bias knowledge into the workplace
to identify and disrupt bias when it occurs. Evaluation of training is not universal and tends to
rely on reaction-sheets rather than utilizing the full Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) array of
pre-and post-testing to determine the return on investment in training. Human resources leaders
rely in part on anecdotal evidence of the effectiveness of training. Most human resources leaders
want more training that is facilitated, reflective, and broadly attended by the campus community
but experience financial, cultural, and organizational barriers that prevent implementation of
ideal-type training. Table 27 summarizes the key findings.
156
Table 27
Summary of Results and Findings
Research
Question
Theme Finding
1 Compliance Most anti-bias training is compliance-related, but compliance-based
training is used as a vehicle to add additional anti-bias topics that go
above-and-beyond compliance.
1 Delivery Human resources leaders rely on a combination approach to anti-bias
training, blending online and in-person models, an approach that pre-
dated the COVID-19 pandemic and is likely to continue afterwards.
Although inferior to in-person, facilitated approaches to training,
online modules persist due to their convenience and wide reach.
1 Positionality Identity and positionality issues provide a lens through which human
resources leaders view anti-bias training. In all cases in which identity
issues entered the discussion, those issues fueled a passion and drive to
offer the highest quality training possible within organizational
constraints.
1 Engagement The ability of training to reach those who need it most and to reach a
sufficient number of participants to influence institutional culture and
practice around bias was a common concern among human resources
leaders.
2 Knowledge Human resources leaders tend to be knowledgeable about ideal-type
training models, and generally seek to improve quality to the extent
possible within organizations with limited resources. There are some
exemplar programs that highlight many best practices.
2 Knowledge When human resources leaders are not personally knowledgeable
about anti-bias training, they are connected with outside organizations
that can provide training ranging from brief online self-paced modules
to multi-month facilitated trainings.
3 Best
Practices
Typical anti-bias training offered in Community College System fall
short of ideal-type training in the following respects: duration,
interactivity, reflectiveness, critical and comprehensive content, and
ability to motivate widespread participation.
3 Best
Practices
Anti-bias training tends to focus on “awareness” rather than providing
participants with the ability to put awareness into action, whether that
is disrupting their own expressions of bias or that of others.
4 Evaluation Anti-bias training is not robustly evaluated in Community College
System. Methods of evaluation rely heavily on reaction sheets and
anecdote, rather than long term study of the ability to transfer
knowledge into the workplace.
4 Evaluation A promising practice emergent in Community College System is the
use of climate surveys that include questions related to diversity,
equity, and inclusion. Wider use of such surveys would allow for
157
longitudinal evaluation of peoples’ experience of bias in their
institutions.
4 Evaluation Human resources leaders are ambivalent about the impact and
effectiveness of anti-bias training. While most see the effectiveness
and impact as positive for their organizations, many expressed
concerns that training is insufficient to elicit widespread cultural and
behavioral change.
4 Evaluation Although the data are weak due to small sample sizes, the survey
findings suggest that there may be a tendency for Black and Latinx
human resources to be less satisfied with anti-bias training than White,
Asian, or Multi-racial human resources leaders. There may also be a
tendency of Latinx human resources leaders to consider training less
effective in changing behavior than non-Latinx leaders. These findings
warrant further study.
5 Influences External factors influencing anti-bias training include federal and state
laws, the state-wide system office for community colleges, and the
local community. Human resources leaders do not operate in a local
bubble when it comes to anti-bias training.
5 Influences The most important internal influences on training are executive and
faculty leadership, which together influence the institutional priorities
and culture around anti-bias training. Offering high-quality anti-bias
training requires the cooperation of these key stakeholder groups.
5 Barriers The resources of time and money are significant barriers to offering
higher quality anti-bias training to more people. Collective bargaining
organizations for faculty loom large on this issue, often preventing
training from being made mandatory and significantly raising the
potential costs of widespread, high quality training.
Conclusion
Chapter 4 summarized the research findings from a survey and interviews of human
resources leaders in Community College System about anti-bias training practices. The chapter
focused on five research questions and identified 14 themes that emerged from the data. The data
determined the nature and scope of anti-bias training in Community College System and
identified external and institutional barriers to offering training that corresponds to suggested
best practices in anti-bias training. The data also revealed both human resources leaders’
ambivalence about anti-bias training effectiveness and a desire to offer more and better anti-bias
158
training that is widely attended. The next chapter, Chapter 5, presents evidence-based
recommendations for each of the 14 themes identified in Chapter 4, identifies limitations and
delimitations of the study, and suggests avenues for further research.
159
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion
This chapter provides an overview of findings related to Community College System’s
capacity to implement anti-bias training that is consistent with the social justice education (SJE)
training model. The SJE model contains ten elements that research suggests are best or
promising practices for anti-bias training that can change individual behavior both inside and
outside organizations. A survey and interviews yielded four broad findings centered on practice,
leader characteristics, internal influences on training, and external influences on training. Four
recommendations for practice emerge from the findings and are discussed below.
Recommendations are informed by a gap analysis model that considers knowledge, motivational,
organizational, and external influences on human resources leaders’ ability to deliver high
quality anti-bias training at scale in their institutions. The chapter closes with a discussion of
limitations, delimitations, and suggestions for future research.
Discussion of Findings and Results
Through a survey and interviews with human resources leaders in Community College
System, the present study highlights several key findings in four broad areas. The first area,
practice, design, and evaluation, addresses the results of a survey of training practices, compares
those practices to the best-practices SJE model, and delves into evaluation methods currently
employed in Community College System. The second set of findings focuses on human
resources leader characteristics such as their knowledge about anti-bias training, their
perceptions of the effectiveness of anti-bias training, and the impact of their own identities and
positionalities on their delivery of and beliefs about anti-bias training. The third set of findings
focuses on internal, organizational influences on training, including levels of overall campus
engagement with training, the impact of institutional culture and structure on training, the role of
160
organizational leadership on the effective delivery of anti-bias training, and the impact of
collective bargaining organizations on anti-bias training. The fourth set of findings focuses on
external influences on anti-bias training, including the compliance framework for training, and
the influence of society and community on training.
Design, Practice, and Evaluation
The present study is the first systematic review of anti-bias training practices in
Community College System. A survey and interviews provided a rich trove of information on
instructional design and evaluation. Instructional design addresses the topics, scope, breadth, and
duration of anti-bias training and whether the training is facilitated and in-person (including live
online) or self-paced (asynchronous online) (Adams & Bell, 2016; Barley, 2012; Buhin & Vera,
2009; Devine et al., 2012; Rogers, 2002; Webster-Wright, 2009; Wilson, 2008). Evaluation
addresses how human resources leaders assess the impact and effectiveness of anti-bias training,
including whether learning outcomes are clearly defined and measured (Adams & Bell, 2016).
Social Justice Education Design
The survey and interviews yielded information regarding current anti-bias training
practices that enabled the researcher to compare current practices with the SJE model of anti-bias
training as well as research literature on individual, group, and environmental factors that
influence learning. Themes emerged from the literature suggesting that effective anti-bias
training is associated with eight design characteristics. Anti-bias training is most effective with
an experienced facilitator, who can ensure a safe space for learning and adjust content based on
an interactive relationship with the learner (Adams & Bell, 2016; Beard, 2015; Devine et al.,
2012; Knowles, 1990). According to survey results, about 83% of anti-bias training in
Community College System is facilitated.
161
Effective anti-bias training allows time for self-reflection and effective practice (Adams
& Bell, 2016; Barley, 2012; Buhin & Vera, 2009; Devine et al., 2012; Rogers, 2002; Webster-
Wright, 2009; Wilson, 2008). Furthermore, training should take place over at least three months,
to provide sufficient time for reflection, reinforcement, and practice (Adams & Bell, 2016;
Devine et al., 2012). According to the survey results, anti-bias training in community college
system typically takes place in short sessions lasting only between one and three hours. Human
resources leaders reported that training may raise “awareness” of biases, but that participants
leave the training not knowing how to practice that awareness in the workplace to disrupt their
own or others’ biases.
Effective anti-bias training is motivational in that social rewards and incentives are
imbedded in the training (Devine et al., 2012; Dobbin & Kalev, 2016; Kulik & Roberson, 2008).
The learner should view training as important, meaningful, and relevant (Dobbin & Kalev, 2016;
Goldstein et al., 2018; Knowles, 1990; Wright, 2009). Human resources leaders reported that
participation in and engagement with anti-bias training tends to be low on their campuses and
identified bringing even basic bias awareness training to all employees as a challenge.
Motivating a large number of faculty to attend training was cited as a particular challenge. Two
factors emerged as salient for understanding the difficulties of scaling anti-bias training to all
faculty: overcoming time, resource, and collective bargaining hurdles and overcoming attitudinal
resistance, including fear of anti-bias training. These factors are discussed in more detail in the
next section.
Anti-bias training should be “critical” by including the study of systems of oppression,
dominance, subordination, and privilege (Adams & Bell, 2016; Buhin & Vera, 2009). Training
should also cover a comprehensive array of implicit and explicit biases (Adams & Bell, 2016).
162
The most effective training may incorporate interaction among and across identity groups
(Fujimoto & Härtel, 2017; Gaertner et al., 2000; Hewstone et al., 2002; McKay 2018; Monroe et
al, 2000). According to survey results and interviews, basic awareness of implicit and explicit
biases is the primary goal of anti-bias training in Community College System. Covering critical
theoretical topics is included in only a small minority of trainings in the institutions surveyed.
Survey findings indicate the most anti-bias trainings in Community College System do not
include group work. Furthermore, because participation in and engagement with training tends to
be low, and because trainings tend to be of short duration, effective interaction among and across
identity groups is unlikely to be occurring systematically in Community College System anti-
bias training.
Evaluation Methods
The present study revealed that anti-bias training assessment falls short of best practices.
Kirkpatrick (1994, 2006) urged trainers to conduct a four-step evaluation procedure that includes
assessing reactions to training, measuring learning from training via pre- and post-testing,
determining the degree to which knowledge is transferred into the work environment, and results
for the organization in terms of measurable improvements. Survey results and findings from
interviews indicate that most anti-bias training is conducted using reaction sheets and anecdotal
impressions of training effectiveness. Clark and Estes (2008) observed that reaction sheets
measure what people like but not necessarily what makes them perform better. Adams and Bell
(2016) advocated including pre- and post-assessments in SJE training. Pre-assessments enable
the facilitator to adjust the curriculum based on student characteristics and needs and also
provide a baseline from which to measure learning. Post-assessments measure what was learned.
Survey data indicate that about a quarter of colleges used no assessments of anti-bias training
163
and only five colleges engaged in pre- or post-assessment. However, interviews with human
resources leaders revealed that some colleges are integrating climate surveys and other forms of
longitudinal data on campus climate which are promising practices for providing a more fulsome
picture of bias on college campuses. Such broader data, though, are not a substitute for assessing
whether learning transfer is occurring in specific instances of anti-bias training.
Leader Knowledge, Positionality, and Perceptions
The survey and interviews yielded information on leader knowledge and perceptions
about anti-bias training. Leaders were, for the most part, knowledgeable about some of the key
characteristics of effective anti-bias training. The data indicated that leaders’ lived experiences
and positionality impacted their favorable or unfavorable perceptions of anti-bias training.
Leader Knowledge
The human resources leaders who participated in this study, particularly those
interviewed, had various levels of knowledge and experience with high-quality anti-bias training,
although all had reasonably accurate notions about how to make training better. Specifically,
they were aware that the best training is facilitated by a skilled trainer, that ideally training is
tailored to audience or learner needs, and that authentic learning takes place when trainings are
of longer duration. They also were aware that current practices seem inadequate to the task of
actually producing learning transfer, which means that most participants in anti-bias training
leave the training with, at best, “awareness” of bias, but without confidence that they would be
able to disrupt bias in themselves or others in a real-life workplace scenario.
Leader Positionality and Perceptions
Survey results and interview findings suggest that the lived experiences and positionality
of human resources leaders may influence their perceptions of and attitudes towards anti-bias
164
training (Nixon, 2017; Sanchez et al., 2020). Survey data indicated a possible tendency of Latinx
human resources leaders to find anti-bias training ineffective and to have less overall satisfaction
with anti-bias training at their institutions, a finding that warrants future investigation with a
larger sample size. Interviews yielded additional insight into how lived experiences and
positionality influence perceptions of anti-bias training. As a group, the interview participants
represented a diverse array of identities and experiences, including living in poverty; being a
single parent; being the first in their family to attend college; identifying as LBTQIA+, Black,
Latinx, or White; identifying as female; having family members with disabilities or substance
abuse issues; and having had specific experiences of feeling like they were treated as “other.”
Most of the participants in the interviews were passionate about anti-bias training and expressed
a desire to align their institutions training practices more closely to best practices. Of particular
note was their desire to lengthen training, make it more reflective, and include more inter-group
interaction into training. At the same time, however, the leaders expressed ambivalence about
anti-bias training as it is currently practiced. One direction of ambivalence was general
skepticism that current training does much more than raise awareness of bias coupled with the
belief that offering better training may not be possible due to time, resource, and engagement
constraints (discussed in more detail in the next section). Another area of ambivalence, expressed
by a few human resources leaders who were White females was that anti-bias training may be
overly focused on race. One leader pointed to the comparative invisibility of other groups who
may also experience bias such as students with disabilities and first-generation students. Two
leaders expressed concern that the “current climate” around race is leading to polarization that
elicits
165
Internal Influences on Training
Two clusters of internal influences are discussed below. The first influence cluster
focuses on the roles of key organizational stakeholders and their influence on institutional culture
surrounding anti-bias training. The second influence cluster focuses on participation in and
engagement with anti-bias training.
Organizational Stakeholders and Culture
As noted by Alves et al. (2010), stakeholder importance hinges on the degree of power,
legitimacy, and urgency possessed by the stakeholder. In the present study, faculty and college
executive leadership emerged as two stakeholders whose opinions and influence mattered in the
delivery of anti-bias training in their institutions. In one notable case, a human resources leader
expressed dismay that college leadership did not prioritize anti-bias training and, in fact, allowed
an institutional culture of distrust and retribution to flourish. Leadership in that instance created a
crisis of legitimacy and urgency, while still holding the power to control resources. Fortunately,
in most cases leaders reported generally supportive college executive administrators, who use
their power and legitimacy foster anti-bias training. Of particular note is the role of faculty
leadership in the provision of training. Community College System affords tenured faculty a high
level of power and legitimacy via shared governance. In many of the institutions included in this
study, faculty senates and faculty professional development leaders play a lead or strong partner
role in the provision of anti-bias training. During interviews human resources leaders conveyed
finding it necessary to forge a strong collaborative bond with faculty professional development
leaders, who can both put brakes on offering certain types of training and marshal energy and
urgency around anti-bias training. This is particularly important for offering training that goes
over and above compliance-related topics. While human resources leaders readily acknowledged
166
that they are primarily responsible for compliance-related training, they also were quick to point
out that anti-bias training is an institution-wide responsibility, with multiple stakeholders and
institutional arenas in which training can and should take place.
Training Reach and Engagement
A key finding in the present study is that human resources leaders are concerned about
the inability to offer training to all members of the college workforce, especially faculty. Faculty
workload and pay are collectively bargained, and anti-bias training is typically not included in
the definition of faculty workload. Therefore, if faculty are to attend training that goes over and
above legal compliance topics, they do so voluntarily. Human resources leaders repeatedly
expressed the opinion that those who see value in the training, attend, and those who do not see
value in the training do not. Yet, according several interview participants, those who typically
shun training may be those who need it the most. As Gladys put it, “there are some people who
just don’t believe that there is prejudice and that there are biases… The people who believe in it,
they’re the ones who show up… You’re preaching to the choir.” Moe observed that push back
against training is a “big challenge” with employees wondering what anti-bias training “means
for white folks.” In interviews, human resources leaders pondered ways to make training
mandatory and acknowledged that short of a state law making anti-bias training mandatory, it
would be unlikely to happen given the power of faculty unions.
While the influence of unions on how time and money are allocated is clearly important,
the attitudes of faculty toward anti-bias training also play a role in engagement with and
participation in anti-bias training. Adult learning theory posits that student motivation is
integrally connected to the personal relevance of the learning experience (Henson, 2003;
167
Merriam & Bierema, 2013). Human resources leaders reported that employees may disagree with
the need for anti-bias training or be fearful of experiencing discomfort in training.
One of the key findings in the study is that part-time faculty are one of the least likely
groups to receive anti-bias training. This is consistent with results of a national study conducted
by the Center for Community College Student Engagement (CCCSE, 2014) that noted that part
time faculty tend have inconsistent, limited, or unclear access to professional development. The
conceptual framework that guides this study posits that successfully addressing bias (through
training) improves campus climate, which in turn improves student success outcomes. Given the
fact that nearly 60% of community college classes nationwide are taught by part time instructors
(CCCSE, 2014), leaving this group out of anti-bias training is an omission with potentially
serious impacts on campus climate and student success.
Engagement with and participation in training is a challenge in Community College
System. Overcoming reach and engagement challenges will require addressing both power and
motivation. Reach can be extended by tackling time and resource constraints and successfully
engaging with collective bargaining organizations. Engagement challenges are rooted in
motivation, and can be addressed in a variety of ways, including improving the personal
relevancy of training content. But, as one human resources leader put it, for some organizations,
nothing short of a bias-related crisis will inspire a sufficient sense of urgency to elicit widespread
voluntary participation in anti-bias training.
External Influences on Training
Two domains of external influence on anti-bias training are explored in this section. The
first is the important role of state and federal laws, which create a compliance framework for
168
anti-bias training. The second are the influences of societal events and local communities on
anti-bias training practice and delivery.
Compliance Framework
In interviews, human resources leaders reported that they utilized federal Title IX and
state sexual harassment and equal opportunity rules as vehicles to deliver anti-bias training that
goes over and above minimum requirements. Many leaders view mandatory training as a means
of extending the reach of anti-bias training to more individuals. As noted above, time, resources,
and collective bargaining agreements make it difficult to deliver high-quality anti-bias training
at-scale to all employees. Based on the practice of using current mandates to extend anti-bias
training, some human resources leaders expressed a wish that the state would pass a law that
requires that employees undergo anti-bias training that covers topics such as implicit or
unconscious bias.
Society and Community Influence
This study’s data clearly point to external events influencing internal practice in
Community College System. Most of the leaders interviewed referenced either directly or
indirectly the protests following the May 2020 killing of George Floyd as an event that
galvanized interest in providing anti-bias training in their institutions. In many cases, they
mentioned faculty playing a leading role in signaling the urgency to address topics of societal
concern and, through shared governance, work with administration both in and outside of human
resources to bring anti-bias training and speakers to their campuses. Human resources leaders
tended to see the colleges as playing an important role serving underrepresented groups in their
local communities and saw anti-bias training as responsibility of colleges to better serve their
local communities.
169
Recommendations for Practice
This section presents four recommendations for improving practice surrounding anti-bias
training in Community College System. The first focuses on recognizing and providing excellent
anti-bias training as the only way to guarantee return on investment in training. The second
focuses on consistently and robustly evaluating training, campus climate, and student success.
The third addresses implementing adaptive leadership strategies to successfully navigate culture
change around anti-bias training and behaviors. The fourth provides recommended strategies for
overcoming resource, institutional, and motivational barriers to participation in and engagement
with anti-bias training.
Recognize Effective Training
Human resources leaders who participated in this study were already aware of many of
the components of effective training, but it is not clear from this study that they are versed in all
of those components. Furthermore, resource and time constraints motivate and incentivize
leaders to choose sub-optimal training tools, such as self-paced, online modules or to rely on
currently developed, familiar materials that may fall short of ideal. An important step in
providing effective anti-bias training is to recognize what components need to be present in
training so that learning transfer takes place. A person who has undergone training should be
able to utilize the lessons learned to recognize and disrupt their own and others’ biases as they
manifest in the real world. Referencing a clear, concise rubric for evaluating training based on
the ten characteristics outlined in this study would aid leaders in choosing training more likely to
yield a positive return on investment. Rubrics contain three elements: evaluative criteria, quality
definitions, and a scoring method (Dawson, 2017). They enhance learning and performance by
decreasing task avoidance (Panadero & Romero, 2014) and may reduce cognitive load (Zhang et
170
al., 2019). A sample rubric that addresses both effective anti-bias instructional design and college
supports for anti-bias training is provided in Appendix E. This rubric can be used by college
leaders to evaluate and select high-quality anti-bias training and to provide appropriate
institutional supports for training. Institutional supports include robust evaluation and creating a
sense of urgency around training, discussed in the next two sections.
Improve Evaluation Practices
In order to improve evaluation practices, colleges can benefit from the use of robust
methods to collect data on anti-bias training and on campus climate related to bias. For anti-bias
training, following the four-step assessment practice elucidated by Kirkpatrick (1994, 2006) is a
recommended best practice. The four-step method involves assessing reactions to training,
measuring learning from training via pre- and post-testing, and determining the degree to which
knowledge is transferred into the work environment via testing and data collection months after
training is complete.
To accompany training, colleges can institute a comprehensive approach to assessing
campus climate related to bias. Such an approach could encompass both self-assessment,
longitudinal analysis of campus climate via regular surveys, and accessible and visible data on
student success and equity indicators. One self-assessment tool used by community colleges is
the Equity Scorecard, a five-part rubric for guiding practitioner inquiry and motivating change by
making visible institutional inequities that impact student success (Bensimon et al., 2016). The
National Assessment of Collegiate Campus Climates conducted by the University of Southern
California’s Race and Equity Center is one example of a survey instrument used to measure
equity and inclusion on higher education campuses in the United States. Another survey
171
instrument used by community colleges is Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium (HEDS)
Diversity and Equity Campus Climate Survey.
Practice Adaptive Leadership
Ultimately, implementing effective anti-bias training is about attempting to execute a
cultural change in Community College System, what Heifetz et al. (2009) consider an adaptive
challenge requiring adaptive leadership skills. Participants reported campuses with cultures
replete with fear and distrust of anti-bias training and noted the difficulty of delivering effective
training to those employees who may need it the most. As human resources leaders pointed out
in interviews, the very individuals in the system who are most resistant to training cannot be
forced to take it. If they are made to sit in a room for training, such individuals “sit in the back”
(Gladys) and cannot be forced to engage and learn. It is a double challenge. The campus
stakeholders who are most fearful of and resistant to anti-bias training—who believe that bias
and prejudice “are not a problem” (Gladys) or are afraid for what it means for "white folks”
(Moe)—arguably the ones that need effective training the most—are the least likely to benefit
from any training that is offered. Whether the interest in anti-bias training is strong or weak,
those most likely to experience anti-bias training and benefit from it are those already interested
in it (a phenomenon already noted by researchers such as Devine et al., 2012).
Providing high-quality anti-bias training to all campus employees is one component of
Community College System’s bigger mission to produce equitable opportunities and outcomes
for all students. Determining how to overcome both institutional and cultural barriers to
providing effective anti-bias training meets Heifetz et al.’s (2009) definition of an adaptive
challenge. Heifetz et al. (2009) argued that an adaptive challenge is distinct from a technical
challenge. Technical challenges have clearly defined problems, clear solutions, and can be
172
solved with reference to authoritative work procedures. An adaptive challenge requires learning
to even understand the problem, requires learning to develop a solution, and requires the
cooperation of many stakeholder to implement solutions. The problem of practice that anti-bias
training is centered on, inequitable student experiences and outcomes, requires institutional
learning. The solution set, which includes anti-bias training, requires learning. The locus of work
involves multiple stakeholders on campus, including human resources leaders, faculty, and
campus executives. Ultimately, moving an institution through adaptive change requires leaders
who have the will and skills to move the organization into a state of “productive disequilibrium”
(Heifetz et al. 2009, p. 18). In this state, leaders engage in observation, interpretation, and
intervention in an iterative process designed to “disappoint people without pushing them
completely over the edge” (Heifetz et al., 2009, p. 14).
Each of the colleges and districts in Community College System has a unique “bias
culture,” a set of values, attitudes and behaviors surrounding both anti-bias training and the
expressions of bias in the workplace. Disrupting bias means disrupting the culture. According to
Burke (2018), a leader does not disrupt the culture directly by focusing on values, but instead
must identify, foster, and reward behaviors that lead to the desired results. Clark and Estes
(2008) recommended adopting a clear vision and goals, identifying progress measures, aligning
organizational structures and processes to meet goals, communicating with all stakeholder
groups constantly, and providing adequate knowledge, skills and motivational support to
implement the change. Providing high-quality anti-bias training to as many employees as
possible, especially faculty, is consistent with Clark and Estes’ advice and an important tool in
providing the knowledge and skills needed to reduce bias on campus. Another important
recommendation of Clark and Estes (2008) is to sequence or chunk change into smaller parts if
173
resistance is encountered. Thus, leaders should carefully assess their bias cultures, follow
Burke’s (2018) and Heifetz et al.’s (2009) advice to observe, interpret, and intervene iteratively,
and focus on behavior that works with an experimental mindset. Leaders should deliver high-
quality anti-bias training to as many stakeholders as possible, slowly moving the needle on
behavior (and culture) on training at a time. At the same time, leaders should insist that anti-bias
training that is offered be of high-quality, engage in robust measurement and evaluation of the
effectiveness and outcomes of each training, and couple training assessment with longitudinal
studies of student equity and success and campus climate.
Address Both Institutional and Motivational Barriers
The present study identified two primary resource barriers and one institutional barrier to
providing high quality anti-bias training to all employees: time, money, and collective bargaining
organizations. With high-quality training, robust evaluation, and adaptive leadership in place, the
key institutional elements are in alignment to address these barriers to providing effective anti-
bias training to all employees. Administrators and classified employees can be required to attend
anti-bias training with the only barrier being the institutional will to mandate training. Executive
leadership can require administrators to attend training if they value it as an institutional priority.
Classified staff can be required to attend training during paid work hours, as long as their
supervisors are willing to prioritize anti-bias training over other duties. Faculty are the only
group that cannot be required to attend training. This leaves leaders with two avenues: remove
the institutional barriers or go around them.
Removing the institutional barriers would require negotiating mandated anti-bias training
into collective bargaining agreements, turning anti-bias training into a paid, contractual
obligation for faculty. Several human resources leaders interviewed for this study did not deem
174
negotiating paid mandates a reasonable short-term solution in their institutional settings, but one
college had successfully utilized this approach. Another approach is to negotiate pay for
attending training, thereby providing an additional incentive and motivation to voluntarily attend
training. One college in the study negotiated the right of faculty to use anti-bias training for
continuing education credit that could assist with moving faculty participants into a higher salary
placement. The shortcoming of the latter approach is that motivational research has found that
higher order tasks such as anti-bias training are best incentivized with intrinsic rather than
extrinsic rewards (Cho & Perry, 2012; Deci et al., 2001).
Going around the institutional barrier of union contracts is another option for leaders, and
involves leveraging forms of external and intrinsic motivation to attend anti-bias training. If
faculty cannot be paid or mandated to attend training via formal agreement, the administration
may use more flexible methods to externally incentive employee attendance. College leadership
can practice the observe, interpret, intervene cycle (Heifetz et al., 2009) on a package of extrinsic
rewards, such as grant-funded stipend pay and achievement recognition.
Intrinsic motivation can also be elicited by appealing to values and interests.
Harackiewicz and Knogler (2018) argued that interests in a learning task (such as anti-bias
training) goes through phases that can be triggered or disrupted by external actors. The phases of
interest in a learning task begin situationally and then move into individual, personal interest.
Thus, interventions designed to motivate interest and participation in anti-bias training should
employ two strategies. The first is to leverage any existing individual interest in the topic. This
strategy would be addressed by providing high-quality anti-bias training to those already
interested in bias and willing to participate. The second strategy is to leverage situational interest.
Situational interest can be triggered by addressing expectancy value (confidence) and utility
175
value (perceived relevance and usefulness of the knowledge gained). As previously noted, some
employees choose not to attend anti-bias training because they are not confident in their ability to
confront bias. Attending anti-bias training puts them in a situation in which they may feel
threatened, guilty or inadequate. Expectancy value can be improved by offering well-conducted,
facilitated trainings to the groups who are already individually interested in the topic. A well-
facilitated training should lead to positive anecdotal accounts that convey to others that the
training environment is a safe space for everyone. Providing high-quality training should also
address the utility value of training. As already noted, research (Dobbin & Kalev, 2016;
Goldstein et al., 2018; Knowles, 1990; Wright, 2009) strongly suggests that anti-bias training be
structured in such a way that the learner feels it is relevant and valuable to their everyday life.
One way to convey training relevance is to combine training with data collection and analysis.
Robust data on campus climate that demonstrates that bias persists and is associated with
negative student outcomes is an important tool to illustrate that anti-bias training is relevant to
institutional, mission-specific performance outcomes. Leadership can create a sense of urgency
(Kotter, 1996; Kotter 2007) surrounding such data that can serve as a utility value motivator for
voluntary training participation.
Integrated Recommendations
The present study has found that anti-bias training in community college system falls
short of best practices. The anti-bias training design fails to include most of the recommended
best practices for effective social justice education. Most colleges are not practicing
comprehensive evaluation of anti-bias training and therefore do not know if they are receiving a
return on investment for anti-bias training. Colleges are relying on hunches and anecdotal
evidence to affirm that they are helping to reduce bias on campus, but they have no systematic
176
evaluation of training and thus do not know that their practices are actually effective in
disrupting bias. Although there are some exceptions, typically those who attend anti-bias training
leave without the skills needed to disrupt bias in a real-world setting. A large number of faculty,
especially part-time faculty, are left out of training entirely, and therefore do not get the benefit
of the “awareness” that is the assumed outcome of most current training. Human resources
leaders are frustrated that institutional barriers of time, money, culture, and collective bargaining
make it difficult or impossible to bring high-quality training to all college employees.
Anti-bias training is a foundational element to promoting an equity-minded culture in
higher education (McNair et al., 2020). Effective anti-bias training provides not only an
awareness of biases and their manifestations, but skills in recognizing and disrupting bias in real-
world settings (Carter et al., 2020). Although further study is needed to measure the impact of
anti-bias training on behavior (Smith & Percy, 2019; Paluck et al., 2021), disrupting the
expressions of individual and institutional biases may reduce the expressions of bias such as
microaggressions (Williams et al., 2020; Kanter et al., 2020), that hinder students from
traditionally underrepresented groups from reaching their educational goals. Overcoming barriers
to providing high-quality anti-bias training to a critical mass of college personnel is central to the
community college mission of providing equity in student outcomes.
Changing the campus climate around bias is a culture change that requires adaptive
leadership skills. The adaptive leader brings an organization into a “productive zone of
disequilibrium” after observing, interpreting, and intervening (Heifetz et al., 2009, p. 18).
College leaders can collect and interpret information documenting equity gaps and campus
climate and intervene by introducing high-quality anti-bias training to selected groups of
motivated participants. Focusing on “behavior” change rather than directly on culture (Burke,
177
2018), colleges can begin to improve campus climate around bias. Leaders can leverage intrinsic
motivation to participate by sharing a vision of a more inclusive college, closing equity gaps, and
improving student outcomes. Utilizing data from their own institutions, leaders can craft a
compelling narrative (Denning, 2005) about the student experience of bias and convey a sense of
urgency around a vision of change that can improve student outcomes (Kotter, 1996; Kotter
2007). Starting with a guiding coalition of key stakeholders that includes faculty, college leaders
can create short-term success (Kotter, 1996; Kotter, 2007) by delivering high quality training to
groups of faculty, staff, and administrators who are willing and motivated. Spending political
capital on efforts to make anti-bias training mandatory is not recommended. Mandatory training
may trigger blind, political, or ideological resistance (Burke, 2018) and reports by human
resources leader in this study confirm that ideological and fear reactions towards anti-bias
training are present on college campuses. Using groups of employees who have successfully
completed high-quality anti-bias training and have integrated the new learning into their specific
workplaces and roles as models, college leaders can elicit renewal without imposing it (Beer et
al., 1990).
To assist leaders in choosing high-quality anti-bias training, the researcher created a
rubric, which is provided in Appendix E. Rubrics enhance learning and performance by
decreasing task avoidance (Panadero & Romero, 2014) and may reduce cognitive load (Zhang et
al., 2019). This rubric enables leaders to evaluate anti-bias training design on eight dimensions of
effective social justice education. By providing a guide to evaluate training quality, leaders can
more effectively deploy institutional resources on impactful training. The rubric also addresses
two dimensions that are under the college domain. Motivation, addressed above, is the sense of
178
urgency and support for anti-bias training on campus. Measurement is the willingness of the
college to utilize a robust system of assessment to determine if anti-bias training is effective.
Guided by a vision for an equity-minded campus culture, the stakeholder trio of human
resources leaders, executive administration, and faculty leadership can work together to bring
effective anti-bias training to a coalition of the willing. The graduates of these training programs
will not only be aware of biases, but skilled at disrupting bias in real-world settings in
Community College System. In this manner, colleges can move the needle of culture change, one
training at a time.
Limitations and Delimitations
Study limitations are constraints rooted in methodology and design that are out of the
control of the researcher (Simon & Goes, 2013). Each data collection method used in the study
presents potential limitations. It is the nature of surveys to limit response categories and some
respondents may have felt that the response categories did not reflect their experiences and
perspectives. The researcher addressed this potential limitation by including some open-ended
questions in the survey. About half of the target stakeholder group, 35 out of 72 human resources
leaders in Community College System, chose not to respond to the survey, leading to potential
non-response biases that present challenges to the generalizability of the findings. Interviews
were constrained by the willingness of human resources leaders to participate, which introduced
potential response bias into the interviews. Fifteen human resources leaders volunteered to be
interviewed and the researcher randomly selected 10 to participate. Given the small size of the
participant group and the voluntary nature of their participation, it is unclear if their perceptions
of anti-bias training can be generalized to the remaining population of leaders. Both in surveys
and interviews, respondents may have been influenced by social desirability bias, which may
179
have motivated them to alter responses so that they appear more favorably to the interviewer
(Robinson & Leonard, 2019). The researcher maintained anonymity for the survey, which is an
important tool for encouraging honest responses. In addition, the survey used a wide range of
fixed responses, a strategy that tends to reduce the impact of social desirability bias (Robinson &
Leonard, 2019). Document analysis of anti-bias training protocols was constrained by the
availability of training and evaluation materials, some of which were only accessible online to
employees of specific colleges. As an organizational outsider, the researcher relied on publically
available information from college websites.
Study delimitations are the boundaries and scope of the study rooted in choices made by
the researcher (Simon & Goes, 2013). The researcher chose to focus on anti-bias training in a
single, large community college system in the United States. Because college systems operate in
all fifty states, each with their own legal context and unique systemic features, the study findings
are not generalizable to other college systems or even to other similarly sized college systems.
However, the findings may help inform future research on anti-bias training in other systems of
higher education. The study focused on only three elements of a broader conceptual framework
that includes campus climate and student success. Further research is needed to identify linkages
between student experiences of bias and persistence and other college success behaviors in
specific college settings. Likewise, further research is needed on the overall salience of bias
within the concept of campus climate, both generally and in specific college settings. Finally, the
study focuses on choices surrounding anti-bias training and the nature and type of training
offered on college campuses and how that training compares with best practices. More research
is needed on the costs to colleges of current training practices compared with best practices,
180
especially in regards to equity- and student success-focused performance-based funding models
currently employed in many college systems.
Recommendations for Future Research
Due to the limitations described above, anti-bias training in Community College System
would benefit from an expanded study with more interviews with more human resources leaders
to better determine the breadth and scope of attitudes toward training and training practices. One
of the key findings of this study was that evaluation practices for anti-bias training depart from
best practices. A more thorough and systematic analysis of the evaluation protocols used in
Community College System would contribute to a more nuanced understanding of current
practices, identifying areas where improvement is needed, and providing additional insight into
the scope and extent of exemplary practices. For example, a number of colleges are now using
climate surveys to provide baseline data on bias, diversity, inclusion, and equity on their
campuses. A study of this nascent practice would provide insight into both training evaluation
practices and data on the campus climate element of the conceptual framework for the present
study.
The present study focused on the perspective of human resources leaders, but the study
also found that human resources leaders work with other stakeholders, such as faculty and
college executives, to implement anti-bias training. More research is needed to understand the
perspectives of different stakeholder groups toward anti-bias training and how that perspective
translates into action or inaction in regards to providing effective training. Another potential
avenue for research would be to study the impacts of identity and positionality on the effective
delivery of anti-bias training from the perspective of different stakeholder groups, including
administrators, faculty, and classified staff. Organizational structure and culture were found to
181
influence the delivery of anti-bias training from the perspective of human resources leaders.
More study is needed to understand how cultures and divisions of power within colleges and
college districts impact the content and delivery of anti-bias training, with special attention paid
to the faculty role and levels of organizational trust.
The present study found that outside events, both local and national, influence anti-bias
training on college campuses. An interesting avenue for future research would be to study the
nexus of external events and social movements (such as the Black Lives Matter movement and
the killing of George Floyd in May 2020) with internal policy decisions at colleges, with specific
focus on the structures and stakeholders most critical for this influence to penetrate college
policies and practices. Finally, and most importantly, this study found that the content and scope
of anti-bias training tends to be limited to the point that the training is not likely to yield
behavioral changes in the workplace. A deeper review of anti-bias training content, including a
systematic study of lesson plans in both facilitated and online modules would contribute to our
understanding of current practice. Further development and testing of the data-informed best-
practices rubric (Appendix E) for gauging anti-bias training quality would be a worthwhile
endeavor that could assist college leaders in selecting impactful trainings for their communities.
Considerations for Equity
The USC Rossier School of Education adopted an equity-centered mission statement in
November 2017 (USC Rossier, 2017). The present study embraces the core values of that
statement by identifying ways that Community College System can improve campus climate and
student outcomes by effectively addressing biases through training, adaptive leadership, and
comprehensive data collection. This study contributes to understanding the current anti-bias
training landscape in a large community college system and the attitudes and perceptions of top
182
human resources leaders toward anti-bias training. This constitutes an important first step in
addressing the persistence of biased behavior in community colleges, a behavior that perpetuates
“disparities that affect historically marginalized groups” (USC Rossier, 2017, n. p.). The
persistence of campus bias and its impact on student educational outcomes epitomizes what the
mission statement refers to as a “most intractable” educational problem (USC Rossier, 2017, n.
p.). The current study provides campus leaders with a data-informed compendium and rubric of
10 promising practices for effective anti-bias training design. It is hoped that the present analysis
of anti-bias training shortcomings, and the recommendations for addressing those shortcomings,
will assist community college leaders in effectively leading changes that will disrupt bias on their
campuses. By more effectively disrupting bias, campuses will improve the educational outcomes
for historically marginalized groups, a core goal of the Rossier mission.
Conclusion
This exploratory study was informed by a gap analysis model that considered knowledge,
motivational, organizational, and external influences on human resources leaders’ ability to
deliver high quality anti-bias training at scale in their institutions. The study found both positive
and concerning information about anti-bias training in Community College System. On a
positive note, the majority of training seems to be conducted in-person and is facilitated by a
trainer, a recommended best practice for anti-bias training. Human resources leaders seem to be
generally enthusiastic about improving the quality of anti-bias training in their colleges or
districts. An additional finding is that human resources leaders generally are familiar with many
of the key elements considered best practices in anti-bias training. Thus, some foundational
knowledge and motivational elements are in place for effective training delivery in Community
College System.
183
Of concern are organizational and resource barriers to delivering effective training that
the study surfaced. The study found that training content, reach, and evaluation fall short of best
practices, shortcomings rooted in a combination of knowledge, resource, and cultural barriers.
the current training offered in Community College System falls short of best practices in several
respects, including time spent in training, opportunities for reflection and community during
training, and training content that provides practical and relevant skills-building for disrupting
bias. Human resources leaders communicated a worry that participants leave training without the
skills to effectively disrupt bias on their campuses. Training evaluation, when it occurs, tends to
be insufficient to determine if training is actually impactful in changing biased attitudes and
behaviors. Human resources leaders expressed concern about not being able to deliver training to
the entire campus community, and typically part-time faculty are the most likely to be left out of
anti-bias training. Finally, leaders reported that a number of structural and institutional barriers
exist that can make providing high-quality anti-bias training to a large number of people difficult
for human resources leaders in Community College System. These include working with
challenging internal cultures at specific colleges, working with collective bargaining
organizations, creating productive relationships with internal stakeholders, and finding ways to
overcome the hurdles of time and money to deliver high-quality anti-bias training.
To address these problems, the study provided a compendium and rubric of 10 promising
practices for effective anti-bias training that community college leaders can utilize to improve
the pedagogical quality of anti-bias training and the quality of campus evaluation of and support
for anti-bias training. It is hoped that change leaders in Community College System will find
these tools useful for navigating the complex and sometimes confusing array of competing
training approaches, helping them more confidently invest in quality training that, ultimately,
184
will improve campus climates and student outcomes. Closing equity and achievement gaps for
historically underrepresented groups of students is the ultimate return on investment for quality
training.
185
References
Adams, M., & Bell, L. A. (2016). Teaching for diversity and social justice. Routledge, Taylor &
Francis.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
Altheide, D., & Schneider, C. (2013). Qualitative media analysis. Sage
Alves, H., Mainardes, E. W., & Raposo, M. (2010). A relationship approach to higher education
institution stakeholder management. Tertiary Education and Management, 16(3), 159-
181.
Anand, R., & Winters, M. (2008). A retrospective view of corporate diversity training from 1964
to the present. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(3), 356-372.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.5465/AMLE.2008.34251673
Anderson, G. (2020, January 31). Increased legal scrutiny for sexual assault policies. Inside
Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/01/31/appeals-court-holds-
university-liable-ineffective-title-ix-policies
Applebaum, B. (2019). Remediating campus climate: Implicit bias training is not enough.
Studies in Philosophy and Education, 38(2), 129-141.
Atewologun, D., Cornish, T., & Tresh, F. (2018). Unconscious bias training: An assessment of
the evidence for effectiveness. Equality and Human Rights Commission, Research Report
113.
Austin Community College (2020). Data dashboard on faculty staff diversity. Retrieved May 3,
2020, from
https://www.austincc.edu/oira//dashboards/dashboards_faculty_staff_diversity.html
186
Austin Community College (2020). Data dashboard on student diversity. Retrieved May 3,
2020, from https://www.austincc.edu/oira//dashboards/dashboards_student_diversity.html
Austin Community College System (ACCS) (2020). About ACC page, mission, vision, and
values. Retrieved June 12, 2020 from https://www.austincc.edu/about-acc/mission-
vision-and-values.
Back, H. & Hadenius, A. (2008). Democracy and state capacity: Exploring a J-shaped
relationship. Governance, 21(1), 1-24
Bader, H. (2007, December 26). Diversity training backfires. Competitive Enterprise Institute.
https://cei.org/blog/diversity-training-backfires
Badke, L. K. (2016). Beyond compliance: A multi-case study analysis of university behavior and
policy negotiation in response to the dear colleague letter on campus sexual violence.
[Doctoral Dissertation]. University of Michigan.
Balsam, K. F., Molina, Y., Beadnell, B., Simoni, J., & Walters, K. (2011). Measuring multiple
minority stress: The LGBT people of color microaggressions scale. Cultural Diversity
and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(2), 163-174.
Barley, M. (2012) Learning from reflective practice and metacognition – an anaesthetist’s
perspective. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives,
13(2), 271-280.
Basow, S. A. (1995). Student evaluations of college professors: When gender matters. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 87(4), 656-665.
Beard, C. B. (2015). Missional discipleship and adult learning theory: A study of missional
spiritual formation experiences and their connection to adult learning principles (Order
No. 10149234). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1831565998).
187
Beer, M. & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review, May-
June 2000, 111-122.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R., & Spector, B. (1990). Why change programs don’t produce change.
Harvard Business Review, 68(6),158-166.
Belgrave, L. & Seide, K. (2019). Coding for grounded theory. In Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. The
SAGE Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory (pp. 167-185). SAGE
Publications.
Bensimon, E. M., Dowd, A. C., & Witham, K. (2016). Five principles for enacting equity by
design. Diversity & Democracy, 19(1).
https://www.aacu.org/diversitydemocracy/2016/winter/bensimon
Bezrukova, K., Spell, C. S., Perry, J. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2016). A meta-analytical integration of
over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation. Psychological Bulletin,
142(11), 1227-1274. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1037/bul0000067
Bisom-Rapp, S. (2018-2019). Sex harassment training must change: The Case for legal
incentives for transformative education and prevention. Stanford Law Review Online, 71,
60-73.
Blair, I. V., Steiner, J. F., & Havranek, E. P. (2011). Unconscious (implicit) bias and health
disparities: Where do we go from here? The Permanente Journal, 15(2), 71-78.
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods (5
th
ed.). Pearson.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
188
Boysen, G., Vogel, D., Cope, M., & Hubbard, A. (2009). Incidents of bias in college classrooms:
Instructor and student perceptions. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2(4), 219-
231.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. International
Encyclopedia of Education, Volume 2, 2
nd
edition, 37-43. Elsevier.
Buhin, L. & Vera, E.M. (2009). Preventing racism and promoting social justice: Person-centered
and environment-centered interventions. Journal of Primary Prevention, 30, 43-59.
Burke, W. W. (2018). Organizational change: Theory and practice (5
th
edition). Sage.
Burke, W.W., & Litwin, G.H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change.
Journal of Management, 8(3), 523–546.
Bustillos, L. T., Siqueiros, M., & Bates, A. (2018). Left out: How exclusion in California’s
colleges and universities hurts our values, our students, and our economy. The Campaign
for College Opportunity. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED582669.pdf
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO) (2017). Vision for success:
Strengthening the California community colleges to meet California’s needs. Retrieved
on May 10, 2020, from
https://www.google.com/search?q=vision+for+success&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS500US500
&oq=vision+for+success&aqs=chrome..69i57.5167j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (2019). Resources for employers:
Sexual harassment prevention training and SB 1343 FAQ. Retrieved on April 14, 2020,
from https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/resources-for-employers/
California Education Code. Comprehensive Mission Statement. § 66010.1 - 66010.7. Retrieved
on April 21, 2020, from
189
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=EDC§i
onNum=66010.4.
Callahan, J. L., Smotherman, J. M., Dziurzynski, K. E., Love, P. K., Kilmer, E. D., Niemann, Y.
F., & Ruggero, C. J. (2018). Diversity in the professional psychology training-to-
workforce pipeline: Results from doctoral psychology student population data. Training
and Education in Professional Psychology, 12, 273–285.
Caplan, P. & Ford, J. (2014). The voices of diversity: What students of diverse races/ethnicities
and both sexes tell us about their college experiences and their perceptions about their
institutions’ progress toward diversity. Aporia, 3(6), 30-69.
Carmines, E. G., Sniderman, P. M., & Easter, B. C. (2011). On the meaning, measurement, and
implications of racial resentment. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 634,98–116.
Carter, E. R., Onyeador, I. N., & Lewis, N. A. (2020). Developing and delivering effective anti-
bias training: Challenges and recommendations. Behavioral Science & Policy, 6(1), 58-
73.
Castellanos, J., Gloria, A. M., Rojas Perez, O. F., & Fonseca, L. (2018). Assessing the etic and
emic well-being of Latino male undergraduates: Navegando los obstáculos de la
universidad con mi cultura. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 19(2), 184-194.
Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2014). Contingent commitments: Bringing
part-time faculty into focus (a special report from the Center for Community College
Student Engagement). Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, Program in Higher
Education Leadership.
190
Chang, E. H., Milkman, K.L., Gromet, D. M., Rebele, R. W., Massey, C., Duckworth, A. L., &
Grant, A. M. (2019). The mixed effects of online diversity training. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 116 (16), 7778-7783.
Chang, E. H., Milkman, K. L., Gromet, D. M., Rebele, R.W., Massey, C., Duckworth, A., &
Grant, A. M. (2019). The mixed effects of online diversity training. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), 7778-7783.
Chapman, E. N., Kaatz, A., & Carnes, M. (2013). Physicians and implicit bias: How doctors may
unwittingly perpetuate health care disparities. Journal of General Internal Medicine,
28(11), 1504-10.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory, 2
nd
Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cho, Y. J. & Perry, J. L. (2012). Intrinsic motivation and employee attitudes: Role of managerial
trustworthiness, goal directedness, and extrinsic reward expectancy. Review of Public
Personnel Administration, 32(4), 382-406.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
Clark, T., Salas-Wright, C., Vaughn, M., & Whitfield, K. (2015). Everyday discrimination and
mood and substance use disorders: A latent profile analysis with African Americans and
Caribbean Blacks. Addictive Behaviors, 40, 119–125.
Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and
Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. doi:10.2307/2393553
Crenshaw K. (1991). Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence
against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
191
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Crow, S. (2005). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic and
market demands. Review of Higher Education, 29(1), 124-126.
Cummings, T.G., & Worley, C.G. (2015). Organization development and change. (10th ed.).
Cengage Learning.
Davis, L. & Fry, R. (2019). College faculty have become more racially and ethnically diverse,
but remain far less so than students. Pew Research Center, July 31, 2019.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/31/us-college-faculty-student-diversity/
Davis, T. M. (2008). Socioeconomic status, selective college admissions, and the first -year
college experience (Order No. 3316946). Available from ProQuest Central; ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global; Social Science Premium Collection. (304656872).
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/dissertations-theses/socioeconomic-status-selective-college-
admissions/docview/304656872/se-2?accountid=14749
Dawson, P. (2017). Assessment rubrics: towards clearer and more replicable design, research and
practice. Assessment and evaluation in higher education. 42(3), 347-360.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., & Cameron, J. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic
motivation in education: Reconsidered once again: Comment/Reply. Review of
Educational Research, 71(1), 1-51.
Denning, S. (2005). The Leaders Guide to Storytelling. Jossey-Bass.
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled
components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5-18.
192
Devine, P. G., Forscher, P. S., Austin, A. J., & Cox, W. T. L. (2012). Long-term reduction in
implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 48(6), 1267-1278.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. Heath.
Dickerson, K. C. (2019). “It absolutely impacts every day”: Diversity allies connect racial
history and current climate at a southern professional school. Journal of Diversity in
Higher Education. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1037/dhe0000149
Doan, J. (2011). The impact of campus climate and student involvement on students of color.
The Vermont Connection: Critical Truths, Empowered Voices, Changing the Landscape
of Higher Education, 32-30.
Dobbin, F., Kalev, A., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy
of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71,
589-617.
Dobbin, F. & Kalev, A. (2016, July). Why diversity programs fail. Harvard Business Review,
July-Aug 2016. https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail
Dobbin, F. & Kalev, A. (2018). Why doesn’t diversity training work? The challenge for industry
and academia. Anthropology Now, 10 (2), 48-55.
Dowd, A. C., & Bensimon, E. M. (2015). Engaging the “race question”: Accountability and
equity and U.S. higher Education. Teachers College Press
Drywater-Whitekiller, V. (2017). We belong to the land: Native Americans experiencing and
coping with racial microaggressions. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 37(1),
153-174.
193
Duquaine-Watson. J. M. (2007). “Pretty darned cold”: Single mother students and the
community college climate in post-welfare reform America. Equity & Excellence in
Education, 40, 229-240.
Eacho, A. (2013). Surviving implicit bias: why the appellate court's interpretation of the 2012
amendment to the racial justice act will be a life or death decision for North Carolina
death row prisoners. The American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the
Law, 21(3), 647-679.
Edelman, L. B. (2017, November 19). Who does harassment training really protect? Washington
Post.
Eisenbach, R., Watson, K., & Pillai, R. (1999). Transformational leadership in the context of
organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(2), 80-89.
Ellis, J. M., Powell, C. S., Demetriou, C. P., Huerta-Bapat, C., & Panter, A. T. (2019).
Examining first-generation college student lived experiences with microaggressions and
microaffirmations at a predominately White public research university. Cultural Diversity
and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 25(2), 266-279.
Englehart, N. A. (2009). State capacity, state failure, and human rights. Journal of Peace
Research, 46(2), 163-180.
Fisher, W.W., Barman, S. & Killingsworth, P.L. (2011), Value stream mapping for improving
academic advising. International Journal of Information and Operations Management
Education, 4 (1), 45-59.
FitzGerald, C., Martin, A., Berner, D., & Hurst, S. (2019). Interventions designed to reduce
implicit prejudices and implicit stereotypes in real world contexts: a systematic review.
BMC Psychology, 7(29), 2-12.
194
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman Publishing.
Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Bloomsbury Academic.
Fujimoto, Y., & Härtel, C. (2017). Organizational diversity learning framework: Going beyond
diversity training programs. Personnel Review, 46(6), 1120-1141.
Furman, G. (2012). Social justice leadership as praxis: Developing capacities through
preparation programs. Education Administration Quarterly, 48(2), 191-229.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B. S., Houlette, M., Johnson, K. M., & McGlynn, E. A.
(2000). Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization,
recategorization, and mutual differentiation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 4(1), 98-114.
Gandara, D. & Rutherford, A. (2017). Mitigating unintended impacts? The effects of premiums
for underserved populations in performance-funding policies for higher education.
Research in Higher Education, 59(6), 681-703.
Gloria, A. M., Castellanos, J., Delgado-Guerrero, M., Salazar, A. C., Nieves, C. M., Mejia, A., &
Martinez, V. L. (2017). El ojo en la meta: Latino male undergraduates’ coping
processes. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(1), 11–24.
Goldberg, A. E., Kuvulanka, K., & Dickey, I. (2019). Transgender graduate students’
experiences in higher education: A mixed-methods exploratory study. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 12(1), 38-51.
Goldstein Hode, M., Behm-Morawitz, E., & Hays, A. (2018). Testing the effectiveness of an
online diversity course for faculty and staff. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 11(3), 347-365.
195
Greene, M. J. (2014). On the inside looking in: Methodological insights and challenges in
conducting qualitative insider research. The Qualitative Report, 19, 1-13.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in
implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74(6), 1464-1480.
Gross, J. M. S. (2018). Document analysis. In B. B. Frey (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of
educational research, measurement, and evaluation (Vols. 1-4). Sage.
Harackiewicz, J. & Knogler, M. (2018). Interest: theory and application. In A. J. Elliot, C. S.
Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 334-352).
Guilford Press.
Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for
institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, (120), 7-24.
Harris, L. (2017). Exploring the effect of disability microaggressions on sense of belonging and
participation in college classrooms. All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 6712.
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/6712
Harris, N. (2005). Corporate engagement in processes for planetary sustainability: Understanding
corporate capacity in the non-renewable resource extractive sector, Australia. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 16 (8), 538-553.
Harvey, M. & Jenkins, D. M. (2014). Knowledge, praxis, and reflection: The three critical
elements of effective leadership studies programs. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(4),
76-85.
Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The theory behind the practice: A brief
introduction to the adaptive leadership framework. Harvard Business Press.
196
Hellawell, D. (2006). Inside-out: Analysis of the insider-outsider concept as a heuristic device to
develop reflexivity in students doing qualitative research. Teaching in Higher Education,
11(4), 483-494.
Henson, K. T. (2003). Foundations for learner-centered education: A knowledge base.
Education, 24(1), 5-16.
Hernández, R. & Villodas, M. (2019). Collectivistic coping responses to racial microaggressions
associated with Latina/o college persistence attitudes. Journal of Latinx Psychology, 7(1),
76-90.
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup Bias. Annual Review of Psychology,
53, 575-604.
Hurtado, S., Cuellar, M., & Guillermo-Wann, C. (2011). Quantitative measures of students’
sense of validation: Advancing the study of diverse learning environments. Enrollment
Management Journal, 5(2), 53–71.
Huynh, V. W. & Fuligni, A. J. (2012). Perceived ethnic stigma across the transition to college.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(7), 817-830.
Inspired eLearning (2020). Sexual harassment training requirements by state. Retrieved on
March 30, 2020, from: https://inspiredelearning.com/hr-compliance/state-specific-
compliance-training/sexual-harassment-training-requirements-by-state/
Jhangiani, R. S, & Chiang, I. A. (2020). Research methods in psychology. The Saylor
Foundation, Creative Commons.
https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethods/chapter/reliability-and-validity-of-measurement/
Johnson, R. B. & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative and
mixed approaches (5th Ed.). Sage.
197
Jones-White, D ., Radcliffe, P., Huesman, R., & Kellogg, R. (2010). Redefining student success:
Applying different multinomial regression techniques for the study of student graduation
across institutions of higher education. Research in Higher Education, 51(2), 154-174.
Kaler, J. (2002). Morality and strategy in stakeholder identification. Journal of Business Ethics,
39, 91–100.
Kanter, J., Williams, M., Kuczynski, A., Manbeck, K., Debreaux, M., & Rosen, D. (2017). A
preliminary report on the relationship between microaggressions against Blacks and
racism among White college students. Race and Social Problems, 9(4), 291-299.
Kanter, J., Rosen, D., Manbeck, K., Branstetter, H., Kuczynski, A., Corey, M., Maitland, D., &
Williams, M. (2020). Addressing microaggressions in racially charged patient-provider
interactions: A pilot randomized trial. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), 88–88.
Kayes, P. E. (2006). New paradigms for diversifying faculty and staff in higher education:
Uncovering cultural biases in the search and hiring process. Multicultural Education,
14(2), 65-69.
Kim, E. & Hargrove, D. T. (2013). Deficient or resilient: A critical review of Black male
academic success and persistence in higher education. Journal of Negro Education.
82(3), 300-311.
Kipnis, L. (2017). Unwanted advances: Sexual paranoia comes to campus. HarperCollins.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. Berret-Koehler.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (2006). Seven keys to unlock the four levels of evaluation. Performance
Improvement, 7, 5-8.
Knowles, M.S. (1990). The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species (4
th
edition). Houston, TX: Gulf
Publishing.
198
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press
Kotter, J. P. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,
73(2), 59-67.
Kowal, E., Franklin, H., & Paradies, Y. (2013). Reflexive antiracism: A novel approach to
diversity training. Ethnicities, 13(3), 316-337.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41 (4), 212-264.
Kulik, C. T. & Roberson, L. (2008). Diversity initiative effectiveness: What organizations can
(and cannot) expect from diversity recruitment, diversity training, and formal mentoring
programs. In A. P. Brief (Ed.), Cambridge companions to management. Diversity at
Work (pp. 265-317). Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, J., Mendenhall, R., Harwood, S., & Browne Huntt, M. (2013). Coping with gendered
racial microaggressions among Black women college students. Journal of African
American Studies, 17(1), 51-73.
Liao, K., Weng, C., & West, L. (2016). Social connectedness and intolerance of uncertainty as
moderators between racial microaggressions and anxiety among Black
individuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(2), 240-246.
Lipset, S. M. (1994). Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Lipset, S. M. & Rokkan, S., eds (1967). Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National
Perspectives. New York: The Free Press
Love, D. (2009). Student retention through the lens of campus climate, racial stereotypes, and
faculty relationships. Journal of Diversity Management, 4(3), 21-26.
199
Martucci, W. C., & Lu, Z. (2005). Sexual-harassment training: The wave of the future in state
legislative efforts. Employment Relations Today, 32(2), 87-95.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Sage
Publications.
McClain, K., & Perry, A. (2017). Where did they go: Retention rates for students of color at
predominantly white institutions. College Student Affairs Leadership, 4(1), n. p.
McDermid, F; Peters, K., Jackson, D.; & Daly, J. (2014). Conducting qualitative research in the
context of pre-existing peer and collegial relationships. Nurse Researcher, 21(5), 28-33.
McDougal, S., Cox, W., Dorley, T., & Wodaje, H. (2018). Black student engagement: Resilience
and success under duress. Journal of Pan African Studies, 12(7), 192-215.
McGregor, J., & Siegel, R. (2018, June). Starbucks's anti-bias training has another goal. The
Washington Post. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/2048871035?accountid=14749
McKay, C. (2018). The value of contact: Unpacking Allport’s contact theory to support inclusive
education. Palaestra, 32.
McKinney, L. & Hagedorn, L.S. (2017). Performance-based funding for community colleges:
Are colleges being disadvantaged by serving the most disadvantaged students? The
Journal of Higher Education, 88(2), 159-182.
McNair, T. B., Bensimon, E. M., Malcom-Piqueux, L. (2020). From equity talk to equity walk:
Expanding practitioner knowledge for racial justice in higher education. Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S., & Bierema, L. (2014). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice (1
st
edition)
Jossey-Bass.
200
Merriam, S. B. & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons/Jossey-Bass.
Miles, S. (2012). Stakeholder: Essentially contested or just confused? Journal of Business Ethics,
108, 285–298.
Mills, K. J. (2020). “It’s systemic”: Environmental racial microaggressions experienced by Black
undergraduates at a predominantly White institution. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 13(1), 44-55.
Monroe, K. R., Hankin, J., & Van Vechten, R. B. (2000). The psychological foundations of
identity politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 419-447.
Moore, C. & Shulock, N. (2014). From community college to university: Expectations for
California’s new transfer degrees. Public Policy Institute of California.
Morgan, D. L. (2014). Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: A Pragmatic Approach.
Sage.
Muhammad, M., Wallerstein, N., Sussman, A. L., Avila, M., Belone, L., & Duran, B. (2015).
Reflections on researcher identity and power: The impact of positionality on community
based participatory research (CBPR) processes and outcomes. Critical sociology, 41(7-8),
1045–1063.
Nadal, K. L., Davidoff, K. C., Davis, L. S., & Wong, Y. (2014). Emotional, behavioral, and
cognitive reactions to microaggressions: Transgender perspectives. Psychology of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(1), 72–81.
Nadal, K. L., Skolnik, A., & Wong Y. (2017). Interpersonal and systemic microaggressions
toward transgender people: Implications for counseling. Journal of LGBT Issues in
Counseling, 6, 55-82.
201
Nixon, M. L. (2017). Experiences of women of color university chief diversity officers. Journal
of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(4), 301-317.
Ogunyemi, D., Clare, C., Astudillo, Y. M., Marseille, M., Manu, E., & Kim, S. (2020).
Microaggressions in the learning environment: A systematic review. Journal of Diversity
in Higher Education, 13(2), 97-119.
O'Keefe, V., Wingate, L., Cole, A., Hollingsworth, D., & Tucker, R. (2015). Seemingly harmless
racial communications are not so harmless: Racial microaggressions lead to suicidal
ideation by way of depression symptoms. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 45(5),
567-576.
Olivier B.H. (2017). The use of mixed-methods research to diagnose the organisational
performance of a local government. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir
Bedryfsielkunde, 43(0), a1453. https://doi.org/ 10.4102/sajip.v43i0.1453
Ong, A., Burrow, A., Fuller-Rowell, T., Ja, N., & Sue, D. (2013) Racial microaggression and
daily well-being among Asian Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(21),
188-199.
Oswald, F. L., Mitchell, G., Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., & Tetlock, P. E. (2013). Predicting ethnic
and racial discrimination: A meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 171–192.
Oswald, F. L., Mitchell, G., Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Using the IAT to
predict ethnic and racial discrimination: Small effect sizes of unknown societal
significance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108 (4), 562–571
Paluck, E. L. & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment
of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339-367.
202
Paluck, E., Porat, R., Clark, C., & Green, D. (2021). Prejudice reduction: Progress and
challenges. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 533-560.
Panadero, E., & Romero, M. (2014). To rubric or not to rubric? The effects of self-assessment on
self-regulation, performance and self-efficacy. Assessment in Education: Principles,
Policy & Practice, 21(2), 133–148.
Parker, E. T., & Trolian, T. L. (2019). Student perceptions of the climate for diversity: The role
of student–faculty interactions. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education,13(4), 333-344.
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Selecting samples and administering surveys (Part 2 of 3) (REL 2016-160). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory
Northeast & Islands. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?projectID=4482
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Analysis and reporting of survey data (Part 3 of 3) (REL 2016-164). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory
Northeast & Islands. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?projectID=4482
Pierce, C. (1970). Offensive mechanisms. In Barbour F. (Ed.), In the Black Seventies.(pp. 265-
282). Porter Sargent.
Rendón, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and
student development. Innovative Higher Education, 27(4), 235-252.
Rendón, L. I. (2002). Community college Puente: A validating model of education. Journal of
Educational Policy, 16(4), 642-667
203
Robinson, S. B. & Leonard, K. F. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.
Rogers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking.
Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842-866.
Ross, L.E. (2017). An account from the inside: Examining the emotional impact of qualitative
research through the lens of “insider” research. Qualitative Psychology, 4 (3), 326-337.
Rule, A.C. (2006). Editorial: The components of authentic learning. Journal of Authentic
Learning, 3 (1), 1-10.
Russell-Brown, K. (2018). The academic swoon over implicit racial bias. Du Bois Review, 15(1),
185-193.
Sánchez, B., Salazar, C., & Guerra, J. (2020, July 16). “I feel like I have to be the whitest version
of myself”: Experiences of early career Latina higher education administrators. Journal
of Diversity in Higher Education,
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1037/dhe0000267
Sackett, P. R., Borneman, M. J., & Connelly, B. S. (2008). High stakes testing in higher
education and employment: Appraising the evidence for validity and fairness. American
Psychologist, 63(4), 215-227.
Salkind, N. J. & Frey, B. B. (2020). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (7
th
ed.)
Sage.
Saunders, M. N. (2019). Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory
development. In Research Methods for Business Students, (5
th
ed.). Pearson Education
India.
204
Sensoy, Ö., & DiAngelo, R. (2017). "We are all for diversity, but...": How faculty hiring
committees reproduce whiteness and practical suggestions for how they can change.
Harvard Educational Review, 87(4), 557-580,593-595.
Simmons, K. C. (2013). Stakeholder participation in the selection and recruitment of police:
Democracy in action. Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 7(2012-2013).
Simon, M. K. & Goes, J. (2013). Dissertation and Scholarly Research: Recipes for Success.
Dissertation Success LLC.
Sleek, S. (2018). The bias beneath two decades of measuring implicit associations. Association
for Psychological Science Observer, February 2018.
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/the-bias-beneath-two-decades-of-
measuring-implicit-associations
Smith, W., Allen, W., & Danley, L. (2007). "Assume the position...you fit the description":
Psychosocial experiences and racial battle fatigue among African American male college
students. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(4), 551-578.
Smith, N. L. & Percy E. J. (2019). Diversity training methods, opinions of political correctness,
and perceptions of microaggressions. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 24(2),
106-112.Sohr-Preston, S., Boswell, S. S., McCaleb, K., & Robertson, D. (2016).
Professor gender, age, and "hotness" in influencing college students' generation and
interpretation of professor ratings. Higher Learning Research Communications, 6(3), 1-
23.
Solorzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and
campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. The
Journal of Negro Education, 69(1), 60-73.
205
St. Armour, M. (2020, June). California’s community colleges unite on racial equity. Inside
Higher Ed,. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/06/12/california-community-
college-alliance-aims-improve-racial-equity-higher-education
State University of New York (SUNY) (2020). Community colleges home page, mission and
vision statements. Retrieved June 12, 2020 from
https://system.suny.edu/communitycolleges/
State University of New York, Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, State University of
New York (ODEI)(2020). Home Page, Mission, and Vision Statements. Retrieved June
12, 2020 from https://system.suny.edu/odei/
Stevens, F. G., Plaut, V. C., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2008). Unlocking the benefits of diversity:
All-inclusive multiculturalism and positive organizational change. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 44(1), 116-133.
Strayhorn, T.L. (2019). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all
students. Routledge.
Sue, D., Capodilupo, C., Torino, G., Bucceri, J., Holder, A., Nadal, K., Esquilin, M. (2007).
Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American
Psychologist, 62(4), 271-286.
Swencionis, J. K., & Goff, P. A. (2017). The psychological science of racial bias and
policing. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(4), 398-409.
Texas Administrative Code (TAC) (2020). Title 19, Program Development in Two-Year Public
Colleges, Purpose, Role, and Mission. Rule §9.53 Role, Mission, and Purpose of Public
Community/Junior and Technical Colleges. Retrieved July 12, 2020 from
206
https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=
&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=19&pt=1&ch=9&rl=53
The Aspen Institute (2013). Ten lessons for taking leadership on racial equality. Roundtable on
Community Change, 1-8.
Tien, J. (2019). Teaching identity vs. positionality: Dilemmas in social justice
education. Curriculum Inquiry, 49(5), 526–550.
Todorova, G. & Durisin, B. (2007). Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization. The
Academy of Management Review, 32 (3), 774-786.
Toma, J. D. (2010). Building Organizational Capacity: Strategic Management in Higher
Education. Johns Hopkins University Press.
United Stated Department of Education (2020). Pending cases currently under investigation.
Office for Civil Rights. Retrieved April 16, 2020, from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/open-
investigations/index.html
United Stated Department of Justice (2020). Fund suspension and termination. Title IX Legal
Manual. Retrieved April 16, 2020, from https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-
ix#C.%C2%A0%20Fund%20Suspension%20and%20Termination
United States Department of Education (2016). Advancing diversity and inclusion in higher
education: Key data highlights focusing on race and ethnicity and promising practices.
Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. Retrieved April 16, 2020, from:
https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/advancing-diversity-inclusion.pdf
207
University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education (November 2017). Our Mission
is Equity. Retrieved February 28, 2021, from: https://rossier.usc.edu/our-mission-is-
equity/
Vogel, S. A., Holt, J. K., Sligar, S., & Leake, E. (2008). Assessment of campus climate to
enhance student success. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 21(1), 15-
31.
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding
authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79 (2), 702-739.
Werhane, P. H. (2000). Business ethics, stakeholder theory, and the ethics of healthcare
organizations. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics : The International Journal of
Healthcare Ethics Committees, 9(2), 169-181.
Whaley, A. (2018). Advances in stereotype threat research on African Americans: continuing
challenges to the validity of its role in the achievement gap. Social Psychology of
Education: An International Journal, 21(1), 111-137.
Williams, M., Kanter, J., Peña, A., Ching, T., & Oshin, L. (2020). Reducing microaggressions
and promoting interracial connection: The racial harmony workshop. Journal of
Contextual Behavioral Science, 16, 153–161.
Wood, D. F. (2008). Problem-based learning: Time to stop arguing about the process and
examine the outcomes. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 336(7651), 971.
Wood, L., Hoefer, S., Kammer-Kerwick, M., Parra-Cardona, J., & Busch-Armendariz, N.
(2018). Sexual harassment at institutions of higher education: Prevalence, risk, and
extent. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1-25.
208
Wyatt, G. E., Chin, D., Milburn, N., Hamilton, A., Lopez, S., Kim, A., Belcher, H. M. E. (2019).
Mentoring the mentors of students from diverse backgrounds for research. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 89(3), 321-328.
Yang, B. (2004). Can adult learning theory provide a foundation for human resource
development? Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(2), 129-145.
Yosso, T., Smith, W., Ceja, M., & Solorzano, D. (2009). Critical race theory, racial
microaggressions, and campus climate for Latina/o undergraduates. Harvard Educational
Review, 79(4), 659-691.
Zhang, Y., Chen, B., Ge, J., Hung, C., & Mei, L. (2019). When is the best time to use rubrics in
flipped learning? A study on students’ learning achievement, metacognitive awareness,
and cognitive load. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 1207–1221.
209
Appendix A
Anti-Bias Training Survey--October 2020
Survey Introduction Thank you for taking this survey on anti-bias training in your
organization. Anti-bias training is a broad term for training that could cover such topics as sexual
harassment, bullying, implicit bias, discrimination, diversity, and creating “safe” space. The
purpose of the study is to understand what kind of anti-bias training is offered in community
colleges, how decisions are made about anti-bias training, how anti-bias training is evaluated,
and the overall perceived effectiveness of anti-bias training. Human resources leaders are major
stakeholders in anti-bias training, which is why you were chosen to participate in this survey.
This is an anonymous survey. No information provided in this survey can be linked to you or
your workplace. The last question asks if you would be willing to participate in a Zoom
interview lasting up to one hour. That question provides a link to a Google form where you can
provide your contact information. That contact information is not linked to your survey
responses so that your survey responses remain anonymous. All participants who are selected for
an interview will receive a $25 Amazon gift card as a thank you for their time. This survey will
take approximately 10 minutes to complete. Please complete the survey by Saturday,
November 14, at 11:59 PM.
Part 1: Respondent and Organization Information
These questions are about you and your organization.
Q1 Which of the following most closely matches your job title?
o Vice chancellor (1)
o Vice president (2)
o Executive or Senior Director (3)
o Director (4)
o Chief Officer (5)
210
Q2 At what organizational level is your position?
o District (Multi-College) (1)
o College or Single-College District (2)
Display this question if answer to Question 2 is District (Multi-College)
Q3a Approximately what size is your district, based on the number of students enrolled
per semester?
o Large (50,000 +) (1)
o Medium (25,000-49,999) (2)
o Small (5,000-24,999) (3)
Display this question if answer to Question 3 is College or Single-College District
Q3b Approximately what size is your college or single-college district, based on the
number of students enrolled per semester?
o Large (20,000 +) (1)
o Medium (10,000-19,999) (2)
o Small (1,000-9,999) (3)
211
Q4 How many years have you worked in your current position?
o 1-5 (1)
o 6-10 (2)
o 11-15 (3)
o 16-20 (4)
o 21 or more (5)
Q5 How many years have you worked in the community college system?
o 1-5 (1)
o 6-10 (2)
o 11-15 (3)
o 16-20 (4)
o 21 or more (5)
212
Q6 Which of the following best describes the area served by your organization?
o Mostly urban (1)
o Mostly suburban (2)
o Mostly rural (3)
213
Part 2: Anti-Bias Training
The next few questions are about how anti-bias training is offered in your organization.
Q7 Which of the following topics are included in anti-bias trainings offered by your
organization? (check all that apply).
▢ Bias (Implicit or Unconscious) (6)
▢ Bullying (2)
▢ Critical Race Theory (28)
▢ Cultural Competence (7)
▢ Diversity (3)
▢ Equality (4)
▢ Equity (5)
▢ Identity (17)
▢ Impact of Bias on Students (8)
▢ Impact of Bias on Colleagues (9)
▢ Impact of Bias on Job Applicants (10)
▢ LGBTQIA+ (16)
▢ Micro-aggression (12)
▢ Positionality (15)
▢ Power (29)
▢ Prejudice (13)
▢ Safe Space (11)
▢ Sexual Harassment (1)
▢ White Privilege (14)
▢ None of these (18)
214
Q8 Please identify which, if any, of the following types of anti-bias training are offered in
your organization (select all that apply).
▢ Bias (Implicit or Unconscious) (1)
▢ Bullying (2)
▢ Cultural Competence (3)
▢ Diversity (4)
▢ Equity (5)
▢ Safe Space (6)
▢ Sexual Harassment (7)
▢ None of these is offered (8)
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Sexual Harassment.
Q9a How often is sexual harassment training offered?
o More than once per year (2)
o Annually (3)
o Once every two or more years (4)
o There is no regular schedule for this training (1)
215
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Safe Space.
Q9b How often is safe space training offered?
o More than once per year (2)
o Annually (3)
o Once every two or more years (4)
o There is no regular schedule for this training (1)
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Equity.
Q9c How often is equity training offered?
o More than once per year (2)
o Annually (3)
o Once every two or more years (4)
o There is no regular schedule for this training (1)
216
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Diversity.
Q9d How often is diversity training offered?
o More than once per year (2)
o Annually (3)
o Once every two or more years (4)
o There is no regular schedule for this training (1)
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Cultural Competence.
Q9e How often is cultural competence training offered?
o More than once per year (2)
o Annually (3)
o Once every two or more years (4)
o There is no regular schedule for this training (1)
217
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Bullying.
Q9f How often is training about bullying offered?
o More than once per year (2)
o Annually (3)
o Once every two or more years (4)
o There is no regular schedule for this training (1)
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Bias (Implicit or Unconscious.
Q9g How often is implicit or unconscious bias training offered?
o More than once per year (2)
o Annually (3)
o Once every two or more years (4)
o There is no regular schedule for this training (1)
218
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Bias (Implicit or Unconscious).
Q10a To whom is implicit or unconscious bias training offered? (check all that apply)
▢ Full-Time Faculty (1)
▢ Part-Time Faculty (2)
▢ Classified Staff (3)
▢ Administrators & Managers (4)
▢ It is offered to all employee groups (6)
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Bullying.
Q10b To whom is training about bullying offered? (check all that apply)
▢ Full-Time Faculty (1)
▢ Part-Time Faculty (2)
▢ Classified Staff (3)
▢ Administrators & Managers (4)
▢ It is offered to all employee groups (6)
219
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Cultural Competence.
Q10c To whom is cultural competence training offered? (check all that apply)
▢ Full-Time Faculty (1)
▢ Part-Time Faculty (2)
▢ Classified Staff (3)
▢ Administrators & Managers (4)
▢ It is offered to all employee groups (6)
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Diversity.
Q10d To whom is diversity training offered? (check all that apply)
▢ Full-Time Faculty (1)
▢ Part-Time Faculty (2)
▢ Classified Staff (3)
▢ Administrators & Managers (4)
▢ It is offered to all employee groups (6)
220
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Equity.
Q10eTo whom is equity training offered? (check all that apply)
▢ Full-Time Faculty (1)
▢ Part-Time Faculty (2)
▢ Classified Staff (3)
▢ Administrators & Managers (4)
▢ It is offered to all employee groups (6)
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Safe Space.
Q10f To whom is safe space training offered? (check all that apply)
▢ Full-Time Faculty (1)
▢ Part-Time Faculty (2)
▢ Classified Staff (3)
▢ Administrators & Managers (4)
▢ It is offered to all employee groups (6)
221
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Sexual Harassment.
Q10gTo whom is sexual harassment training offered? (check all that apply)
▢ Full-Time Faculty (1)
▢ Part-Time Faculty (2)
▢ Classified Staff (3)
▢ Administrators & Managers (4)
▢ It is offered to all employee groups (6)
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Bias (Implicit or Unconscious).
Q11a Is implicit or unconscious bias training mandatory?
o Voluntary for all employee groups (2)
o Mandatory for all employee groups (1)
o Mandatory for some employee groups (3)
222
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Bullying.
Q11b Is training about bullying mandatory?
o Voluntary for all employee groups (2)
o Mandatory for all employee groups (1)
o Mandatory for some employee groups (3)
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Cultural Competence.
Q11c Is cultural competence training mandatory?
o Voluntary for all employee groups (2)
o Mandatory for all employee groups (1)
o Mandatory for some employee groups (3)
223
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Diversity.
Q11d Is diversity training mandatory?
o Voluntary for all employee groups (2)
o Mandatory for all employee groups (1)
o Mandatory for some employee groups (3)
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Equity.
Q11e Is equity training mandatory?
o Voluntary for all employee groups (2)
o Mandatory for all employee groups (1)
o Mandatory for some employee groups (3)
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Safe Space.
Q11f Is safe space training mandatory?
o Voluntary for all employee groups (2)
o Mandatory for all employee groups (1)
o Mandatory for some employee groups (3)
224
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Sexual Harassment.
Q11g Is sexual harassment training mandatory?
o Voluntary for all employee groups (2)
o Mandatory for all employee groups (1)
o Mandatory for some employee groups (3)
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Bias (Implicit or Unconscious).
Q12a Which of the following best describes the duration of implicit or unconscious bias
training in your organization?
o Less than an hour (1)
o 1-3 hours (2)
o Half-day (3)
o Full-day (4)
o Several days (5)
o Several weeks (6)
o Several months (7)
225
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Bullying.
Q12b Which of the following best describes the duration of training about bullying in
your organization?
o Less than an hour (1)
o 1-3 hours (2)
o Half-day (3)
o Full-day (4)
o Several days (5)
o Several weeks (6)
o Several months (7)
226
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Cultural Competence.
Q12c Which of the following best describes the duration of cultural competence training
in your organization?
o Less than an hour (1)
o 1-3 hours (2)
o Half-day (3)
o Full-day (4)
o Several days (5)
o Several weeks (6)
o Several months (7)
227
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Diversity.
Q12d Which of the following best describes the duration of diversity training in your
organization?
o Less than an hour (1)
o 1-3 hours (2)
o Half-day (3)
o Full-day (4)
o Several days (5)
o Several weeks (6)
o Several months (7)
228
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Equity.
Q12e Which of the following best describes the duration of equity training in your
organization?
o Less than an hour (1)
o 1-3 hours (2)
o Half-day (3)
o Full-day (4)
o Several days (5)
o Several weeks (6)
o Several months (7)
229
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Safe Space.
Q12f Which of the following best describes the duration of safe space training in your
organization?
o Less than an hour (1)
o 1-3 hours (2)
o Half-day (3)
o Full-day (4)
o Several days (5)
o Several weeks (6)
o Several months (7)
230
Display this question if answer to Question 9 is Sexual Harassment.
Q12g Which of the following best describes the duration of sexual harassment training in
your organization?
o Less than an hour (1)
o 1-3 hours (2)
o Half-day (3)
o Full-day (4)
o Several days (5)
o Several weeks (6)
o Several months (7)
Q13 Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020), how was anti-bias training typically
offered in your organization?
o All online (1)
o Mostly online (2)
o About half online, half in-person (3)
o Mostly in-person (4)
o All in-person (5)
231
Q14 Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020), which of the following teaching
and learning methods and tools were typically included in anti-bias trainings offered by your
organization? (check all that apply)
▢ Live, facilitated presentations (in person) (1)
▢ Live, facilitated presentations (virtual) (16)
▢ Online modules (self-paced/not facilitated) (2)
▢ Handouts (4)
▢ Assigned Readings (15)
▢ Time for Reflection (5)
▢ Group Work (6)
▢ Journaling (7)
▢ Exams and/or quizzes (online) (8)
▢ Exams and/or quizzes (in-person) (9)
▢ Homework (10)
▢ Practical Exercises (Apply, reflect, report back) (11)
▢ Sharing Lived Experiences (12)
▢ Acting Out Scenarios/Role Play (13)
▢ Other (14) ________________________________________________
232
Part 3: Evaluation
The next questions are about the evaluation of anti-bias training in your organization.
Q15 Which of the following assessment methods are used to evaluate anti-bias training in
your organization? (check all that apply)
▢ Testing participants before beginning training (2)
▢ Testing participants during training (3)
▢ Reaction sheets on same day as training (1)
▢ Testing participants shortly after training (up to three months after) (4)
▢ Testing participants a long time after training (more than three months after). (5)
▢ Other data collection (please describe). (6)
________________________________________________
▢ None of the above (7)
233
Display this question if answer to Question 15 is testing participants before beginning training.
Q16 On tests of participants before training, what information are you collecting about
the participants? (check all that apply)
▢ Knowledge (1)
▢ Skills (2)
▢ Behavior (3)
▢ Attitudes (4)
Display this question if answer to Question 15 is reaction sheets on same day as training.
Q17 On reaction sheets provided on the same day as the training, what information are
you collecting about the participants? (check all that apply)
▢ Knowledge (1)
▢ Skills (2)
▢ Behavior (3)
▢ Attitudes (4)
234
Display this question if answer to Question 15 is testing participants during training.
Q18 On tests of participants during training, what information are you collecting about
the participants? (check all that apply)
▢ Knowledge (1)
▢ Skills (2)
▢ Behavior (3)
▢ Attitudes (4)
Display this question if answer to Question 15 is testing participants shortly after training (up
to three months after).
Q19 On tests of participants up to three months after training, what information are you
collecting about the participants? (check all that apply)
▢ Knowledge (1)
▢ Skills (2)
▢ Behavior (3)
▢ Attitudes (4)
235
Display this question if answer to Question 15 is testing participants a long time after training
(more than three months after).
Q20 On tests of participants more than three months after training, what information are
you collecting about the participants? (check all that apply)
▢ Knowledge (1)
▢ Skills (2)
▢ Behavior (3)
▢ Attitudes (4)
Part 4: Influences and Quality
The next set of questions are about the influences on and quality of anti-bias training in your
organization.
Q21 Who provides anti-bias training in your organization? (Check all that apply)
▢ HR Personnel (1)
▢ Student Services Personnel (2)
▢ Instructional Services Personnel (3)
▢ Outside Consultants (4)
▢ Risk Management Firm (5)
▢ Other (please describe) (6) ________________________________________________
236
Q22 Which of the following are the most important internal influences on the anti-bias
training offered by your organization? Please identify the TOP THREE influences.
▢ Your Own Personal Values (1)
▢ Executive Leadership (District) (2)
▢ Executive Leadership (College) (3)
▢ Faculty Leadership (4)
▢ Classified Staff Leadership (5)
▢ Student Leadership (10)
▢ Human Resources Staff (6)
▢ District or College Foundation (7)
▢ Board of Trustees (8)
▢ Other (please describe) (9) ________________________________________________
237
Q23 Which of the following are the most important external influences on the anti-bias
training offered by your organization? Please identify the TOP THREE influences.
▢ State Law (1)
▢ Federal Law (2)
▢ Industry Best Practices (3)
▢ What Other Colleges are Doing (10)
▢ Current Events/News Cycle (11)
▢ Societal Trends (12)
▢ State System Office (13)
▢ Local Community (14)
▢ Other (please describe) (9) ________________________________________________
Q24 Overall, which type of influence is most important in determining the anti-bias
training offered by your organization?
o Internal influences (1)
o External influences (2)
o Neither. Internal and external factors are about equally important. (3)
238
Q25 How effective is anti-bias training in changing behavior in your organization?
o Very effective (1)
o Somewhat effective (2)
o Somewhat ineffective (3)
o Very ineffective (4)
Q26 What impact does anti-bias training have on your organization?
o Very positive (1)
o Somewhat positive (2)
o Neither positive nor negative (3)
o Somewhat negative (4)
o Very negative (5)
Q27 What is your personal opinion of the quality of anti-bias training in your
organization?
o It's excellent (1)
o It's good (2)
o It's fair (3)
o It's poor (4)
239
Q28 How satisfied are you with anti-bias trianing in your organization?
o Very satisfied (1)
o Somewhat satisfied (2)
o Somewhat dissatisfied (3)
o Very dissatisfied (4)
Q29 If you could change anything about anti-bias training in your organization, what
would you change?
________________________________________________________________
240
Part 5: Demographic Information
This section contains a panel of standard demographic questions.
Q30 Which category below includes your age?
o 18-29 years (1)
o 30-39 years (2)
o 40-49 years (3)
o 50-59 years (4)
o 60 years or older (5)
Q31 What is your gender?
o Male (1)
o Female (2)
o Transgender (3)
o Prefer not to say (4)
o Other (5) ________________________________________________
241
Q32 What is your race?
o American Indian or Alaska Native (3)
o Asian (4)
o Black or African-American (2)
o Latinx (8)
o Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (5)
o Multi-racial (7)
o White (1)
o Prefer not to state (9)
Thank you for you participation in this survey. There is just one more question.
Q33 May the researcher contact you to participate in a follow up interview lasting no
more than one hour regarding anti-bias training in your organization?
o Yes (If Yes, please click on this external link to provide your information:
https://forms.gle/Q5yRzzmJL41TydVF8 . Your answers to this survey remain anonymous
and there is no connection between the contact information you provide on the Google form
and this survey. Thank you for your willingness to participate!) (1)
o No (2)
242
Appendix B
Anti-Bias Training Interview Protocol
Introductory remarks
I am Traci Fahimi, a doctoral student in the USC Rossier Organizational Change and
Leadership program. I want to thank you for participating in this study of anti-bias training. Anti-
bias training could cover such topics as sexual harassment, bullying, and possibly others, as well,
such as implicit bias, discrimination, diversity, and creating “safe” space. The purpose of the
study is to understand what kind of anti-bias training is offered in community colleges, how
decisions are made about anti-bias training, and how people perceive anti-bias training. The
study focuses on human resources leaders’ perception of and decisions about anti-bias training,
which is why you were chosen to participate in this interview. During this interview, I will ask
questions about you and your role, about the nature of anti-bias training in your organization,
about how decisions are made about anti-bias training, about the impact of anti-bias training, and
about what you and others think about anti-bias training. The interview will take approximately
one hour.
Your responses to these questions will remain confidential. Information that could
potentially identify you will not be published or shared unless I have your written permission.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. There are no known risks to this research.
This research will benefit the academic community because it helps us to understand attitudes
and practices surrounding anti-bias training in higher education institutions. You can decide to
stop at any time, even part way through the interview, for whatever reason. If you choose to
participate, you may skip any questions you do not wish to answer. If you decide not to
participate in the study or choose to withdraw, please let me know at any point during our
243
conversation, or contact me at taprice@usc.edu if you decide to withdraw after we have had our
conversation. If you decide to stop I will ask you how you would like me to handle the data
collected up to that point. This could include destroying it or using the data collected up to that
point.
Consent questions:
Do you have any questions or would you like any additional details?
Do you agree to participate in this study knowing that you can withdraw at any point with
no consequences to you?
During the interview I will be taking notes. Zoom provides an option to record the
interview and I also have a digital back-up recorder that, with your permission, I will use to
record the interview. The purpose of recording the interview is to ensure accuracy. Do you give
me permission to record the interview?
Thank you. Let’s get started.
Interview Protocol
There are 16 questions in the interview and I will help us keep time so that we keep
within the hour we have together. I will start by asking you a few questions about yourself.
1. What is your role in this organization? [Icebreaker]
2. Can you please describe your journey into your current leadership position? [Icebreaker]
3. What comes to mind when you hear the term “anti-bias” training? [RQ2: Knowledge]
Now I am going to ask you a few questions about what anti-bias training looks like in
your organization.
4. Please walk me through what your organization’s anti-bias training entails--basically, the
who, what, when and where of anti-bias training. [RQ1: Practice]
244
5. What are the goals of anti-bias training? [RQ2: Knowledge]
Next, I am going to ask you some questions about your and your organization’s decision
process regarding anti-bias training.
6. Who bears primary responsibility for anti-bias training in your organization? [Probe:
Does HR “own” the training or do other offices or actors get involved?] [Follow up:
Please describe their involvement.] [RQ 5: Internal Factors]
7. What factors, if any, outside your institution influence your decisions on anti-bias
training? [RQ 5: External Factors]
8. Please describe your decision process on what kind of anti-bias training to offer. [RQ2:
Knowledge and RQ 5: Internal Factors]
The next few questions are about how people in your organization view the training and
what impact the training has on participants and the organization as a whole.
9. Looking at the different types of participants in anti-bias training--such as faculty, staff,
administrators, and students--what is your perception of the impact that anti-bias training
has on these participants, if any? [RQ4: Evaluation]
10. Again, from the perspective of different stakeholders--such as faculty, staff,
administrators, and students--what is your perception of their thoughts about the training?
[RQ4: Evaluation]
11. Please describe your perceptions regarding the effectiveness of anti-bias training? Who
do you feel it is most effective for: Faculty? Staff? Administrators and managers? [RQ4:
Evaluation].
12. Please describe the resources you use to evaluate anti-bias training? [RQ4: Evaluation]
The next couple of questions focus on what training might look like in an ideal world.
245
13. If you could design the ideal anti-bias training, what would it look like? [RQ2:
Knowledge].
14. If you could change anything about the current environment surrounding anti-bias
training in your organization, what would you change? [RQ5: Internal Factors and
External Factors]
As we come near the end of our time, I have only two more questions.
15. What should I have asked you that I didn’t think to ask? [Probe: Is there anything you
would like to add that we haven’t covered?]
16. Are there any documents or artifacts you can share that show the content of your training
and training evaluations or that reflect your college’s approach and philosophy toward
anti-bias training?
246
Appendix C
Document Analysis Protocol
The documents that were analyzed for this study are listed in the following table, which
includes a crosswalk with the research questions, specific data elements that were the subject of
inquiry for each document type, and sample questions for document analysis. Documents were
sourced from participants in qualitative interviews and public records.
Research Questions Documents Selected Data Analyzed
1.What anti-bias training
protocols are currently being
implemented in Community
College System?
Training Descriptions Topics Addressed in Anti-
Bias Training; Scope and
Breadth of Training;
Length of Training
2. What anti-bias training
protocols are held up by
Community College System
human resources leaders as ideal
and why?
n/a n/a
3. How do current anti-bias
training protocols in Community
College System align with best
practices?
Training Descriptions Topics Addressed in Anti-
Bias Training; Scope and
Breadth of Training;
Length of Training
4. How do Community College
System human resources leaders
perceive and evaluate the
effectiveness of anti-bias training?
n/a n/a
5. How do internal and external
facotrs in Community College
System work to facilitate or
hinder human resources leaders’
ability to implement effective
training design?
n/a n/a
247
Appendix D
Information Sheet/Informed Consent
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH
STUDY TITLE: Anti-Bias Training in Community Colleges: An Exploratory Study
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Traci Price Fahimi
FACULTY ADVISOR: Helena Seli, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Clinical Education; Director
of Program Development, Rossier School of Education
You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to understand what kind of anti-bias training is offered in community
colleges, how decisions are made about anti-bias training, and how people perceive and evaluate
anti-bias training. You are invited as a possible participant because you are a human resources
leader in a community college system, who, through that role, is involved with decisions about
anti-bias training.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you decide to take part in the study, you will be asked to participate in a qualitative interview
lasting approximately one hour. The interview is comprised of fifteen questions, all of which are
open ended and may include follow up questions. The questions ask about you and your role,
about the nature of anti-bias training in your organization, about how decisions are made about
anti-bias training, about the impact of anti-bias training, and about what you and others think
about anti-bias training. You can decide to stop the interview at any time, even part way through
the interview, for any reason. If you choose to participate, you may skip any questions you do
not wish to answer. If you decide to stop the interview, the investigator will ask you how you
would like her to handle the data collected up to that point. This could include destroying it or
using the data collected up to that point.
During the interview, the investigator will be taking notes and utilizing a digital recorder to
record the interview. The purpose of using the recorder is to ensure accuracy.
248
There are no known risks to this research. This research will benefit the academic community
because it helps us to understand attitudes and practices surrounding anti-bias training in higher
education institutions.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will receive $25 Amazon gift card for your time. You do not have to answer all of the
interview questions in order to receive the card. The card will be given to you upon completion
of the interview.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used about you or your organization. Your responses to questions will
remain confidential. Information that could potentially identify you will not be published or
shared unless the investigator receives your written permission. Your participation in this study
is entirely voluntary.
Data reports, audio recordings, and interview transcripts derived from this study will be kept by
the researcher for 10 years, at which point they will be destroyed. You have a right to review the
interview transcripts for accuracy. Only the primary researcher and the faculty advisor will have
access to data, audio recordings, and interview transcripts.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Traci Price Fahimi, principal
investigator, at taprice@usc.edu or Helena Seli, faculty advisor, at praks@rossier.usc.edu, 213-
740-6742.
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.
249
Appendix E
Sample Rubric for Evaluating Anti-Bias Training
Design Components of Effective Anti-Bias Training
Characteristic Description Not
Present
(0)
Moderately
Present
(1)
Strongly
Present
(2)
Facilitated Training is conducted by an experienced facilitator to
ensure a safe space for learning and to adjust content
based on learner needs.
Ongoing Training takes place over at least three months to
ensure sufficient time for authentic learning to take
place.
Reflective Training allows time for self-reflection and reflective
practice.
Interactive Training includes interaction among and across
identity groups.
Relevant Facilitator adjusts content to meet needs of learners.
Facilitator presents topics that are important and
meaningful to learners.
Comprehensive Covers a broad array of implicit and explicit biases.
Covers identity, positionality, and privilege. Covers
skills needed to disrupt bias.
Critical Includes study of systems of oppression, dominance,
subordination and privilege informed by critical race
theory.
Outcomes-
Oriented
Clear learning outcomes are identified to guide
learning and assessment. Learning outcomes include
both awareness and action outcomes.
Scores
Interpreting Scores
Good (16-18): : Training meets best practices criteria
Fair (11-15): : Training is missing or weak in several best practices areas
Poor (0-10): : Training is substandard in numerous best practices areas
Total
250
College Support for Effective Anti-Bias Training
Characteristic Description Not
Present
(0)
Moderately
Present
(1)
Strongly
Present
(2)
Motivational Social rewards and incentives are embedded into the
training. College cultivates urgency around training.
Measured Pre- and post-assessments of training effectiveness
are administered. The transfer of learning into the
workplace is measured.
Scores
Interpreting Scores
Good (4): : College supports for anti-bias training are strong. College will be able to
determine return on investment in training and motivate participation in training.
Fair (2-3): College is missing some needed elements of support for effective anti-bias
training. College may have difficulty measuring outcomes and motivating
participation.
Poor (0-1): College support for anti-bias training is below standard. College should
improve support before embarking on an anti-bias training program.
Total
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Preparing millennial students for a multigenerational workforce: an innovation study
PDF
Principals’ impact on the effective enactment of instructional coaching that promotes equity: an evaluation study
PDF
Managerial coaching to increase diversity, build capacity, and improve nonprofit performance
PDF
Educational resiliency factors contributing to college success for adolescent mothers
PDF
Structured leadership development in the judicial system to enhance public service: an executive dissertation evaluation study
PDF
Graduation rates in college of students with disabilities: an innovation study
PDF
Incentivizing for-profit investment in the non-profit initiatives of the Community Cooperative: an evaluation study
PDF
Supporting the equitable treatment of youth in the criminal justice system: an evaluation of a systematic decision-making process for a juvenile diversion program
PDF
High school counselors’ support of first-generation students’ postsecondary planning: an evaluative study
PDF
Where are all the ""leadhers""? Female leaders' experiences in finance
PDF
Developing global competence in a Sino-US joint university: an evaluation study
PDF
Scaling online graduate programs: an exploratory study of insourcing versus outsourcing
PDF
Effective practices for managing staff performance in higher education: an exploratory study
PDF
Raising women leaders of Christian higher education: an innovation study
PDF
Leadership competencies in healthcare administration graduate degree programs: an evaluative study
PDF
One to one tablet integration in the mathematics classroom: an evaluation study of an international school in China
PDF
The influence of executive leadership on community college completion rates
PDF
First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study
PDF
Customer satisfaction with information technology service quality in higher education: an evaluation study
PDF
Relationship between employee disengagement and employee performance among facilities employees in higher education: an evaluation study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Fahimi, Traci Price
(author)
Core Title
Anti-bias training in community colleges: an exploratory study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
04/06/2021
Defense Date
03/22/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
adaptive leadership,anti-bias training,bias,community college,diversity,equity,inclusion,microaggression,OAI-PMH Harvest,social justice education,student success
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Seli, Helena (
committee chair
), Pearson, Mark (
committee member
), Phillips, Jennifer (
committee member
)
Creator Email
taprice@usc.edu,tpfahimi@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-439965
Unique identifier
UC11666703
Identifier
etd-FahimiTrac-9411.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-439965 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-FahimiTrac-9411.pdf
Dmrecord
439965
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Fahimi, Traci Price
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
adaptive leadership
anti-bias training
bias
community college
equity
inclusion
microaggression
social justice education
student success