University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The responsive academic practitioner: using inquiry methods for self-change

(USC Thesis Other)

The responsive academic practitioner: using inquiry methods for self-change

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE RESPONSIVE ACADEMIC PRACTITIONER:

USING INQUIRY METHODS FOR SELF-CHANGE

by

Edlyn Vallejo Peña

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)

May 2007

Copyright 2007 Edlyn Vallejo Peña

ii
DEDICATION
This study is dedicated to the love of my life and best friend, Damien Peña.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Professional Acknowledgements:
I want to thank The James Irvine Foundation
1
, which provided support for this study
as part of a larger project called Designing and Implementing a Diversity Scorecard
to Improve Institutional Effectiveness for Underserved Minority Students.

Thank you to the faculty participants of this study. I appreciate your candor and
willingness to express your beliefs about students and about your role as faculty
members. You are role models to other faculty members as you continue to inquire
into improving your educational practices.

Personal Acknowledgements:
I’d first like to acknowledge my husband, best friend, and mentor, Damien Peña.
Damien, with you by my side, everything is possible (including this dissertation).
From the first day I met you, we have made an incredible team. The best decision I
ever made was marrying you. I don’t know what I have done to deserve your
phenomenal love, but I do know that the special connection we share is unbreakable.
I never take it for granted. In many ways you are an inspiration to me. You keep me
grounded and remind me not to neglect the things in life that are truly important,

1
The findings and opinions written here are solely mine and do not reflect the position or priorities of
the foundation.

iv
such as love, family, and laughter. I thank God everyday for blessing me with your
unbelievable support. I love you and cannot wait to continue to share in each other’s
accomplishments as we grow old together.

Thank you to my parents, Joe and Maria, and to my sister, Eleen, who have been
supportive of my academic endeavors since day one. You three have given me
critical tools to succeed in life. By believing in me, you allowed me to believe in
myself and my ability to accomplish educational and life goals. Mom and Dad, you
came to this country with very little, and what you have achieved is so incredible. I
learn from your example. I could not have made it this far in my educational career
without your unconditional love and faith in me. Mom, Dad, and Eleen, I love you
all very much.

Thank you to the Valenzuela family—Jess, Hilda, Robert, and Monica—who
provide me a great sense of family and support. You model strong family values for
Damien and me. Thank you to my favorite nephew, Jesse Peña, for allowing me to
be a part of your educational triumphs. You have a bright future ahead of you. I
can’t wait to see the day when you go to college.

I am indebted to all of my friends from Avenida Simi (Cindy and Gina), Chaminade
(Caroline, Jenny, Marc, and Angela), University of California at Santa Cruz (Naomi,
Delmy, and Miki), and University Glen (Traci, Leah, Josh, and Cameo) for your
v
continued encouragement and humor. Out of all the friends in my life who have
come and gone, I know that the relationships I’ve developed with you are strong and
everlasting. Thank you for your patience during the dissertation process. You will
always have a special place in my heart. I am grateful to Oscar, Felicia, Victor, and
Yesenia: four wonderful friends who I am blessed to have in my life. Thank you for
asking me to be a Godmother to Maddy, Kalil, and Mateo. I am honored to be a
special part of their lives. I strive to be a positive role model, and will always
encourage your children to reach for the stars.

Thank you to Estela Bensimon, my advisor and dissertation co-chair for your
unconditional support and patience through the dissertation process. Thanks for
believing in me during these past five years. I have grown a tremendous amount
both personally and professionally since working at the Center for Urban Education.
I learned a great deal from your leadership and I look forward to learning a lot more
from you for years to come.

To Don Polkinghorne, my dissertation co-chair, thank you for your incredible
guidance. Your kind words and thoughtful suggestions gave me the courage to keep
going. Thank you to my dissertation committee, Robert Rueda and Gelya Frank, for
your expert feedback and insight.

vi
I also want to acknowledge the mentors in my life who took their time to guide me as
a college student at University of California, Santa Cruz. Thank you to Faye Crosby,
Barry McLaughlin, Linda St. John, and Larry Trujillo. I attribute much of my
success in graduate school to the support you gave me during my undergraduate
years. Thank you for caring about me. I will never forget you.

Thank you to all the staff and students at the Center for Urban Education—Arlease
Woods, Amalia Marquez, Ilda Jimenez y West, Elsa Macias, & Alicia Dowd. You
are wonderful colleagues and friends. You make coming to work a lot of fun and I
appreciate the warm office culture you’ve created. I am grateful for my office
buddy, Lindsey Malcom, for your friendship and sense of humor. I admire your
strong work ethic and ambition. Thank you to Frank Harris III, who is like a big
brother to me. You do a wonderful job of achieving so much at work while never
losing perspective about what matters most—your family. You are a role model to
me and I will miss you. Thank you to Letty Bustillos and Lan Hao for getting me
through the tough days of the Ph.D. and dissertation process these last five years.
Laughing with you was the best medicine to a challenging day.

vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication and Acknowledgments ii
Acknowledgments iii
List of Tables ix
Abstract x
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 5
Purpose of the Study 7
Overview of the Study 8
Research Questions 12
Significance of the Study 13
Organization of the Dissertation 14

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 15
Redressing Unequal Outcomes in Postsecondary Institutions 15
Shifting Faculty Members’ Perceptions and Practices with Students 21
Situated Learning of Students’ Lived Educational Experiences 28
Reflection Upon Students and Interactions with Them 35
Description of the Mountainside Interview Project 40

Chapter 3: Method 49
Research Design 49
Participants 54
Data Collection 55
Ethical Concerns 61
Analysis of the Data 62

Chapter 4: Results of Program Evaluation 71
Introduction to Five Faculty Participants 71
Evaluation Criteria of Project Goals 74
Evaluation Findings 77
Summary of Evaluation 106

Chapter 5: Three Cases of Faculty Members’ Participation 109
Barbara, Chair of the Biology Department 109
Grace, the Plant Biologist 150
Matt, the Mathematician 187

viii
Chapter 6: Discussion 232
Important Findings 233
Transforming Perspectives 235
Implications for Practice 248
Future Research 254
Conclusion 255

References 258

Appendices 266
Appendix A: First Student Interview Protocol 266
Appendix B: Second Student Interview Protocol 267
Appendix C: Third Student Interview Protocol 268
Appendix D: Verbal Recruitment of Subjects 269
Appendix E: First Faculty Participant Interview Protocol 270
Appendix F: Second Faculty Participant Interview Protocol 272
Appendix G: Third Faculty Participant Interview Protocol 273
Appendix H: Fourth Faculty Participant Interview Protocol 276
Appendix I: Questions for Faculty Participants at the 279
End of the Project
Appendix J: Informed Consent Form 280

ix
List of Tables

Table 1: Timeline of Mountainside Interview Project Events 44
Table 2: Demographics of Participants in Mountainside Interview Project 55

x
Abstract

This study details an investigation into the ways in which five faculty
members who participated in a collaborative inquiry project at a small, liberal arts
institution learned from conducting student interviews and reconceptualized their
educational practices as a result of this learning. The purpose of the project was for
faculty members to develop a deeper understanding of the educational experiences of
African American and Latino students—those who typically experienced inequitable
educational outcomes. Using the method of content and narrative analyses, interview
transcripts, observational field notes, and written responses were examined to study
the extent to which the project achieved its goals. These goals required that faculty
participants: (1) learned from students’ educational lives; (2) learned about and
reconceptualized their own approaches to students; (3) changed educational
practices; and (4) institutionalized collaborative inquiry methods. I found that these
goals were met for all faculty participants. The most dramatic changes were
experienced by faculty members who had not been previously involved in diversity
and equity initiatives. The faculty participants, as a result of their participation,
experienced a transformation of perspective on their relationships with students.
They felt an increased sense of efficacy and responsibility toward redressing unequal
outcomes and employed corrective action steps toward this aim.
1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Upon reflecting on my undergraduate experience at a medium-sized public
university, I think about the very things that helped me thrive academically. Years
after graduating I ask myself, “What about my experience enabled me, among
numerous classmates, to succeed as a Latina student?” While my peers certainly
provided a support system and my involvement in various academic and social
support programs offered me critical resources, I attribute much of my success to my
relationships with faculty members. My peers and the programs in which I was
involved were certainly key to my success and retention. But it was my relationships
with the very people who I held in high regard that meant most in assisting me to
make it through each semester and each class.
Faculty members possessed great power; from my perspective as an
undergraduate student, they were intimidating and influential figures. Among the
many professors who taught my classes—most of whom to which I made very little
connection—three faculty members made a significant impact in my academic life.
Two full professors in the department of psychology and one half-time professor and
director of a resource center somehow, amidst their overloaded schedule, made it a
point to connect with me. They took a chance on me, invited me to become a
research assistant or intern, and guided me in my classroom studies. They assumed
2
an interest in my educational background and life history and used this information
to figure out how to approach me in such a way that enabled me to succeed.
One of the psychology professors in particular became an especially
influential figure during my undergraduate career. I first met Fran
2
during my
sophomore year when I matriculated in her class, “The Social Psychology of Sex and
Gender.” Each week I attended class, noting her kind green eyes and attentiveness to
the topic and her students. Fran appeared to be approachable. I mustered up the
courage to visit her office hours to ask for help on an assignment. After this first
meeting, Fran’s relationship with me slowly evolved from the status of professor-
student to mentor-mentee. I eventually became one of her research assistants. While
helping me with a research project, a class assignment, or my class schedule, Fran
gently probed for information about me—my schooling, my family, my life at the
university. She made it a point to get to know me and to discover what made me tick
academically. Fran strategically used the knowledge she garnered about me to
inform the ways in which she advised me. She used my history and my identity as a
way to connect or contrast my experience to subject matter, research questions, and
even to my future endeavors as a graduate student. Fran took great care, despite her
busy schedule, to approach me in such a way that engaged me, encouraged me, and
challenged me to succeed.

2
All names in this dissertation have been changed to protect the identity of those under study or those,
like Fran, who inadvertently inspired my thoughts in writing this paper.

3
Fran’s mentorship impacted me in crucial ways. After building this
relationship, I felt as if I was not just going to school anymore. I was actually going
to a place I considered my second home. My connection to the university and the
department of psychology strengthened. I somehow felt I mattered and that I was
important; someone who I considered had much power in my area of study
recognized and acknowledged me. Fran and the other two professors became critical
social networks. Coming from a middle-class family background where attaining a
college degree was an expectation, I do believe I would have graduated despite these
faculty members’ assistance. Nevertheless, my experience as an undergraduate
student would not have led me to rich opportunities in conducting research, interning
in summer programs, and participating in department functions mostly attended by
professors and graduate students. More than that, without my relationships with
faculty, I would not have developed such a strong identity with my university. I
would not have been as motivated to do well. I would have felt less visible.
My relationship with Fran was somewhat unique. I witnessed her develop
similar kinds of relationships with only a handful of undergraduate students,
including one minority student. While observing the experiences of my peers on
campus, I came to understand that I was one of few Latino students who enjoyed
prosperous interactions with my professors. Although I am not a member of a
historically marginalized and subordinated group, my identity as a Latina prompted
me to develop intimate relationships and networks with other Latinos on campus,
largely students of Mexican and Salvadorian decent from lower socioeconomic
4
backgrounds. I saw them through their triumphs and challenges. Most of us
successfully earned a Bachelor degree while others did not. The few Latino friends
who graduated with flying colors, I observed, were those who had somehow
established important relationships with faculty. Others did graduate, barely
surviving the system. A few of us did not make it at all. I later found out that those
who dropped out would become a national statistic reflecting scores of students of
color who, despite gaining access to higher education, would never graduate.
I believe that my friends would have benefited from developing relationships
with faculty members like the one I enjoyed with Fran. In fact, they might have
benefited even more than I did because they, unlike me, lacked the “insider” college
knowledge that made it possible for me to navigate the college culture and perform
the academic rituals that prompted Fran to notice me. I had entered the university
fresh from a private, college-preparatory high school, influenced by an older sister
and cousins who had previously attended college. I raised my hand in class, emailed
my professors, and visited office hours. Unlike many of my Latino peers, I came in
with these socialized behaviors, advantages that allowed me to blend in with students
from majority groups. Perhaps my approach to schooling made faculty members feel
as if they could take a chance on me. I was easier to relate to; I mirrored their
behaviors and language, reflecting something familiar in their world. Even my light
skin enhanced this sense of familiarity.
I was different in many ways from my friends who arrived to college from
low-income neighborhoods, under-resourced schools, and family with little formal
5
education. My friends and other minority students who struggled to navigate the
system were less likely to cultivate relationships with faculty who made them feel
that they mattered, made them feel that they could do better in a course, or made
them feel they were good enough to graduate.
Statement of the Problem
I start this dissertation with my personal story to frame the problem I wish to
address. That is, despite several decades of compensatory academic and social
services and programs directed at ethnic minority students, these students continue to
lag significantly behind other student groups on just about every educational measure
of achievement (Bensimon, Polkinghorne, Bauman, & Vallejo, 2004; Berkener, He,
and Cataldi, 2002; Fry, 2002; Ibarra, 2001). Postsecondary institutions typically
place the responsibility on student and academic affairs administrators to redress
inequities (Stassen, 1995). Thus far, faculty members have not been sufficiently
involved in efforts to promote the achievement of underrepresented students.
Stassen contends that, “Given the central role faculty play in shaping the institutional
environment, their lack of involvement and selective resistance present a critical
problem in improving institutional responses to racial and ethnic diversity” (p. 362).
Like Stassen, I view faculty members as an untapped resource and consider
them a critical factor to improving the academic performance of minority students.
Underpinning this study is the notion that faculty members are at the heart of
assisting underrepresented students in the attainment of academic success. Fran
cared about each and every one of her students, like most professors, but did not
6
always maintain close relationships with the students who probably needed it most.
Despite wanting all of her students to succeed, she might not have understood the
minority students in her classes to an extent that allowed her to approach them in
ways that enabled their learning. This kind of understanding encompasses (but is not
limited to) students’ educational histories, strengths and challenges in learning, and
ways of experiencing the classroom and relationships with faculty members who are
predominantly white. Developing these understandings about students at risk of
slipping through the academic cracks requires a different and more purposeful kind
of connection to students than is typically experienced by professors.
In my story I have emphasized what I gained from the relationship with Fran.
I believe that, had she developed this kind of relationship with all of her students of
color, they would have been more likely to achieve greater measures of academic
success. In fact, the way in which I have told my story reflects the way in which
student engagement with faculty is typically framed in the literature in higher
education (Kuh, 2001). Student-faculty interaction is presented as consisting of a
benefactor (the faculty member) and a beneficiary (the student).
In my study, I aim to explore student-faculty interactions from a different
angle. Namely, I seek to answer the question, “In what ways do faculty members
benefit from their interactions with students?” That is, when faculty members
interact with students, “What do they learn about them and how does their learning
impact their teaching practices?” I am interested in the understandings—about how
students experience a campus and classroom that is predominantly white, for
7
example—that faculty members develop as a result of interacting with students. I
am especially interested in their interactions with students who were more like my
friends than me: students who are first generation, tend to be low income, and racial
or ethnic minorities.
Purpose of the Study
In this study, I seek to understand the ways in which faculty members who
engage in learning about students via interactions with them experience a change in
the ways they perceive and relate to students of color. I present the findings of
faculty members’ experiences in an experimental collaborative inquiry approach, the
Mountainside Interview Project, created as an intervention to increase the likelihood
that faculty members learn more about and develop responsibility to improve
academic disparities. The intent of my analysis is pragmatic: to inform the ways in
which institutions can engage faculty members into becoming aware and responsive
to closing the equity gap. Illustrating the impact such a project can have on faculty
members will provide insights for researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers in
higher education to improve the status of student equity through a unique kind of
faculty development activity—the marriage of interviewing students and
collaborative inquiry.
8
Overview of the Study
The Diversity Scorecard Project
Over the last three years I have been affiliated with a theory-based
(McLaughlin & Mitra, 2001) intervention called the Diversity Scorecard project
3
,
whose aim is to improve minority student success in postsecondary institutions. The
project was created after a team of faculty members and administrators examined
institutional data on student outcomes disaggregated by race and ethnicity. In their
examination, they learned that students of color at their institution, Mountainside
College
4
, experienced inequitable educational outcomes. In particular, at this
predominantly white institution, Latino students achieved lower grade point averages
and a little over half of the African American students successfully graduated within
six years.
A central premise of the intervention is that the unequal outcomes for
minority students can be understood as a learning problem of education practitioners
(Bensimon, Polkinghorne, Bauman, & Vallejo, 2004). The theory of change
underlying the intervention draws on Polkinghorne’s (2004) interpretation of practice
theory and its application to the “caring” professions such as teaching, nursing, and
counseling. In very simple terms, Polkinghorne’s premise is that practitioners are
continuously making practical decisions about what to do in their practices on a daily

3
The Diversity Scorecard project was funded by The James Irvine Foundation and directed by
researchers at the Center for Urban Education at the University of Southern California. In its entirety,
the project involved teams at 14 colleges and universities.
4
A pseudonym is given for the institution in this study.

9
basis. In the Diversity Scorecard project, the persistence and consistency of racial
patterns of inequality found on most college campuses are considered from the
perspective of practitioners rather than students. Faculty members are viewed as
influential actors whose practices, often without their awareness, have an effect—
positive or negative—on the outcomes of students of color.
Further, the project posits that in order for faculty members to be responsive
to minority students and enable their success, they need to understand how these
students experience their relationships with faculty members and other students, both
within and outside the classroom, especially in predominantly white institutions.
The project makes it very explicit that institutional actors have to recognize that an
African American student in a classroom with no other African Americans is likely
to have a very different learning experience than students who are not burdened by a
history of racism and exclusion. In the Diversity Scorecard project, one of the
causes of unequal outcomes for minority students is perceived to be the lack of
education practitioners’ understandings and experiences to make decisions that take
into account the particular circumstances of underrepresented students.
As a departure from typical solutions to improve student outcomes, such as
activating supplemental instruction, tutoring, and academic skills workshops, the
members of the Diversity Scorecard project, facilitated by researchers at the Center
for Urban Education (CUE), decided to create a new project to redress unequal
outcomes. This approach provided a structure for faculty members’ to develop their
internalized experiences and understandings of teaching and advising students of
10
color. The project was predicated on the idea that if faculty members enhanced their
experiences with and understandings of students of color, they would have a richer
body of internalized meanings from which to draw when making practical decisions
in the moment of teaching and advising (Polkinghorne, 2004). The logic
undergirding this approach held that faculty members would be able to make better
decisions in the midst of teaching and advising students of color if they: 1) gained a
deeper understanding about students of color through interaction, and 2) reflected
upon both the educational experiences that students face as well as their own
interactions with students.
In January of 2004, a working group of five faculty members and three
administrators at Mountainside College
5
, a small liberal arts institution in southern
California, embarked on a novel investigative venture. The project, what I refer to as
the Mountainside Interview Project, reflects an innovative approach to engaging
faculty into the problem of unequal outcomes by encouraging their involvement in
inquiry. More specifically, the project involved faculty members
6
in developing a
deeper understanding of individual African American and Latino students’
7
lived
educational experiences as they conducted student interviews and participated in
inquiry meetings. The intention of participating in the Mountainside Interview

6
The collaborative inquiry project also involves administrators. However, the focus of this study is on
faculty members.
7
In this study I refer to African American and Latino students as minority students and students of
color interchangeably.

11
Project was threefold: to raise faculty members’ awareness about the experiences of
underrepresented students in a predominantly white institution; to encourage them to
reflect on how they can individually and collectively bring about changes to create
optimal environments for academic success; and to use new experiences and
understandings resulting from the inquiry and reflection to change approaches to
educating students.
In particular, over a 20-month period, the team interviewed students of color
three times over their freshman and sophomore years. Moreover, they met as a
collaborative inquiry group to discuss and reflect upon the interview findings.
Interviewing students outside of their daily practices provided a unique approach for
faculty to understand how students viewed their experiences on campus, including
their beliefs and attitudes about the institution and about themselves as learners. The
process of interviewing additionally gave faculty members experiences in interacting
with students, requiring faculty to attentively listen to forces impacting students’
educational lives.
Equally important to the interviewing process were the collaborative inquiry
meetings held bimonthly. A collaborative activity centered on the interview
transcripts, the inquiry meetings prompted faculty participants to gather around a
table, debrief on their interviews, read through students’ quotes, and discuss
questions, assumptions, and existing understandings about students. They analyzed
student interview data and considered campus issues--such as institutional structures,
policies, and practices--that might play a role in producing inequities. By
12
considering stories and specific quotes derived from student interviews, and
reflecting on these as a team, the group sought to understand the ways in which
inequitable educational outcomes were “manufactured” (Stanton-Salazar, 2001, p. 6)
at Mountainside College.
Interviewing students, listening to their stories in a more purposeful way, and
discussing how to be more effective to assist students of color in the inquiry
meetings all had the potential to offer an opportunity to cultivate understanding,
experience, and care toward redressing inequities. Based on the unique features of
the Mountainside Interview Project, I seek to understand whether the interviews of
students of color coupled with the collaborative inquiry meetings promoted the
development of a richer body of experiences and understandings about students of
color from which participating faculty members could draw upon in their daily
practices with students. To evaluate the Mountainside Interview Project, I
qualitatively study the development of faculty members’ understandings about
students and about themselves, and how these understandings inform their everyday
practical decisions with African American and Latino students.
Research Questions
I aim to answer four research questions in this evaluative study. First, what
do faculty members learn about students’ lived classroom and campus experiences
by participating in student interviews and collaborative inquiry focusing on equitable
educational outcomes for African American and Latino students? Second, in what
ways do faculty participants learn about and reconceptualize their practices of
13
teaching and advising as a consequence of their new understanding and reflection
about the experiences of underrepresented students within their own campus? Third,
in what ways did faculty participants change their practices and approaches toward
students? Fourth, in what ways did faculty participants institutionalize the inquiry
methods they experienced in the project? This examination will shed light on the
extent to which Mountainside Interview Project’s goals were achieved as a result of
faculty members’ experiences with interviewing students and collaborative inquiry.
Significance of the Study
The knowledge gained from this study is significant because it addresses a
new approach to improving minority student success. Little knowledge in education
literature exists about how faculty members become conscious of their role in
creating opportunities for equitable outcomes, and even less is known about factors
to create the conditions to transform attitudes and behaviors into ones that increase
the likelihood of success among underrepresented students (Stassen, 1995). Faculty
members typically feel resistant to researching into and raising questions about
existing teaching practices (Bok, 2006). This study explores ways in which
participation in an inquiry project develops faculty members’ understandings about
minority students and capacities to approach and relate with students. The
experiences and understandings gained in the project can be internalized and drawn
upon to inform practical decisions while teaching and advising (Polkinghorne, 2004).
This study will shed light on how interviewing students and collaborative inquiry
provide an opportunity to promote practical decisions that support equal outcomes.
14
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is divided into a total of six chapters. Immediately following
this introductory chapter I offer a review of the literature on educators’ practical
decisions and the factors and conditions that can enable shifts in practical decisions.
The second chapter ends with a detailed description of the project under evaluation.
In the third chapter I explain the research design and method used to analyze faculty
interviews, observational field notes, and written responses. The results of the study
are presented in the fourth and fifth chapter. One presents a thematic analysis of
findings and the other presents 3 detailed case studies of faculty participants and
their involvement in the project. In the last chapter I provide a discussion of the
conclusions I have drawn from this study and implications for practice and future
research.
15
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Redressing Unequal Outcomes in Postsecondary Institutions
One of the leading problems identified in higher education literature is the
achievement gap between minority students and other ethnic groups (Bensimon,
2005; Carey, 2005; Fry, 2002; Ibarra, 2001). More than ever before, institutions of
higher education in the United States face a crisis of escalating inequities in
educational outcomes across racial groups (Bensimon, 2005). African American and
Latino students, in particular, experience unequal outcomes on almost every measure
of academic success in college—from placement on the Dean’s list to grade point
average to graduation in competitive majors
8
. A report issued by the Education
Trust (Carey, 2005), for example, announced that students of color
disproportionately fall short in acquiring Bachelor degrees compared to other student
groups. Only 40.5% African Americans and 47% of Latino students who entered
college in 1997 graduated within six years while almost 60% of whites and over 65%
of Asian Americans graduated in the same year (Carey, 2005). In addition, figures
published in 2005 by the Digest on Education Statistics (2005) showed that among
individuals between the ages of 25-29, 17.7% of African Americans and 12% of
Hispanic/Latinos achieved a Bachelor’s degree or higher compared to 30.5% of

8
These findings come from our work with almost 30 colleges and universities who examined
institutional data on student outcomes disaggregated by race and ethnicity.

16
Whites. As a consequence, the capacity for students of color to fully participate in
higher education, society, and the economy is hampered.
These figures represent an enormous scale of opportunities lost for
traditionally underserved students. Despite tremendous efforts to increase access for
underrepresented groups into postsecondary institutions, access has not translated
into equity in outcomes. That is, the majority of students of color still never realize
the dream of earning a baccalaureate degree. Adelman (1997) contends, “The
message is unmistakable: if the gaps in access have narrowed, the gaps in completion
remain stubbornly wide” (p. 40). Clearly, increasing access alone does not pave the
way for minority students’ educational success.
In the early 1970s, a number of initiatives were implemented to improve
retention rates once it became evident that postsecondary access was not sufficient
for college success (Habley & McClanahan, 2004). As I explain in more detail in the
following section, college administrators and research on retention typically
promoted the addition of programs to change students’ skills and behaviors. Those
who studied the minority student achievement gap in higher education, for example,
typically related retention and success to students’ behaviors and attitudes that
reflected their commitment to educational goals, perceptions of family expectations,
academic and social integration, and possession of cultural capital (e.g., Braxton,
2000; Kraemer, 1997; Jun & Tierney, 1999; Rendón & Valadez, 1993; Tinto, 1993).
As a result of research findings, many of these students’ behaviors and attitudes were
17
characterized as deficits that impaired their ability to successfully earn a
baccalaureate.
This study considers the closing of the achievement gap from a different
perspective. I see the problem of inequitable educational outcomes as one that is
shared between students and faculty members. Rather than studying the deficits
associated with minority student underachievement as many studies have done, I
focus on faculty members’ perceptions and practices with students. As classroom
educators, the ways in which faculty members relate to students of color plays a key
role in their educational success. Thus, the difference between studies that
concentrate on students (See for example: Tinto, 1993)) and this study is the
acknowledgment that faculty members can impact the achievement gap despite the
negative characteristics they may associate with minority students. The premise of
this study is that when faculty members gain a deeper understanding of students and
begin to take greater responsibility to promote student success, there is a greater
likelihood that they will assume corrective actions and preventive measures for
unequal outcomes.
The following section describes in more detail approaches typically
implemented to improve the success of minority students. Following this discussion,
I propose a different way of understanding the problem of the achievement gap,
thereby offering a solution that has more to do with changing faculty members’
perceptions and practices than with remedying student deficits.
18
Typical Approaches to Redressing Unequal Outcomes

The standpoint from which individuals view the problem of differing rates of
achievement and retention influences how the problem is framed and what solutions
are considered. At present, when discussions about ways to improve student
retention emerge, researchers and education practitioners typically think about how
student characteristics impact retention rates. For example, unequal outcomes have
been attributed to students’ lack of academic preparation and social integration
(Tinto, 1993), and cultural capital necessary to make a successful transition to
college (Jun & Tierney, 1999; Tierney, 1999). Studies have also focused on the
differing psychological traits (Bean & Eaton, 2000) and background/pre-college
traits (Pascarella, 1985) between students who drop out of college and those who
remain.
Overall, these studies concentrate on the ways in which students successfully
or unsuccessfully adapt to postsecondary institutions given their characteristics.
Because the problem of attrition and low achievement is framed as a problem of
student attributes, the student is the unit of focus for retention practices that will
assist them to transition to college. Since the 1970s, colleges and universities have
created programs, adopted policies, and implemented strategies to increase student
retention. In the ensuing years retention practices have moved from acting as
singular programs under the auspices of academic services to more holistic
approaches that involve academic affairs, student affairs, and administration
(McClanahan, 2004).
19
While such retention practices marked a step in the right direction to improve
students’ outcomes, they were notably limited in scope. They often focused on
remedying student deficits and ignored other influential players, like faculty
members, in the education process. Research by Swail (1995) suggests that retention
programs are most successful when faculty members become involved in interacting
with students. However, retention approaches generally consist of compensatory
academic programs such as tutoring, supplemental instruction, and diversity related
initiatives that rarely involve faculty members (Stassen, 1995). These interventions
are often created to compensate for academic deficiencies—behaviors, attitudes, and
skills—that minority students accumulate as a result of years of low quality
education (Bensimon, 2005; Massey, Charles, Lundy, & Fischer, 2003). As such,
the operating assumption is that institutions must assist students to make up for what
they are lacking. It is the students who must change, not the faculty members and
instructors who educate the students.
Redressing Unequal Outcomes by Focusing on Faculty Members
My point here is not to argue that students are not responsible for their
academic achievement. Rather, both students and faculty members play an
important role in the equation of educational success. I contend that the programs
typically implemented place the onus of student success on the student, leaving
responsibility for changing the ways in which institutional actors relate to students at
the margins. It is true that a number of administrators and faculty members by the
nature of their work in postsecondary institutions do become involved in strategies to
20
promote student success and retention in various ways. However, these strategies
typically prompt education practitioners to think about how to improve student
behaviors, skills, and practices alone without seriously reconsidering their own
(Bensimon, 2006).
The following section introduces a different way to think about the problem
of inequitable educational outcomes. Instead of conceptualizing ways in which to
improve student skills and behaviors, I explore the development of faculty members’
experiences and understandings of students of color as a method to improve
approaches to teaching and advising students. Ibarra pointedly notes that
commonplace solutions for combating inequities,
… place greater emphasis on process, or the business functions, of
colleges and universities (e.g., recruiting and retaining minority
employees and students) than on the content and methods of
delivering education to all kinds of students, which is the actual
business of education within these institutions (2001, p. 8).

As Ibarra suggests, higher education institutions should pay more attention to the
human and inter-relational aspect of educating students. Given the inexorable
disparities in educational outcomes, new approaches to close the achievement gap
are needed. As such, I focus on faculty members—individuals whose practices can
impact students’ educational lives—as the unit of change.
21
Shifting Faculty Members’ Perceptions and Practices with Students of Color

Research into faculty-minority student relationships suggests that educators’
practices do impact minority student educational outcomes (Anaya & Cole, 2001;
Hernandez, 2000; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004; Mayo, Murguia, & Padilla, 1995).
A study by Lundberg & Schreiner (2004) found that “faculty interaction contributed
more to student learning for students of color than it did for White students, but its
contribution to learning for all racial/ethnic groups in this study was greater than that
of background characteristics” (p. 557). Though these findings indicate that quality
relationships can impact outcomes, little is known about the daily practices or
decisions faculty members’ make in action. That is because the majority of these
studies base their findings on students’ responses to fixed-category questionnaires
that cannot elaborate on the complex and varied faculty practices that promote
academic success. One can only presuppose that faculty members who develop
meaningful relationships with students of color interact with students in ways that
further their educational performance.
Faculty Members’ Practices with Students
If faculty members’ relationships with students of color matter, what then are
the kinds of interactions, approaches, reactions, and practical decisions that faculty
members should enact while teaching and advising to enable students to succeed?
How do faculty members recognize the right kinds of approaches or decisions to
make in teaching and advising situations? There is no singular or correct answer to
22
these questions. Just as each teaching and advising situation is complex, unique, and
unpredictable, so too are the kinds of approaches that can promote a student’s ability
to complete an assignment, comprehend material, or pass an exam. The ambiguity
surrounding what constitutes effective teaching and advising practices can be
frustrating for many education practitioners who care about students but do not know
how to reach them (Valenzuela, 1999). Caring for students and their outcomes is
necessary but not sufficient. This is because the care that educators feel for students
does not necessarily move them to reexamine their practices and consider new
approaches to students (Bok, 2006). Research on practical decision-making, or the
decisions made in the moment of practice, can provide answers and clues into how
education practitioners can be enabled to develop their practices with students
(Polkinghorne, 2004).
Context Matters
Effective educators consider context when making practical decisions.
Interactions with students call for “teachers to respond to the particularity of
situations that require more than a generalized method of teaching and involve
judgments concerning that which would be desirable within the situation” (Spence,
2003, p. 2). Thus, “one size fits all” or rule-governed strategies are not always
appropriate when interacting with students. In every day life, education practitioners
make decisions in particular situations when interacting with particular students.
Finding themselves in the middle of ambiguous circumstances, education
23
practitioners are forced to choose among a range of possibilities for action
(Polkinghorne, 2004).
Practical decisions require practitioners to perceive or discern the particular
circumstances within the situation that calls for action (Birmingham, 2004; Eisner,
2002; Halverson, 2004). In doing so, faculty members consider their understanding
of the individual student, the problem the student faces, specific resources that might
be useful to the student, the setting in which the student and faculty interact, the time
in the semester or point along the course of the class in which the interaction takes
place, among a number of other elements. It is the concrete particulars of a given
situation, not generalizable knowledge, which more likely influences the course of
action individuals take (Birmingham, 2004; Halverson, 2004). Practical decisions,
then, are dependent on faculty members’ interpretation of the particular
characteristics and circumstances of the context wherein the interaction takes
place—such as time, place, and the personal histories of the students being served
(Polkinghorne, 2004). Faculty members consider these particulars during encounters
with students to determine how to react (Schultz, 2003).
In sum, practical decisions depend on context: the particular characteristics
and circumstances of the student and of the interaction. Thus, to make effective
decisions when teaching and advising students, faculty members must be attuned to
students’ backgrounds, experiences, and needs. Considering these elements during
the interaction requires that faculty members pay attention to students, looking for
24
information and clues about students that can inform the way faculty members relate
to them.
Experiences Shape Practical Decisions
Another important factor to everyday approaches with students of color is the
experiences that faculty members carry with them (Eisner, 2002; Polkinghorne,
2004). According to the Dreyfus and Dreyfus model of learning (1986) high levels
of expert decision-making are not governed by rules and are not consciously rational.
Rather, expert decision-making is largely driven by relevant experience. Years of
teaching, advising, and relating to students, including those from underserved
populations, become internalized and embodied by faculty members (Polkinghorne,
2004). Korthagen and Kessels (1999) detail the many possible elements included in
the absorbed body of experiences and understandings: feelings, former similar
experiences, values, role conceptions, needs or concerns, and routines. These
internalized elements are then ordered in a mostly unconscious manner, forming a
holistic web of understandings that serve to assist individuals in figuring out what is
to be done in a given situation.
Very simply, the experiences educators have been exposed to influence their
understandings of students and how to approach them. It is important to note that
experiences that become internalized understandings of the world around individuals
are culturally embedded (Polkinghorne, 2004). For example, they are shaped by the
culture of higher education, along with how educators were raised, their gender and
ethnicity, their experiences as a student, and much more. Cultural practices then
25
become absorbed into educators’ bodily movements, habits, and ways of conceiving
the world. Educators draw upon this internalized web of understandings that include
values, intuition, and memories to make decisions.
Because experiences shape decision-making, the extent to which faculty
members have been exposed to teaching, advising, and interacting with students of
color can make a difference in their ability to enable these students’ success. For
instance, having little contact with historically underserved students at a
predominantly white institution like Mountainside College can place educators at a
disadvantage when trying to relate to a minority student who is in need of extra
academic assistance. The faculty member has less experiences and understandings
from which to draw on to make appropriate judgments in the moment of interacting
with him or her. For the faculty member who creates opportunities to interact with
minority students more purposefully, a richer understanding of the students being
served can be cultivated.
How Practical Decisions are Made
Another important factor to consider regarding practical decisions is that
educators typically draw upon their experiences and understandings unconsciously
(Polkinghorne, 2004). Although everyday actions are generally deliberative, the
process of making split-second decisions in action often transpires in an unconscious
manner (Korthagen & Kessels, 1999). For this reason, as educators make quick, in-
the-moment judgments about what to do while interacting with a student, they are
better off having a richer body of experiences from which to draw. Their non-
26
deliberative decisions are informed by a number of experiences, allowing for a wider
range of possible actions from which educators can use.
Polkinghorne (2004) made an important contribution to ideas about how
individuals make practical decisions. He contended that when faced with
challenging tasks or obstacles, individuals do not solely rely on unconscious
responses informed by internalized experiences and understandings. Embodied
experiences and understandings alone, in fact, are insufficient to inform practical
decisions. Individuals must use an extension of internalized experiences and
understandings that requires reflection. Reflective thinking, according to
Polkinghorne, is “a dialogic engagement with a situation in with a practice is being
carried out” (p. 163). Education practitioners can employ reflection either in the
moment of teaching and advising students or after the moment of action (Schon,
1983).
Research on expert teaching addresses both the experience and reflection
required of educators in the classroom. The ability for an expert teacher to make
appropriate decisions in particular situations with particular students requires
experience in and reflection on classroom environments with changing goals (Eisner,
2002). According to Minstrell (1999),
[Expert] teachers integrate what they know about their students’ thinking
with goals for their understanding of the content and skills of the discipline.
As particular learning needs are identified, these teachers choose or adapt
lessons known from their past experiences to address these needs and
promote the desired understanding. Then, expert teachers assess for
appropriate learning, identify the next goal, design the next instruction, and
so on. (p. 220)
27
Becoming an expert, therefore, requires prior understanding of students being taught.
In this study, the concern is with teaching and advising students of color. If faculty
members have little experience with and understanding about historically
underserved students, they are at a disadvantage for assessing and addressing
students’ needs. Consequently, faculty members who want to improve the ways in
which they interact with students as a way to promote their educational success
should consider increasing the quality and quantity of experiences with students of
color and reflecting on the ways they approach them. Interacting with students of
color on a regular basis may be a challenge for faculty members who teach at
predominantly white institutions.
The following section of this chapter pieces together two elements that the
literature suggests can build faculty members’ capacity to respond more
appropriately to facilitating minority students’ success. These are: 1) attaining a
deeper understanding of individual students’ educational experiences (Bartolome,
1994; Polkinghorne, 2004; Villegas & Lucas; 2002) through purposeful interactions
(experiences) with students (Schultz, 2003), and 2) reflecting upon students’ lives
and better ways to interact with these students (Birmingham, 2004). It is through
experiences with and reflection upon students that educators can make better
judgments in future interactions and practices on campus and in the classroom
(Gadamer, 1991; Polkinghorne, 2004).
28
Situated Learning of Students’ Lived Educational Experiences

In this section, I explore situated learning as a way to deepen faculty
members’ understanding about students of color and their educational experiences.
Most faculty members want to assist students who are at the margins of academic
success but do not know how to help or approach them. Because caring about
students who experience disparities in academic outcomes is necessary but not
sufficient, a deeper understanding of minority students’ lived educational
experiences is required. Educators “respond most effectively as carers when we
understand what the other needs and the history of this need” (Noddings, 2005, p.
23).
As such, an important approach to enrich educators’ experiences and
understandings of underrepresented students constitutes getting to know students’
lived educational experiences more intimately via purposeful interactions with them.
This kind of learning is situated because understanding is acquired through
interaction with the problem situation (Korthagen & Kessels, 1999), and is thus a
function of the activity and context in which it occurs (Lave & Wenger, 1991). In
projects where situated learning takes place, the concrete situations or particulars are
the reference points during the process of learning (Korthagen & Kessels, 1999). For
example, Schultz (2003) describes teachers who “fashioned a way to teach based on
deep knowledge of [their] students’ academic and social strengths—knowledge
gained through interaction, writing, and talk” (p. 21). The teachers in Schultz’s
29
study created new ways to engage underperforming students by closely listening to
them and reimagining practices to better respond to them.
A notable research project about K-12 teachers by Moll and colleagues’
(Moll, 2000; Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005) offers instructive insights about
improving the ways higher education educators relate to students of color as a
consequence of situated learning. According to Moll (2000), educators often
develop mental models about cultures that circumscribe them as neatly bounded
entities and underscore cultural groups’ commonalities rather than particularities.
While knowing about minority students’ educational commonalities (their
disproportionate ranking at the bottom half of achievement levels, for example) is
important to develop awareness about the problem of unequal outcomes, this
knowledge does not provide educators with sufficient understanding about the
educational complexities students of color experience.
Moll (2000) developed a more dynamic, processual formulation of culture to
bridge the gap between awareness and true understanding. He viewed instructional
practice as inextricably linked to students’ lives, local histories, and community
contexts. Moll and his colleagues studied teachers who ethnographically analyzed
their students’ households in Latino communities (Gonazalez, Moll, & Amanti,
2005). The purpose of the project was for teachers to develop method and theory to
document cultural resources located in the local school community. The teachers
who observed children’s household lives found
30
…that cultural life consists of multiple voices, of unity as well as discord,
including an imperfect sharing of knowledge; of intergenerational
misunderstanding as well as common understandings; of developing both
adaptive and maladaptive practices while discarding others—in short, of
human actions that are always creative in the face of changing
circumstances. (2000, p. 257).

Moll encouraged the teachers in his study who conducted home visits to document
the cultural resources represented in children’s households that could inform
teaching practices. The resources found in households refer to what Moll coined as
funds of knowledge: bodies of knowledge accounted for in household activities.
The strength in resources and social networks located in households are not
always obvious to teachers. The mostly white teachers in Moll’s study did not live
in their students’ low socioeconomic neighborhoods and, as Moll found, teachers
held imagined notions of the communities in which the students lived. They
imagined students’ lives based on personal experience and what they had heard and
read about them. These perceptions of community were imagined because they were
not grounded in intimate knowledge about the community or personal relationships
from it. Consequently, teachers fabricated and attributed imagined characteristics to
students’ lives. Even those teachers who previously established connections to
students’ communities in one way or another did not fully conceptualize the
community in educational or pedagogical terms that, in turn, informed their teaching.
For this reason, Moll engaged the teachers into inquiry of their students’ funds of
knowledge and how they define communities. Changing the teachers’ imagined
communities to a more accurate view of students’ social worlds was crucial; this
31
more accurate view now mediated teachers’ thoughts and judgments instead of their
imagined communities.
Moll strove to shift teachers’ perceptions of students and parents from that of
limitations to possibilities. In addition to conducting home visits, teachers met in
study groups that Moll referred to as mediating structures (2000). In the study
groups teachers engaged in collaborative sense-making activity that involved
reflecting on “what [they] are doing in the households, what [they] should attempt to
do in the classrooms, and whether [their] work is worthwhile for the teachers and
students” (p. 260). The discussions that ensued allowed teachers to consider how to
utilize their understanding of funds of knowledge as strategic resources to mediate
educational practices in ways that connect with students’ lived school and household
experiences.
Understanding Undergraduate Minority Students’ Educational Lives
Similar to Moll’s approach with teachers, faculty members can likewise
develop a rich body of experiences and understandings about underrepresented
students’ educational lives. Higher education professionals can reframe their
understandings of students “in a way that is respectful to issues of voice,
representation, and authenticity” (Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005, p. x). Such
understandings can be drawn upon, to make practical decisions when interacting
with students of color.
The contextual circumstances of students living away from home and living
in college dorms differs greatly from Moll’s study. Visiting the hometown of the
32
student and shadowing the student in classes and dorm life is most often unrealistic
for higher education professionals. Nevertheless, educators might gain an
understanding of students’ funds of knowledge in other ways. For example, they can
interview students to garner information about the history of experiences and funds
of knowledge students use to navigate their academic world. Though this method is
limited to working with a narrative form (instead of observations as in Moll’s study),
college students can express the challenges and opportunities they have faced, how
they interpreted these experiences, and how these experiences have shaped current
beliefs and actions that pertain to schooling.
By interviewing students, each student becomes a case that uncovers a rich
problematic (Flyvbjerg, 2001). Faculty members can be encouraged to pay attention
and become attuned to the particular features of each student who experiences
academic difficulty so as to discern the key factors impacting their educational
success. It is important to note that focusing on the immediate particular
characteristics of each individual student alone, admittedly, can be short-sighted.
This is because the particulars in this study concern students who share social,
historical, and political experiences of unequal outcomes. Faculty members who
teach and advise students of color must address the broader spectrum of issues that
are manifested, no matter how discretely, within the educational lives of minority
students. As such, when educators teach and advise they cannot ignore the collective
educational histories of marginalized and subordinated student groups. These shared
experiences shape individual students’ educational lives. Educators must become
33
aware of social and political matters pertaining to disparities in gender, social class,
and race in particular in order to help solve such pressing issues and unequal
educational outcomes.
To reconcile the tension between understanding how to approach a particular
student, while at the same time accounting for historical, political, and structural
forces that impact students’ lives, educators can learn about such forces by
interacting and learning from a large number of cases of individual minority students
(Flyvbjerg, 2001). Like the teachers in Moll’s study who chipped away at their
imagined notions of students’ lives, inquiring into cases of college students can allow
faculty members to gain a more complete and valid understanding of commonalities,
distinctions, and complexities of underrepresented students and the ways in which
they experience higher education. Accumulating a number of cases of students into
the absorbed body of experiences and understandings can serve as a rich resource for
educators (Flyvbjerg, 2001). Not only can educators learn about differences across
students, but about shared experiences in social, historical, and political problems
students face. Most importantly, educators can use understandings of individual
student’s experiences in the classroom and on campus to make better practical
judgments when teaching and advising them (Schultz, 2003).
Key to gaining personal understanding of students is the interaction between
educator and student. Learning about students through interviewing, or home visits
in Moll’s case, occurs in relation. The dialogue that comes about in face-to-face
interviews has the potential to build bridges between students and faculty (Gonzalez,
34
Moll, & Amanti, 2005). In addition to collecting and analyzing narratives of
students of color, educators gain experience in interacting with them through the
information collection process. This interaction is distinct from the conventional
student-teacher relationship. When educators purposefully inquire into the
educational lives of students, they are encouraged to listen, analyze, and reflect upon
the meaning and implications of their circumstances on educators’ practices (Schultz,
2003). Learning to listen in this purposeful manner, “suggests that the teacher is
always learning, and that this learning shapes decisions in the moment and
contributes to the teacher’s growth as a professional” (Schultz, 2003, p. 9). It is this
experience of interaction and purposeful inquiry that faculty members can later draw
on when interacting with other students of color.
As educators conduct their own inquiry into inequitable educational
outcomes in this way, the expectation is that they will be empowered to redress
inequities in the local context (Peña, Colyar, & Bensimon, 2006). In other words,
“the knowledge production itself may become a form of mobilization” that induces
individuals to take action (Gaventa & Cornwall, 2001, p. 76). Gaining this kind of
situated understanding of students in relation has the potential to inform faculty
members’ practices, especially when the gained understanding and experience of
interacting with students itself is reflected upon (Flyvbjerg, 2001; Gadamer, 1991;
Polkinghorne, 2004).
Noddings (2005) states, “Knowledge gained in relation is more powerful and
reliable than that gained through second- and third-hand reports” (p. 122). Similarly,
35
there is a strong likelihood that listening to underrepresented students articulate their
stories in their own words and based on their own lives can lead educators to a
deeper awareness of the local contexts, structures, and practices wherein these
experiences take shape. Educators may come to a more critical understanding of
student outcomes, one that concerns the depth and magnitude of the ways in which
experiences—of stereotype, for example—impact student outcomes locally. Gaining
this kind of intimate knowledge by interacting with students can serve as a resource
for educators to make better judgments-in-action to relate to, advise, and educate
students.
Reflection Upon Students and Interactions with Them

Reflection is the second element to enriching faculty members’ internalized
experiences and understandings to increase the likelihood that they make better
practical decisions when teaching and advising students of color. Dewey (1938)
observed that individuals do not just learn by doing, but by thinking about what they
do. Reflection on experiences provides the opportunity for educators to incorporate
what they learn into their practices (Shulman, 2004). Through purposeful inquiry
into individual students’ educational histories, educators can reflect “on the
correspondence between the student’s situation and the assumptions underlying the
faculty member’s practices” (Peña, Bensimon, & Colyar, 2006). In the course of
reflection, educators can consider how to adapt their methods of teaching and
advising to respond to students of color in ways that further their intentions and
endeavors.
36
Challenges of Reflection
The complex work of educators requires deep reflective activity (Dewey,
1933; Schon, 1983). Yet systematic reflection holds challenges for higher education
professionals. First, because of pedagogical isolation and lack of discipline to
document and reflect on one’s own practice, educators fail to incorporate their
learning into their daily practices (Shulman, 2004). Second, critical to the success of
this kind of reflective inquiry is the inquirer’s initial ability to admit they lack
knowledge or that they need to go beyond their current understanding of the problem
(Gadamer, 1991; Polkinghorne, 2004). Thus, faculty members should come to terms
with their lack of understanding of the problem of and solutions to inequities in
academic outcomes. Third, in addition to being open to understanding or reframing
a problem, reflective practice requires a “fusion of the intellectual and the emotional”
(Dewey, 1933, p. 278). Practices are infused with what is felt and thought by the
practitioner. Thus, reflection must tap into both cognitive and affective aspects of
the ways in which educators aspire to approach students. For example, when
imagining different approaches to assist a particular student, a professor does not
only come from a place of logic, but one of care. The faculty member, in devising
appropriate approaches, feels a responsibility toward that student and the success of
her academic endeavors.
Polkinghorne (2004) draws upon Gadamer (1991) to highlight the importance
of reflection on the development of internalized understandings. Polkinghorne
writes,
37
Gadamer held that people’s background understandings do not remain static
but evolve and deepen over time. This change is the result of reflection on
practices that have been successful as well as those that have not…One can
abstract from Gadamer’s writing a four-step process for reflective
understanding: a) a problem occurs with a practice; b) one questions the
prior understanding of the situation; c) new understandings are considered
and deliberated about; and d) a new understanding is appropriated and
serves to inform practice (2004, p. 164).

Following Gadamer’s line of logic, educators in higher education can a) discover the
disparity in performance between minority students and other student groups; b)
question assumptions, beliefs, and ideas about students of color, their educational
experiences, and approaches to improving their outcomes through inquiry; c)
develop, consider, and reflect on new understandings borne out of the inquiry; and d)
appropriate new conceptions about ameliorating unequal outcomes to inform
practice.
Challenging this process of reflection is an individual’s apparent inability to
question prior understandings. This is particularly true when questions of race arise
(Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles, & Lopez-Torres, 2003). In this instance, individuals may
not feel pressed to question their assumptions about students of color because, just
like stereotypes, these beliefs can be deeply ingrained and are believed to be true. A
structured process that encourages faculty members to question their assumptions
and beliefs about students of color, like the teacher study groups in Moll’s project,
can be beneficial to deter individuals from allowing their beliefs to go unquestioned
(Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles, & Lopez-Torres, 2003).

38
Collaborative Reflection
Although reflection often occurs on an individual basis, such an activity can
be especially fruitful when conducted in collaboration with others (Eisner, 2002;
Gadamer, 1991; Schon, 1983; Shulman, 2004) and serves to advance the situated
learning of the faculty member (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Though a promising
process, as evidenced by studies of K-12 teachers (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993;
Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Weinbaum, Allen, Blythe, Simon, Seidel, & Rubin,
2004), collaborative inquiry into postsecondary pedagogical practices is scarcely, if
at all, employed (Bok, 2006; Huber & Hutchings, 2005; Shulman, 1993). In
collaborative inquiry, understanding of a problematic derives from active
participation and reflection on a situated subject matter (Polkinghorne, 2004, p. 167).
Weinbaum, Allen, Blythe, Simon, Seidel, & Rubin (2004) aptly describe the features
of collaborative inquiry and its potential to develop background understandings.
They depict the process of collaborative inquiry as a group of educators who gather
together to inquire, over time, into a question that the group identifies as important.
In framing a question, the group finds evidence that assists them in answering it,
share viewpoints on the evidence, and reflect on emerging answers.
Through collaborative inquiry, educators make sense of their experiences
while at the same time drawing upon the perspectives of those in the inquiry group.
This aids them to improve upon their conceptions of educational practice and their
students’ learning (Bray, Lee, Smith, & Yorks, 2000; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999).
Polkinghorne (2004) notes that through this kind of dialogic interchange,
39
participating educators’ backgrounds fuse and lead to an enlarged and more truthful
understanding of the problem. Similarly, the teachers in Gonzalez, Moll, and
Amanti’s (2005) study met as a study-group to mediate their thinking about students
and their practices with students. Together, the teachers cultivated a more accurate
perspective of students’ educational lives.
Sharing and reflecting with others via dialogue nurtures a collective sense of
caring (Nodding, 1984). Developing a culture of care through a collaborative
inquiry process can increase faculty members’ responsibility toward students and
inform actions with students. Educators question their assumptions, refine their
awareness of a problem, become more conscious of their capacities for action, and
are empowered to utilize their newly acquired expertise to change their practices
(Bensimon, Polkinghorne, Bauman, & Vallejo, 2004). As such, when educators
collaboratively reflect on minority students’ educational experiences and how they
can approach students differently in light of this knowledge, they can open up to new
possible actions to redress unequal outcomes. In this way, reflection becomes
critical to improving upon practical decisions while teaching and advising
underrepresented students.
Situated Learning and Reflection

In the preceding pages I have articulated two elements that together may
enhance education practitioners’ experiences and understandings that enable them to
respond more appropriately to students. Because internalized experiences and
understandings are largely informed by culture (Polkinghorne, 2004), cultural
40
contexts and opportunities that foster situated learning and reflection may likely
contribute to effective practical decisions while teaching and advising students of
color (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Polkinghorne, 2004; Schultz, 2003). Such
opportunities can take shape in the form of educators conducting home visits and
study groups, as in Moll’s (2000) study.
An opportunity to develop faculty members’ background understandings
might also occur as faculty members interview students to attain their educational
histories, followed up by collaborative inquiry meetings that enable faculty members
to gain a broader understanding of the histories shared. Such an approach, the
Mountainside Interview Project, is described in the next section. The Mountainside
Interview Project constituted the approach I studied to evaluate the extent to which
faculty members’ understandings and judgments were developed as a result of their
participation. The following section details the background of Mountainside College
and the project itself.
Description of Mountainside Interview Project
Mountainside College
Founded in the late nineteenth century, Mountainside College is a small,
liberal arts institution nestled within a semicircle of mountains and hills. Though the
college is several miles away from a busy metropolitan city, Mountainside boasts a
small-town atmosphere. The campus is quaint and generally tranquil due to its
location and small student population. Fewer than 2,000 students were matriculated
at the time of the study. All first-year students are required to live in the campus
41
dormitories and many choose to stay on campus during their sophomore and junior
years. With an 11:1 student/faculty ratio, the small classes allow many students an
opportunity to interact with faculty. This is particularly true during students’ junior
and senior years. The image of such intimate interaction and personal attention is
crucial to the college’s reputation, and recruitment materials highlight the personal
attention students will receive. Further, the college’s mission plays a salient role.
Two decades ago the mission statement was revised to place a greater emphasis on
diversity and equity. Today, Mountainside College is nationally recognized for its
commitment to cross-cultural interactions, diversity education, and equity for all
students.
The Project
In an attempt to sustain its diversity and equity efforts, a team of faculty and
administrators at the college became involved with the Center for Urban Education
at the University of Southern California in a project known as the Diversity
Scorecard project, an initiative funded by The James Irvine Foundation. Diversity
Scorecard researchers facilitated action research meetings with the team of faculty
and administrators to review and discuss data on student outcomes disaggregated by
race and ethnicity. The team’s analysis and discussion about the numerical data
exposed evident disparities in the educational outcomes of African Americans and
Latinos compared to other student groups at Mountainside College. The faculty
realized they needed a deeper understanding of the factors contributing to these
outcomes. Methods of gaining such an understanding were considered. Reading
42
articles about students would be helpful but would not speak to the specific
experiences and needs of the students at Mountainside College. Collecting survey
data from Mountainside College students might also inform the faculty; yet this
information would be collected in fixed, predetermined categories, limiting the depth
of information collected.
With the guidance of the Diversity Scorecard researchers, the team came to
the conclusion that interviewing students would be an appropriate method to learn
how students view their experiences on campus. Offering an opportunity for
students to voice their individual stories and concerns, interviews had the potential to
provide in-depth data revealing concerns about the local context that other methods
could not. As a result, the Mountainside Interview Project was born, a team initially
comprising four faculty and four administrators and culminating with five faculty
and three administrators.
The Mountainside Interview Project team members agreed they would each
interview two to three African American or Latino students three times during the
students’ freshman and sophomore years. The decision to interview a small number
of students was based on team members’ desire to keep the interview load
manageable. They also desired to focus on a few students’ lives to gather depth of
information, not breadth. The purposes of interviewing students more than once
were twofold. First, several interactions with students provided an opportunity for
faculty to develop rapport and gain their trust. Second, faculty members were able to
43
capture snapshots of students’ experiences during two critical years of students’
academic and social development—their freshman and sophomore years.
In order to prepare for the interviews, team members participated in a one-
day training in January 2004. Diversity Scorecard researchers—the Director of the
Diversity Scorecard project, a research associate, and a research assistant—provided
this training. The training session offered opportunities to discuss the process and
mechanics, as many of the team members were not formally trained in interview
techniques. After this training session, the interview team worked together to
develop the interview protocol, which involved a negotiation process among
members to clarify what kind of information they aimed to attain. They came to a
consensus on the questions that would be included in the protocol. The majority of
questions sought to dig deep into students’ perceptions about factors that inhibited or
promoted their academic success as students of color (see Appendix A). Team
members also discussed the ways in which probing questions could be used to obtain
fruitful data.
Though the Diversity Scorecard researchers assisted in scheduling meetings
and facilitating discussions, a team leader was selected among the eight
Mountainside Interview Project team members. The team leader was selected to
assist in logistical considerations. These included contacting students, scheduling
team meetings, purchasing and distributing digital voice recorders, and other related
tasks. The team leader contacted all African American and Latino freshman students
at Mountainside College (n=92) in the fall of 2003 and invited them to participate in
44
the interview project. Twenty-six students agreed to participate, a 30% response rate.
Of the participating students, there were 4 African American females, 4 African
American males, 13 Latinas, and 5 Latinos. The team leader then matched students
with team members, careful to ensure that faculty were not paired with students
currently enrolled in their courses. All interviews were conducted between spring of
2004 and spring of 2005 (see Table 1 for project timeline). Interviews were taped
and transcribed, and all team members received a full set of transcripts.
Table 1
Timeline of Mountainside Interview Project Events

Time Description of Activity

Fall 2003 Team formed; invitations were sent out to
African American and Latino students to
recruit for participation in interviews
January 2004 Team participated in interview training
February 2004 Team members interviewed students; team met
at the end of the month to discuss experiences
and what was learned from interviewing
students
45
March 2004 Team members emailed each other to suggest
questions to include in the second interview
protocol; the team met in the middle of March
to revise questions on the protocol
April 2004 Team met to finalize protocol; team members
conducted second round of interviews with
students
Summer 2004 Diversity Scorecard researchers read through
transcripts and developed themes that emerged
from students’ stories
September 2004 Diversity Scorecard researchers presented and
discussed themes and corresponding quotes
with team
November 2004 Team met to develop interview protocol
questions for third round of student interviews.
January 2005 Team members interviewed students a third
time
February 2005 Team met to discuss third interviews and what
was learned
46
March 2005 Team met to continue to discuss interview
findings; decided to invite all student
interviewees to have pizza and discuss
interview findings
April 2005 Student pizza meeting occurred; team met
again at the end of the month to discuss writing
a report to the president about the project
July 2005 Team met to revise report to the president
October 2005 Team met to finalize report and prepare for
meeting in which the report to the president
would be presented
October 2005 The report was shared with the president and
recommendations for future action were
discussed
____________________________________________________________________
In addition to conducting individual interviews, the team met before and after
each round of interviews. As an action research group, these meetings provided the
team a space in which to discuss the themes and interesting findings that emerged
from their interviews with students. These discussions served as the basis for
developing the second and third interview protocols (see Appendices B and C).
Further, they were essential as opportunities to discuss the action research process:
the experience of meeting and interviewing a student, the difficulties of asking race-
47
related questions (particularly when the team member and student were not from the
same racial group), and the often surprising ways students interpreted their
environment. Several weeks after the first interview in the students’ spring semester
of their freshman year (2004), the team scheduled a second interview within the
same semester to follow up on what students reported in the first round.
After spring 2004 semester, two administrators dropped out of the project
because they accepted positions at other institutions of higher education. In order to
re-populate the team, one Mountainside College faculty member and one
administrator with teaching responsibilities were successfully recruited to participate.
In this study, I focused on the five faculty members. As such, I excluded the three
team members who served strictly as administrators. My intention was to examine
the perceptions of individuals who had consistent interactions with students both in
and out of the classroom. For these individuals, knowledge acquired from
interviewing students to improve academic outcomes was important to their work as
educators in the classroom. In my analysis I took into account that four of these five
individuals were involved from the beginning of this project, while the other two
joined approximately six months after its inception.
Nearly a year after the first two rounds of interviews were conducted, the
team followed up with students a third time by interviewing them once in the spring
of their sophomore year (2005). In all, eight interviewers initially interviewed 26
students. After the second round of interviews, two students—1 African American
male and 1 Latina—left the college and therefore dropped out of the interview
48
project. After the third round, two more students—1 African American female and 1
African American male—dropped out of the project for the same reason.
Explanations for students’ attrition were captured in interviews conducted before the
students disenrolled. The African American male left after his first year to pursue
opportunities that seemed more financially practical. He wanted to make money and
straighten out his finances. The Latina student left to return home to Texas. She
experienced a racist roommate and also wanted a more vocational or practical
educational experience. She transferred to a community college near her hometown.
After the students’ second year, the African American female dropped out of
Mountainside College to transfer to a northwestern four-year institution that offered
her more opportunities for growth in the field of sociology through the department’s
internship program and broader curriculum. Lastly, the African American male who
left after the second year transferred to a university in the south in order to seek out a
more diverse campus community.
The following chapter discusses the methods employed to study faculty
participants’ experiences in the Mountainside Interview Project.

49
CHAPTER 3
METHOD
In this chapter I first discuss the research design I used to evaluate the extent
to which the Mountainside Interview Project accomplished its project goals. Second,
I discuss the data collection methods employed. Third, I describe how these data
were analyzed.
Research Design
To assess the project goals of Mountainside Interview Project, I traced
changes in five faculty members’ understandings, perceptions, and reported practices
with regard to teaching and advising students of color over the course of their
participation. Toward this end, I studied interview, observation, and written
narrative data. In studying the data collected, I focused on the five faculty members
in the project. I excluded the three team members who served strictly as
administrators (two of whom had very little contact with students). My intention
was to examine the experiences of individuals who had consistent interactions with
students both in and out of the classroom. As educators in the classroom, faculty
participants could particularly benefit from the project by reconsidering and
improving upon understandings and approaches to students who experience unequal
outcomes. In my analysis I took into account that four of these five faculty
participants were involved from the beginning of this project, while the other (i.e.
Dafne) joined approximately six months after its inception.
50
Among the various qualitative methods available, I considered the case study
approach as the most appropriate to employ in studying the accomplishment of
Mountainside Interview Project goals. Specifically, the case study approach proves
most efficacious in answering the research questions I posed for evaluating the
project. These questions determined what the unit of analysis was and how it was to
be studied (Patton, 2001; Polkinghorne, 1983). In particular, I evaluated the success
of the program by investigating the following questions:
1) What do faculty members learn about students’ lived classroom and
campus experiences by participating in student interviews and collaborative
inquiry focusing on equitable educational outcomes for African American
and Latino students?
2) In what ways do faculty participants learn about and reconceptualize their
practices of teaching and advising as a consequence of their new knowledge
and reflection about the experiences of underrepresented students within their
own campus?
3) In what ways did faculty participants change their practices and
approaches toward students?
4) In what ways did faculty participants institutionalize the inquiry methods
they experienced in the project?
Conducting a case study is much like conducting a historical study in which
documents and artifacts are examined. However, given that the case study
researcher investigates contemporary events within a real-life context, case studies
51
include interviews and direct observations of events as two added sources (Yin,
2003). The combination of these data sets can illuminate salient themes experienced
by the object being studied. In addition, the data can often converge to form a story
or narrative, similar to a history, about the units of analysis--in this case, the
experiences of each faculty member in the Mountainside Interview Project.
Distinct from other forms of qualitative studies, case studies concentrate on
rigorous descriptions and analysis of an entity or bounded system (Merriam, 1998).
Polkinghorne (2005) makes an important distinction: the unit of analysis is not the
person or thing being studied but consists of the experience. The goal is to
systematically gather data about an individual, group, event, or setting to
comprehend the ways in which this element functions. Toward this end, I studied
interview, observation, and written narrative data of faculty members disposed to
divulge their experiences in participating in the Mountainside Interview Project.
This analysis informed my evaluation of the accomplishment of Mountainside
Interview Project’s goals.
The case study conducted involved two layers of cases, also known as a
nested case study (Patton, 2001). My primary objective was to evaluate the program
as a case, the first layer. The second layer, made up of smaller cases and nested
within the project case, constituted the five faculty participants. As I sought to
evaluate the outcomes of the Mountainside Interview Project, the experiences of the
faculty participants were necessary to study. Focusing on faculty members’
52
experiences as individual case studies proved requisite to understanding the extent of
Mountainside Interview Project’s goal achievement.
As a second layer, the faculty participants formed a multiple case study. In a
multiple case study, instead of studying one person, a number of individuals are
studied as cases to understand a phenomenon or influence across their experiences
(Merriam, 1998; Patton, 1990; Yin, 2003). As the experience of participating in
student interviews and collaborative inquiry were the unit of analysis, I regarded
each of the five faculty members as one case that illuminated varying aspects of the
Mountainside Interview Project experience. Studying multiple participants served to
triangulate the experiences, not in an effort to validate them but to offer more than
one perspective of how the experiences played out (Polkinghorne, 2005).
The case study approach is particularly useful for conducting an in-depth
examination of a phenomenon when studying a small number of exemplars plentiful
in information (Patton, 1990). Polkinghorne (2005) notes that in comparing and
contrasting luminous perspectives, “researchers are able to notice the essential
aspects that appear across the sources and to recognize variations in how the
experience appears” (p. 140). Thus, multiple case studies do not prove effective
methodologically based upon studying a large quantity of participants but upon
studying carefully selected participants who are willing and able to provide
information-rich data.
In this fashion, examining data on five faculty members who were willing to
reveal personal beliefs and perceptions allowed me to gather thorough details about
53
the context and complexities across their experiences. Contextual factors, such as
past educational experiences and institutional circumstances, played a role in how
they perceived and responded to the Mountainside Interview Project. In effect, when
examining how the context relates to the phenomenon being studied, case studies are
useful to employ; from this perspective the phenomenon’s variables are inextricable
from its context (Merriam, 1998) and studying their connection to each other makes
their relationship more clear (Yin, 2003). As the faculty members’ lives were
embedded in various settings I took careful consideration of how these environments
impacted their perceptions of participating in the project.
Further, the research questions I posed called for a method that allowed me to
trace changes (e.g. in learning, in practical decisions) occurring during faculty
member’s involvement in the 20-month project. Case studies prove to be useful for
studying temporal or longitudinal processes. Accordingly, I examined data that was
gathered in parallel with the temporal course of the social process investigated (Katz,
2001): faculty members’ experiences in interviewing students of color, then meeting
as a collaborative inquiry group to discuss interview findings, then interviewing
students, and so on. To gather intimate details of faculty members’ understandings,
perceptions, and behaviors, the case study approach proved to be a suitable design.
In the next section, I discuss the faculty members who engaged as
participants in the Mountainside Interview Project. Then, a description of the data
collection methods is provided. In the final section of this chapter, I discuss the two
ways in which I analyzed the data. First, I describe the content analysis I conducted
54
of the raw case data (Patton, 2001). Second, I explain how three of the five faculty
participants’ experiences were constructed into case narratives that unfolded a
relationship among chronological events, taking the shape of a narrative or storied
form (Polkinghorne, 1995).
Participants
To investigate the dimensions of how faculty members experienced student
interviews and collaborative inquiry aimed at improving the educational outcomes of
African American and Latino students, I relied upon the selection of faculty
members in a specific, single project who could provide rich information. The five
faculty members on the Mountainside College Interview project (of the total of eight
team members) were selected to participate in this study purposefully because they
were able and willing to provide saturated descriptions of their experiences in such a
project (Polkinghorne, 2005). Because I sought depth rather than breadth, a small
number of participants were appropriate for this study. These faculty members were
selected as notable exemplars whose project experiences could illuminate how
student interviews and collaborative inquiry enabled faculty to achieve the project
goals.
To recruit participants for data collection, convenience sampling proved
effective (Merriam, 1998; Weiss, 1994). In drawing upon convenience sampling, the
researcher selects a sample based on accessibility to respondents, site, and time.
After verbally recruiting participants (see Appendix D), all faculty members
involved in the Mountainside Interview Project agreed to participate. Overall, five
55
faculty members at Mountainside College were interviewed and observed. The chart
below summarizes characteristics pertinent to examining their experiences (see Table
2). Pseudonyms are given for each faculty participant.
Table 2
Demographics of Participants in Mountainside Interview Project

Faculty
Participant Gender Race Discipline Status

Barbara Female White Biology Tenured
Grace Female White Biology Received tenure
during the study
Jack Male White Comparative Tenured
Literature
Dafne Female Asian Religious Tenured
American Studies
Matt Male White Mathematics Tenured

Data Collection
Over a period of 20 months, between February 2004 and July 2005, 10 action
research team meetings were held and four interviews of each faculty member
conducted in the Mountainside Interview Project. I first detail methods in collecting
56
data via interviews. Subsequently, I discuss methods in gathering data by participant
observation. Last, I note the written responses I collected from each faculty
participant at the end of the project.
Interviews
The purpose of interviewing is to “obtain descriptions of the life-world of the
interviewee with respect to interpreting the meaning of the described phenomena”
(Kvale, 1996, p. 5). In the interview process, faculty members’ recalled events and
emotions transferred into languaged discourse (Polkinghorne, 2005) that allowed me
to study how they make sense of events, students, their practices, and their
involvement in this project.
Weiss (1994) classifies interviews into two categories, distinguishing survey
interviews from qualitative interviews. Questions aimed at fixed and limited
answers characterize the former while the qualitative interviews include open-ended
questions tailored to capture coherence and depth in information. According to
Weiss (1994), seven research aims “make the qualitative interview study the method
of choice” (p. 9). I found that five of these were aligned with my own objectives in
obtaining data. These are: 1) developing detailed descriptions; 2) integrating
multiple perspectives to describe a phenomenon; 3) describing a process; 4) learning
how events are interpreted differently by participants; and 5) bridging
intersubjectivities by allowing readers to understand the phenomenon from the inside
or as a participant might. These research aims not only determined my method of
interviewing, they served to guide my conceptualization and analyses of the findings.
57
Key to the interview process is the quantity and quality of interviews
conducted. Seidman (1991) argues that interviewing an individual at least three
times in sequence can produce deep and broad data. Weiss (1994) concurs that three
times often provides ample data. Thus in an attempt to collect detailed information, I
interviewed four of the five faculty members four times for one hour each (see
Appendices E, F, G, and H). Each interview was conducted once after each faculty
member completed a round of interviewing their students and once more at the end
of the project. I interviewed Dafne three times due to her joining the team six
months after the project started. Interviews took place in the respective office of
each faculty member to provide a comfortable space for the respondent.
In addition to following faculty members’ perceptions and conceptions
throughout the project, interviewing them multiple times allowed me to develop
rapport. Requisite to gaining in-depth information is the development of trust and
openness between the interviewer and interviewee (Patton, 1990; Ely, Anzul,
Friedman, Garner, & Steinmetz, 1991). Polkinghorne & Gribbons (1998) explain
that multiple interviews can lessen “participants’ need to manage the impressions
they give and can permit the exploration of aspects of their experiences not available
at first recall” (p. 119), thereby maintaining authenticity.
Along the continuum of interview formats, from structured to unstructured
interviews, the interviews of faculty participants classify as semistructured. Using a
semistructured interview protocol, I introduced topics during a given interview and
then guided the discussion by asking questions of the faculty member (Rubin &
58
Rubin, 1995). However, as I completed each round of interviews, I found the format
shifting toward unstructured, going into each interview with less predetermined
questions (see Appendix H). A more conversational and less formal format allowed
me to ask questions particular to each case. This format was especially helpful when
following up on specific incidents for each individual.
A number of authors note that having interviews audio-recorded and
transcribed is beneficial (Weiss, 1994). For this reason, I audio recorded the
interviews and a professional transcriber was hired to transcribe the audio files.
Transcribing the audio files verbatim was key to my analysis. This allowed me the
opportunity to preserve nuances in faculty participants’ use of language and imagery
in illustrating experiences in the project.
Participant Observation
In addition to interviewing, a secondary source of data in this study derives
from observation. In fact, Stake (1994) contends that a qualitative case study is
distinguished by the researcher “spending substantial time, on site, personally in
contact with activities and operations of the case, reflecting, revising meanings of
what is going on” (p. 242). Thus, while interviews allow the researcher to study
participants’ perceptions about their respective experiences, observations allow the
researcher to collect descriptions of the context that frames the participants’ lives,
including aspects that participants take for granted (McCall & Simmons, 1969).
As a result, I conducted participant observations of collaborative inquiry team
meetings of the Mountainside Interview Project. In this method, the participant in
59
the term “participant observation” is the researcher, participating in the event she
observes. Though the role of the participant observer is clear, literature about the
extent to which she is involved in participating and observing varies (Atkinson &
Hammersley, 1994). One can conceptualize participant observation by contrasting it
to traditional observations in quantitative studies in which observers do not
manipulate or stimulate subjects. Yet even when the observer does involve herself
with the individuals she studies, there is a continuum of involvement, from active
observer to passive observer (Schwartz & Schwartz, 1969; Spradley, 1980; Wolcott,
1999).
I regarded my role in this project as an active observer. I involved myself in
the central activities of the Mountainside Interview Project team, often assuming
responsibilities that moved the team further along (Angrosino & Mays de Perez,
2000). As such, I found myself negotiating a balance between participating and
observing. Schwartz & Schwartz (1969) articulate the dilemma this poses for the
researcher; the researcher “participating actively at one moment, shifts imaginatively
the next moment to observing what he and others have been doing and then shifts
back to the interaction” (p. 98). In other words, as the participant observer in a
collaborative inquiry meeting, I regularly moved from involvement to detachment.
During action research team meetings, I audio-taped and recorded verbatim
field notes of the conversations that ensued. Recording field notes in real-time, as
opposed to observing and then relying entirely upon recollections to construct the
text allowed me to gather more accurate data. These field notes chronicled everyday
60
routines of the Mountainside Interview Project. By conducting recurring participant
observations on a longitudinal basis, I considered the team as an active and
continuing entity. Participant observation is “not restricted to static cross-sectional
data but allows real study of social processes and complex interdependencies in
social systems” (McCall & Simmons, 1969, p. 2). The resulting field notes
supplemented the interview data by providing me with additional quotes, revealing
evidence of how the faculty members made sense of student interview data and the
implications this new information had on their roles as faculty.
When each meeting concluded, I made sure to review the field notes within
24 hours. This process allowed me to “clean up” the document and to fill in any
blanks of missing information. As a participant observer, I was sometimes required
to speak or engage in the conversation taking place among the team. When this
occurred, I was not always able to capture the dialogue word-for-word.
Consequently, turning to the audio files immediately after the meeting allowed me to
recall what I was not able to write down.
Written Responses
At the end of the Mountainside Interview Project, I asked each faculty
participant to write a one-page response to five questions I provided them concerning
their participation in the project (Appendix I). The open-ended questions asked the
following: 1) In what ways did you find this project of value?; 2) How have you
benefited from interacting with your student interviewees?; 3) What needs to be done
to facilitate the process of sustaining this [project at Mountainside College]?; 4) How
61
do we make this kind of collaborative inquiry project possible without outsiders
[researchers/facilitators]?; 5) Any other reflections? The process of answering these
questions offered one last opportunity for faculty members to reflect upon their
experiences in the project and what they gained from interviewing the students.
They knew their responses to these questions represented the culminating reflection
that wrapped up the 20-month long process. Though this third method of data
collection was minute compared to interviewing and observing the faculty, I did
acquire new and informative data that supplemented and enhanced my analysis.
Ethical Concerns
A researcher must always be aware of her ethical responsibility while
conducting inquiry. An ethical obligation to those studied, the academic community,
and society is requisite; the researcher delves into lived experiences of human beings
(Berg, 1998), or, as Spradley (1980) commented--research “pries into the lives of
informants” (p. 22). This is especially true when employing a case study approach
due to the in-depth nature of inquiry. To ensure ethical responsibility, I adhered to
the code of ethics published by the American Psychological Association (1992).
Before interviewing and observing participants, I administered informed
consent forms to the five faculty participants (Appendix J). These forms outlined the
purpose of the study, rights of declining participation, terms of confidentiality of
participants, and any foreseeable risks in participating. I informed participants that
should they have questions regarding the study or request to see interview transcripts
62
or results, I was willing to provide the necessary information. No participants
requested to see results or transcripts of the study.
In sum, during faculty members’ participation in the Mountainside Interview
Project, I interviewed, observed, and collected written responses. These data were
collected on behalf of CUE. As a research assistant, I adhered to the appropriate
code of ethics. I assigned pseudonyms to all participants. In the next section, I detail
the method I employed in analyzing the data collected.
Analysis of the Data
The data analysis and corresponding findings comprise two sections. First, I
explicate the content analysis method I used to evaluate the extent to which the
Mountainside Interview Project goals were achieved. Second, I describe the process
of constructing one narrative for each of three faculty members in my study:
Barbara, Grace, and Matt. These three narratives represent details of faculty
members’ experiences over the course of this project in a storied form.
Data Analysis Part One: Content Analysis
The first part of my data analysis was strictly guided by my desire to evaluate
the following four Mountainside Interview Project goals: (1) learning from students’
educational lives; (2) learning about and reconceptualizing one’s own approaches to
students; (3) changing practices; and (4) institutionalizing collaborative inquiry
methods. Because I had an existing framework of goals from which to guide my
evaluation, my analysis was deductive (Patton, 2001). To evaluate the extent to
which these goals had been achieved, I conducted a summative evaluation. In a
63
summative evaluation, a program’s effectiveness is assessed in order to determine
whether the project “should or should not be continued, and has or does not have the
potential of being generalizable to other situations” (Patton, 2001, p. 218). As such,
educators at Mountainside College and other institutions might want to expand or
replicate aspects of this collaborative inquiry project depending on the success of the
project. In this way, my summative evaluation informs both research and practice.
My evaluation of project goals involved studying the raw case data from the
interviews, observations, and written responses collected for each faculty participant.
In particular, I conducted a content analysis, whereby I searched text for recurring
and core meanings across each faculty case (Patton, 2001). To be able to make sense
of the disparate elements in the raw case data, I read the meeting observations field
notes, interview transcripts, and written responses at least five times, as suggested by
Crossley (2000). In familiarizing myself with the text, I first underlined key words
and sentences that highlighted significant themes or topics for each program goal
evaluated. I wrote notations in the margins of the data transcripts and documents to
help me organize my thoughts. This preliminary analysis allowed me to create a
rough map from the emerging picture of each case.
During a second round of content analysis, I pulled the relevant quotes and
excerpts from the raw case data and organized them broadly under each of the four
program goals, which served as the overarching themes. When noteworthy patterns
or themes emerged from within the overarching themes, I organized the
64
corresponding quotes or text into sub-themes. As such, the data are presented by
program goal with noted sub-themes embedded within.
To evaluate the three data sources, I used direct and indirect testimony
(Polkinghorne, personal communication, August 2006) as evidence of the
achievement of project goals. On the one hand, by using direct testimony, I
highlighted instances in which faculty participants explicitly articulated changes in
their understandings, experiences, or behaviors related to the project goals. For
example, a faculty participant might say, “I have learned about how students
experience interactions with other faculty.” On the other hand, analyzing indirect
testimony required me to make inferences based on subtle nuances in the ways in
which faculty participants discussed pertinent issues differently over time. For
example, they may come to use different language about their understanding of
students and the ways in which they reflected on students and their practices over the
course of the project. I took notice of how each individual spoke in one way about
these constructs at the beginning of the project, and how their language shifted as the
end of the project approached.
Though I used the four project goals as a framework from which to content
analyze the data, other themes emerged that did not fit into the existing framework.
Nevertheless, I found that several of these themes proved to be relevant to explaining
the extent to which project goals were accomplished. I organized these noteworthy
themes into a section created to supplement the evaluation of goals. This section is
presented directly after the presentation of evaluation findings.
65
Data Analysis Part Two: Narrative Case Construction
In addition to conducting a content analysis of the case data to evaluate
project goals, I constructed narrative case studies of three of the five faculty
participants. These case studies present exemplars of the diverse ways in which
faculty members responded to their experiences in the Mountainside Interview
Project. The narrative case studies offer intimate and detailed pictures of faculty
participants’ experiences in a way that the content analysis could not. They
illuminated the processes and driving forces behind changes experienced by faculty
participants.
I chose to only analyze Grace, Barbara, and Mike’s participation in the
project in depth for several reasons. First, their transcripts contained the richest
material. Second, of the five faculty participants, only Grace, Barbara, and Matt
participated in the project from beginning to end. In addition, due to space
limitations, it would have been difficult for me to closely present cases for all five
faculty members.
My motivation to create narrative case studies stemmed from the fact that
stories are particularly important in revealing human experiences and perceptions.
Humans often think of their lives in storied form; they remember events as temporal,
making sense of them as having a beginning, middle, and end. Resulting from these
lived stories, individuals construct an ongoing experiential text from which they
reflect and explain to others (Connelly and Clandinin, 1990). The process of
narrating allows storytellers to make sense of events in their lives and the narrative
66
itself represents a form of knowledge, revealing individuals’ positions, histories, and
values. Constructing narrative case studies of faculty participants, then, offered the
perspective and understanding of what they experienced and also revealed how
faculty members constructed and negotiated their experiences in the Mountainside
Interview Project.
Fundamental to analyzing raw case data is its construction. In case study
research, stories are not only constructed by the individual who experienced the story
first-hand, but also by the person, in this case the researcher, who retells the story.
The participant’s story in concert with the researcher’s framework and analysis then
forms the narrative. Weiss (1994) details how this process comes to fruition:
Most often the investigator’s understanding and the developing
organization of the case material interact. The investigator’s
preconceptions help to decide the initial organization of materials, and
so on for several iterations.

In effect, the product of the analysis is not an objective compilation of the collected
data sets but is co-constructed by the text and researcher.
Yet Stake (1994) makes a critical point: the researcher ultimately determines
what will be told about the case once all is said and done. For the researcher, the
question of constructing a narrative case becomes a moral dilemma. Riessman
(1993) contends: “Precisely because they are essential meaning-making structures,
narratives must be preserved, not fractured, by investigators, who must respect
respondents’ ways of constructing meaning and analyze how it is accomplished” (p.
4). The most powerful method of storytelling requires the researcher to avoid
67
straying from the data (Janesick, 1994). This moral lesson guided me in maintaining
the integrity and authenticity of faculty members’ stories.
Narratives often take shape in one of two forms—expressed as a set of
sequential events or represented non-sequentially and organized into themes or
topics (Riessman, 1993). In my analysis, I employed the former of these two
varieties. Polkinghorne (1995) describes this kind of narrative as that of a storied
discourse in which incidents and behaviors are organized temporally. In identifying
a thematic plot in faculty members’ stories, I synthesized the interview, observation,
and written response data into a sequentially structured, coherent story.
Polkinghorne describes this process as narrative configuration. In this process, the
researcher adapts or adjusts the plots to fit significant events in the data that conflict
with the existing or emerging plot. In other words, although important events may
contradict a faculty member’s storyline, they nevertheless represent an aspect of the
individual’s lived experience that I needed to include into the story. At the same
time, when elements are aligned with the plot but are not salient to the story
development, I excluded them from the final narrative, also called narrative
smoothing.
It is important to note that although each narrative is presented in sequential
form, the process of constructing the narrative case studies was actually recursive.
Many times the researcher starts her investigative work with an idea. This idea leads
her to collect data to analyze, which then prompts her to refine the original idea.
Subsequently, additional data relevant to the refined idea is collected, leading to
68
further analysis, and so on. In this spiraling process (Berg, 1998), there is an overlap
between collecting and analyzing the data. Building upon each other, the overlap of
collecting and analyzing data actually strengthens the data collection and analysis
process as the researcher is able to continue clarifying and making sense of what she
is studying (Wolcott, 1994).
Hence, the process of analyzing the interview transcripts, observation field
notes, and written responses was iterative. In an “iterative spiral” (Dey, 1993) data
begin as separate elements and after iterations of analysis converge to become an
organized whole, very much like gestalt logic (Polkinghorne, 1995). To achieve this
organized whole, my data analysis transpired over the course of three phases. I
conducted the first phase when I studied the raw case data during my content
analysis. That is, after reading through and making sense of the transcripts over
several iterations, I marked significant and relevant quotes. However, in addition to
noting text related to accomplishment of program goals, I also noted text that held
importance to each faculty members’ story or experience. As explained earlier, this
preliminary analysis allowed me to create a rough map from the emerging picture of
each case.
Second, I dissected faculty members’ stories into particular segments or
phases (e.g. the first student interview, the second collaborative inquiry meeting).
This process enabled me to create temporal order of faculty members’ lived
experiences in the project. In general, I made sense of their participation in the
project by ordering their experiences as they happened before the project, during the
69
project, and considered institutional circumstances that occurred simultaneously
along the course of the project. Within this temporal framework, I further analyzed
their stories, considering data that answered the research questions posed. In doing
so, I examined the faculty members’ stories in such a way that allowed me to
uncover individual variations and complexities in events, emotions, and experiences.
From this analysis I developed a series of plots or storylines that characterize each
individual. Coherent stories were thus developed for each case that functioned
independently of other cases (Patton, 1990). In other words, I regarded each of the
five faculty members as distinct entities or units, examining their experiences
independently.
At last, the narrative analysis resulted in “an explanation that is retrospective,
having linked past events together to account for how a final outcome might have
come about” (Polkinghorne, 1995). The data was transformed from raw text into a
story that offered explanatory answers to the research questions posed. Again, the
transformation of raw text into narrative cases was iterative, requiring me to write
and rewrite the results of the study. This process can be done by detailing particular
description, or quotes, and making sense of these quotes through general
description--patterns discovered in the data--and interpretative commentary,
consisting of higher levels of abstraction (Merriam, 1998). The narrative
configuration resulted in coherent stories about each faculty member, unveiling their
experiences through a thematic plot.
70
Trustworthiness of Data Presentations
According to Denzin (1978), “Because each method reveals different aspects
of empirical reality, multiple methods of observation must be employed” (p. 28) in
qualitative research. The three forms of data I analyzed provided a comprehensive
view of the way in which faculty members shifted perceptions and behaviors over
the course of the project. By analyzing three different data sources, I was able to
check for inconsistencies in findings across the three. This process of data
triangulation (Patton, 2001) allowed me to refine my inferences and interpretations
of the data in order to make the analysis trustworthy.

71
CHAPTER 4

RESULTS OF PROGRAM EVALUATION

This chapter presents the findings of the study conducted to evaluate the
Mountainside Interview Project. Very simply, I sought to uncover the successes and
lack of successes of the project. In this chapter, I discuss the extent to which the
Mountainside Interview Project accomplished its goals, as measured by the
experiences of the five faculty members who participated in the study. First, I
introduce the five faculty participants, briefly providing background information on
each. I subsequently discuss the four key program goals and the criteria by which
they were evaluated. Then, I explain the extent to which four program goals were
met for the five faculty participants. The final section of this chapter details
additional yet noteworthy consequences, both positive and negative, that resulted
from participation in the Mountainside Interview Project
Introduction to Five Faculty Participants
Barbara, a white female, served as a Biology Professor at Mountainside
College for 12 years. Before participating in the Mountainside Interview project,
Barbara had been marginally involved in issues that pertained to equity for students
of color. Her efforts had historically been focused on gender equity, especially in the
sciences. In this way, her personal politics were aligned with improving social
justice for marginalized groups. Though Barbara was an extremely busy woman, she
decided to become more involved in increasing the success for minority students
72
after noticing the lack of students of color in science majors at Mountainside
College.
A more recent hire to Mountainside College was Grace, an Associate
Professor of Biology. She initially worked at Mountainside College for four years as
a lecturer. After being promoted to Associate Professor, Grace had worked in this
capacity at Mountainside for two years at the time Mountainside Interview Project
began. Grace was a white woman and self-proclaimed “plant biologist” at
Mountainside College. Though she was not previously involved in diversity and
equity efforts, the potential to better understand minority students’ experiences by
participating in the project sparked Grace’s interest because of her desire to recruit
and retain more students of color in the sciences. “I wish I saw more faces of color
in my classroom” (G, A, p. 2), she said.
Matt served as the Deputy to the President at Mountainside College and also
taught and conducted research in the math department as an Associate Professor.
Though Matt was a white male, he intimately identified with issues of social justice
and equity because of his gay sexual orientation. He acknowledged that though his
identity as a white male gave him power in everyday situations, his identity as a gay
male at times subverted that power. Of the faculty participants in the project, Matt
had been one of the most involved in leadership roles pertaining to diversity and
equity initiatives during his tenure at Mountainside College, both on and off campus.
Dafne did not begin participation in the Mountainside Interview Project until
fall 2004. She was recruited to participate because other team members had left
73
Mountainside College altogether. At the time that Dafne began attending team
meetings she had worked at Mountainside College for 10 years. As an Associate
Professor of Religion, a Director of Interdisciplinary and Intercultural Studies, and a
Japanese-American female, Dafne had been heavily involved in teaching and
advocating for social justice issues. She viewed herself “in some sense overseeing
just about anything that has to do with diversity, gender, race, all of that” (D, A, p.
1). Because Dafne did not join the team until mid-way through the project, I
interviewed her three times instead of four.
Jack, a white male, held the positions of Professor of English and
Comparative Literary Studies and President of the Faculty Council at Mountainside
College. While most of his interactions with students occurred in the classroom,
Jack had been involved in Diversity efforts from time to time over the 20 years of his
tenure at Mountainside College. He said his motivation to join the project was that,
“I thought that I probably should find out more about what the current status of the
college’s general diversity projects was because this was something that I had been
very heavily active in and committed to between 1988-1996 and I wanted to kind of
catch myself up” (J, A, p. 2). It is important to note that Jack did not participate at
the tail end of the project because he left the institution for his sabbatical. I
interviewed him four times, as I had with Barbara, Grace, and Matt, but did not
observe him during the last two meetings held in fall 2005 because he was no longer
available.
74
Evaluation Criteria of Project Goals
The Mountainside Interview Project goals evaluated in this study were
adapted from the grant proposal requesting funds to implement the Mountainside
Interview Project (Bensimon, 2003). This proposal’s narrative detailed the implicit
goals of the project. Though these goals were not explicitly outlined or listed as
discrete project goals, I extrapolated the key outcomes that the principal investigators
hoped to accomplish. I translated these desired outcomes into four critical goals that
guided my evaluation: (1) learning from students’ educational lives; (2) learning
about and reconceptualizing one’s own approaches to students; (3) changing
practices; and (4) institutionalizing collaborative inquiry methods. By interviewing
and observing the five faculty participants in the project, I closely studied the
experiences of each faculty participant to uncover the extent to which these project
goals were achieved.
Project Goal #1: Learning From Students’ Educational Lives
Of primary importance in this project was the potential for faculty
participants to learn from students’ educational lives. The grant proposal for this
project specifically stated that “faculty members must be able to view learning from
the student’s perspective” (Bensimon, 2003, p. 4). Deepening faculty members’
knowledge about the factors that inhibit and promote student success from the
perspective of students can foster understanding about what is needed to improve
educational outcomes for African American and Latino students. In this way, the
learning that occurs is supported by a caring motivation to assist students.
75
To evaluate Project Goal 1, my interview questions included asking faculty
participants about what they learned from students about their experiences both
inside and outside of the classroom. I asked faculty members what they learned
about students from the conversations in which they engaged during collaborative
inquiry meetings. I also observed collaborative inquiry meeting to record instances
in which faculty participants discussed new findings or insights into students’
experiences.
Project Goal #2: Learning About and Reconceptualizing One’s Own Approaches To
Students
The hope for the Mountainside Interview Project was that learning about
students could lead faculty members to reconsider their own decisions, practices, and
approaches in teaching and advising students of color. The grant proposal for the
Mountainside Interview Project stated that as a result of learning from students in
interviews, faculty participants could “view their job as facilitating the academic
success of all students in a responsible and ethical manner,” “consider how to adapt
his or her methods of teaching or advising to align them with the students’ ways of
learning,” and “become a change agent” (Bensimon, 2003, p. 5).
This project goal was evaluated by interviewing and observing faculty
participants’ regarding the ways in which they utilized their new knowledge about
students to think differently about their own practices. When faculty participants
discussed new conceptions or interpretations of their role with students, I noted these
76
instances as reconceptualization or reconsideration of one’s own approaches to
students.
Project Goal #3: Changing Practices
Once practices and approaches to educating students were reconceptualized
as a result of participating in the project, new or shifted conceptions about students,
teaching, and advising were likely to be integrated into faculty participants’
internalized experiences and understandings. The premise underlying the
Mountainside Interview Project was that practical decisions with students of color
would be improved based on continued development and complexity of these
absorbed experiences and understandings (Polkinghorne, 2005). While learning
about students (Project Goal #1) and reconceptualizing faculty members’ roles
(Project Goal #2) were important results of this project, informing faculty members’
decisions and practices meant that the project had truly accomplished what it set out
to do. The hope was that faculty would “change their own practices” (Bensimon,
2003, p. 11). The interview findings gave a chance for faculty participants to face
the concrete evidence in interview findings that depicted students’ struggles and
disparities. This information could empower faculty to create changes in their own
professional lives toward enabling students to improve their educational outcomes.
Thus, I sought to understand the ways in which faculty participants changed
their practices or approaches to students. When faculty participants cited shifts or
variations in their practical decisions while interacting with students, I recorded these
77
as changes in practices. Shifts in approaches to students both in and out of the
classroom were considered.
Project Goal #4: Institutionalizing Collaborative Inquiry Methods
The last important goal of the project pertained to institutionalizing the
collaborative inquiry undertaken by the Mountainside Interview Project team at
Mountainside College. The grant to fund the project stated the desire to build team
members’ capacity “to utilize and institutionalize action research methods in order to
effect change” (Bensimon, 2003, p. 2) campus wide.
I studied the extent to which faculty members advocated for continued
inquiry into the problem of inequitable educational outcomes. I recorded instances
of discussion that promoted or advocated for institutionalization of sustained inquiry
during interviews, collaborative inquiry meetings, and the final meeting with the
Provost.
Evaluation Findings
Project Goal #1: Learn From Students’ Educational Lives
What did faculty participants learn about students by interviewing them and
discussing interview findings as a collaborative inquiry group? As a consequence of
their participation in Mountainside Interview Project, all five faculty members
developed a greater understanding of the meanings minority students at a
predominantly white institution made about schooling—for example, issues
pertaining to institutional context and classroom dynamics.
78
Individual differences
One important insight gained by all five faculty members, especially Grace
and Barbara, pertained to the unique educational identity and journey of each student
interviewee. Faculty members noted that no two interviewees were alike. Students
were often thought about as belonging to a homogonous ethnic group, with common
characteristics and experiences. The interviews told a different story about each
student, no matter the ethnic group to which he or she belonged. Grace aptly
summarized the distinctiveness of students and their experiences that faculty
participants perceived:
One thing I have learned is that I would never generalize about somebody’s
experience based on the three people I spoke with … What impressed me
the most is I’m talking with three very different people with very different
backgrounds and very different expectations (G, A, p. 2).

Grace’s insight is important because faculty participants not only came to
know students more intimately, they came to know students based on their own
stories rather than on faculty members’ assumptions (both accurate and inaccurate)
about them. For example, Jack admitted, “I think that there's an unconscious
assumption that we make that these students are behind in some way” (J, C, p. 4).
Jack learned from interacting with student interviewees that this assumption or
stereotype was not always on target. While faculty participants acknowledged that
minority students were historically underserved as a group, for example in the
sciences, they understood that students could not be defined by their ethnic group
status alone. Their rich and varied experiences required that higher education
79
professionals pay attention to each student as a single case in order to aptly serve
them. Because Barbara and Grace had been least involved in diversity and equity
matters, they were most surprised to find that each student interviewee was
dissimilar from the next. Compared to other faculty participants, they may have had
more general or stereotypical mental models of students of color before participating
in the interview project.
By gaining a deeper and individualized understanding of students, faculty
participants were better equipped to assess students’ needs. As discussed in the
second chapter of this dissertation, key to making appropriate practical decisions
when serving students is the ability to uncover the unique features of each student
that are relevant to improving her situation. Put another way, a faculty member must
discern the important educational characteristics, features, or experiences of a
student in order to take the next steps to assist her in improving her path to graduate.
The Mountainside Interview Project, then, served as a critical exercise for faculty to
sit down with students and genuinely listen to their stories. By doing so, faculty
began to pick up on pertinent points that might explain the extent to which the
student achieved success at Mountainside College. Additionally, they also used
these points to understand how to help students. Barbara explained, “Maybe a role
we can play is to really pay attention and listen carefully to them about what they are
interested in and try to help generate that spark that would keep them [at
Mountainside College]” (B, A, p. 4).
80
Institutional contexts
In addition to learning about students themselves, faculty members better
understood institutional contexts, structures, and processes at Mountainside College
that challenged students’ ability to accomplish academic goals. All five faculty
participants noted their commitment to Mountainside College’s mission to serve
students equitably. After interviewing students, however, faculty participants
discovered that, according to student interviewees, Mountainside College was not
living up to its mission to provide an enabling climate for diverse student groups to
succeed. Dafne asserted, “Okay, so we try to attract a diverse range of students. But
that doesn't necessarily mean that we've gotten it together as far as making it a good
place for them to be” (D, B, p. 4).
Grace and Barbara reiterated Dafne’s assertion. In particular, the racism that
students spoke of surprised them. Barbara said that she “learned about many things
going on, on campus and in student life. For example, I was unaware of the degree
of racial tension in the dorms. This was pretty mind-boggling to me” (B, W, p.1).
Grace believed that the institution needed to work on such racial tensions to make
sure that Mountainside College provided a safe and welcoming environment for all
students. “Maybe we need to work more at the substance and a little bit less on the
window dressing here” (G, 4, p. 12), she emphasized during a collaborative inquiry
meeting.
Another source of institutional tension for students related to curriculum
issues. Jack learned from several students the importance of offering diverse classes
81
and course content. A couple of student interviewees raised this issue, particularly
concerning the curriculum in the Literature and English Composition department in
which Jack taught. Students wanted to add literature that included South American
authors and perspectives. Jack recalled a student’s motivation to advocate for adding
this dimension to the department’s curriculum: “He was interested particularly in
broadening the sense of what ‘Latino’ means as we teach it” (J, C, p. 3). Jack took
this request seriously, and he later met with a number of students to consider
suggestions on expanding Mountainside College’s curriculum.
Classroom dynamics
Another topic salient in students’ interviews constituted classroom dynamics,
from the ways in which professors laid out classroom chairs to how they conducted
class lecture and discussions. The majority of students interviewed praised small
classes, especially when students’ desks were situated in a circle or U-shape to
encourage group dialogue. When Jack spoke to the minority student interviewees,
their experiences and preference toward small classes stood out. “I’d never seen
quite so convincing an anecdotal demonstration of the real superiority, in the eyes of
students, of small classes” (J, B, p. 1), said Jack. In contrast, classrooms with fixed-
position or nailed down chairs were less conducive to interaction, forcing students to
look at the back of each other’s heads.
In addition to learning about enabling classroom structures, faculty
participants learned about professors’ inclusiveness, or lack thereof, of ideas and
perspectives in the classroom. When professors failed to discuss non-traditional
82
populations and perspectives, students felt disappointed and marginalized. Similarly,
Barbara learned that two of her student interviewees took a class from a professor
who curbed minority students’ points of view. The student interviewee “felt that
there was a lack of willingness by the professor to looking to alternative
perspectives. That they hadn’t created a space that made those viewpoints welcome
or at least on the table” (B, B, p. 3), recounted Barbara. Learning about professors
who restricted students’ ability to feel welcome and comfortable in the classroom
made an impression on Barbara. She was less aware of these problems before
engaging in the Mountainside Interview Project.
Project Goal #2: Learn About and Reconceptualize One’s Own Practices with
Students
Faculty members learned about and reconceptualized their practices in three
ways. First, some faculty members had to work through issues of whiteness and
privilege that impacted their assumptions and practices. Second, faculty members
reconsidered their teaching approaches to students of color. Third, advising practices
were questioned, prompting faculty members to think differently about how they
approached students during advising sessions.
At a fundamental level, learning about students’ academic challenges and
triumphs at first created a dissonance in faculty participants. What they previously
perceived to be true about teaching and advising was not supported by students’
stories, sometimes causing a shift in faculty members’ conceptions. Matt, the math
professor, articulately described this kind of experience:
83
This project has been invaluable to me as I weave the personal stories
of three of our students of color, their perceptions of the institution,
with my perceptions of the institution, our policies, and our
structures. It helps me gain a deeper sense of difficult questions about
equity that must be asked and must be addressed. It helps me think
about how I bring my own experiences and, yes, prejudices, to the
shaping of my teaching and the other work I do in this institution, and
how this may or may not resonate with all of our students (M, W, p.
1).

The interviews and collaborative inquiry encouraged Matt and the other faculty
participants to reflect on their operating assumptions and the impact these
assumptions had on their approaches. Understanding students’ points of view had
the potential to lead faculty to serve students more equitably. As such, to evaluate
the extent to which learning about students affected their conceptions, the following
question guided my evaluation of the second project goal: What did faculty
participants learn about themselves, and how did their conceptions about their roles
with students shift?
Working with Whiteness
While faculty did reconsider tangible strategies to teach and advise students,
as explained later, a few faculty participants also reconsidered deeper, underlying
assumptions that unconsciously guided their decisions. Interviewing students pushed
some of these unconscious thoughts to the surface for faculty participants. More
specifically, a critical dynamic considered in faculty members’ participation was
their Whiteness. With the exception of Dafne, all faculty participants were of Anglo
background. Though the power and privilege inherent in Whiteness emerged as a
theme several times throughout the project, it was powerful enough to consider in
84
my evaluation of what faculty participants learned about themselves and how this
impacted their approaches to students.
In the beginning of the project, Grace and Barbara experienced difficulty in
engaging in conversations with students of color about their race. Grace and
Barbara, on the one hand, did not at first consider how their Whiteness afforded them
the freedom to ignore, whether consciously or unconsciously, the power differentials
between dominant, mainstream ethnic groups and marginalized ethnic groups. On
the other hand, Matt, Jack, and Dafne understood that speaking directly about race
was a necessary and central element to the Mountainside Interview Project. Matt
and Jack knew that to address students’ experiences of marginalization and
subordination, they had to acknowledge their own place within that experience as
White males, including the inherent privileges Whiteness holds.
Jack perceived the Mountainside Interview project as an important process to
cultivating a change in White faculty participants’ perceptions about approaching
issues of race. Specifically, when speaking about “Anglo, mainstream, upper middle
class, mainly male faculty,” like himself, Jack said,
I think we need, first of all, to be honest and to recognize that racial, ethnic,
economic differences really are very significant. That they’re not, you
know, matters of indifference to our students. That your color, your family
background, your economic background, your cultural background, have
tremendous consequences for who you are in the classroom, and for those
things that the professor sees. And I think, you know, because there’s a lot
of work involved in acknowledging that, or in doing something about it
once you’ve acknowledged it, I think that we often want to shy away from it
(J, B, p. 8).

85
Jack expressed that acknowledging these issues was particularly difficult for White
faculty, especially those who wanted to believe that racism was not a problem in
higher education. He stated,
It seems to me that that’s a problem that, particularly, Anglo faculty have.
We don’t want to talk about this [meaning ‘color, your family background,
your economic background, your cultural background’], partly because we
didn’t talk about it when we were in college. And, you know, we want to say
education doesn’t really make these kinds of discriminations. Of course it
does, and we do it all the time (J, B, p. 8).

While faculty members like Matt and Jack were explicitly conscious of their
Whiteness, Grace and Barbara did not articulate the ways in which their white
identities impacted their perceptions of and interactions with students in the same
way. In fact, Grace and Barbara did not quite know how to face or acknowledge
addressing issues of race with students. Instead, as white individuals, discomfort and
guilt emerged as strong feelings for Barbara and Grace while interviewing students
of color. Even for faculty members as unassuming and kind as Grace and Barbara,
having to listen to students’ racialized experiences held its challenges. Grace’s first
interview with a Latina student from Texas evoked emotions of feeling of anxiety
and guilt. Grace said,
I think that being a 50-year old white woman, why in the world would they
want to tell me what it’s like to be a minority student? It makes me
uncomfortable to ask the questions. I think that I could seem patronizing (G,
A, p. 4).

Grace also mentioned that “it’s very hard to hear” (G, A, p. 3) about blatantly racist
remarks a roommate said to one of her interviewees: “That’s a huge open sore” (G,
A, p. 3).
86
In her first and second interviews with students, Grace was more concerned
about potentially offending students and feeling embarrassed than gathering critical
information about how race played a role in students’ educational lives. Toward the
end of the project, Grace admitted that discussing race was critical. She came to
understand that silence and avoiding discussions about race was a “barrier” to
progress. Grace shared, “It isn't a colorblind society. And we can't just pretend it is
and wish it were, and behave as though it is. And so part of is, yeah, it's good to
discuss it” (G, C, p. 5).
Barbara shared similar feelings that Grace initially experienced in the project.
Barbara stated, “I was really concerned about a white person asking those kinds of
questions” (B, A, p. 3). At the beginning of the project, she thought, “That’s a little
weird for me, a white woman to be asking [questions about race because] I don’t
know how they’re going to react” (B, C, p. 8). Toward the end of the project,
Barbara admitted that asking such questions became important. She came to
understand that discussing racialized experiences “established the reason for even
doing this [project]” (B, C, p. 8). Barbara became more comfortable with the notion
of discussing race after she realized students were willing to share.
In fact, Barbara made a breakthrough in her thinking about interacting with
students. She “realized through this process that some of the barriers to reaching
students aren’t just on their side” (B, D, p. 2). Barbara previously felt that the lack of
relationships she developed with students had to do with students’ backgrounds or
87
characteristics. Their backgrounds were different from Barbara. It was the students,
Barbara thought, who needed to make an effort to connect to her.
Through the interview process, Barbara came to understand that she had to
make an effort to connect to students. Barbara acknowledged that “it’s much easier
for me to engage with students that have a background similar to mine” (B, D, p. 2).
It was as if Barbara held a fear of the ‘Other,’ or those racially different from her.
Though Barbara may not have initially believed she had much in common with the
students she interviewed, “the process of interviewing them provided a structure for
me to figure out who they were and what I could talk to them about outside of any
sort of classroom stuff” (B, D, p. 2). Barbara understood that it was her
responsibility to take “the time to listen to students and to hear their concerns, which
we don't often do. This has given me specific ways in which I can improve my
teaching, and improve the classroom environment” (G, W, p. 1).
Rethinking approaches to reaching students as teacher
Faculty participants truly took to heart what they heard from a number of
students who discussed the ways in which they characterized an engaging classroom.
Hearing about small class sizes, enthusiastic and caring professors, and engaging
class discussions prompted Jack, Barbara, Grace, and Dafne to reconsider their
teaching and pedagogical practices. Jack, an individual highly involved in designing
general education requirements at Mountainside College, considered students’
narratives in a new light:
88
Now, I know that this is sort of conventional wisdom, but we tell our
students that we value small class situations, but it was interesting to see it
mirrored back to me quite as forcefully as it was. Because I am involved,
and have been involved for many years, in the general education program, in
its design, in its organization, it made me think that this is something we
need to look at a lot more carefully in the future (J, B, 2).

In addition, Jack thought about the ways he could reach students of color who were
particularly quiet in his classroom. The Mountainside Interview Project enlightened
Jack in this respect, despite having been a professor for a number of years and
involved in a number of diversity and equity initiatives. He saw the potential of
applying what he learned from having conversations with student interviewees to
students in his own classroom. “This [interview project] suggested to me some ways
in which I might be able to talk differently with my regular students and advisees” (J,
W, p. 1), Jack remarked. Interviewing two Latino males moved Jack to reflect on his
relationship with two students in his class who he described as being very quiet
Latino men. Jack said,
I have thought about my conversations with Mateo
9
and Juan and now I feel
that what I really need to do is to have the kind of conversation I’ve had
with them with the two Latinos [in my class]…So I’ve been thinking sort of
vaguely about how can you modify that kind of interrogation [meaning the
ethnographic interview] so that it’s appropriate to the situation of a class
itself (J, A, p. 5).

The structured conversations became a useful tool for Jack. They gave him a sense
of efficacy to talk and relate to students. He desired to reach and connect to the

9
Pseudonyms have been assigned to students’ names.

89
Latino male students who sat in the back of the classroom and sometimes appeared
disengaged.
Barbara, also impacted by what she heard from students regarding classroom
experiences, similarly thought about improving the dynamics in her own classroom.
One way Barbara believed the institution could improve was by developing faculty
members’ capacity to create a space in the classroom that accepted “difference in
learning style, difference in background, [and] cultural differences” (B, B, p. 3). She
said, “What it made me think about is that I need to make sure that I leave a space
open in the classroom for people that may not think the same way that I think” (B, B,
p. 3).
Grace also experienced a shift in conceptions, particularly with regard to her
teaching role. By interviewing students, she realized that expressing enthusiasm for
subject matter while teaching could engage students into the material. Grace said, “It
just made me think, ‘Okay, I should be a little bit more up front about, okay, I love
roots’” (G, B, p. 2). She additionally explained that she “actually thought about it a
great deal in the classroom about making eye contact, making certain that I call on
quiet people” (G, 11, p. 2). While calling on students might prompt students of color
to feel more scrutinized, Grace’s conversations with her colleagues in the
collaborative inquiry team encouraged her to think that “students of color might
respond in a kind of a personal interest, particularly when they don’t expect one from
say in a large biology class” (G, A, p. 6). However, if she noticed or received a
90
negative reaction from calling on students who didn’t normally speak in class, Grace
might ultimately decide to revise her approach to engage students in class discussion.
Dafne shifted certain conceptions about her role as teacher due to her
participation in the project. She said, “One student [interviewee] in particular talked
in detail about the kind of classroom setting that enabled her to learn. I appreciated
the chance to expand my thinking about pedagogy” (D, W, p. 1). As I explain later
in this chapter, Dafne decided to further inquire into the teaching methods and
approaches that the particular professor used to engage her student interviewee in the
classroom.
Matt, conversely, did not speak of thinking about his teaching role
differently. Though he seriously considered students’ experiences, he did not
explicitly discuss utilizing that knowledge or understanding to change the way he
approached students in class nor in his role as advisor.
Rethinking advising practices
One of the important roles faculty play at Mountainside College is that of
advising students. Students are assigned to faculty members to guide and assist them
in selecting courses, choosing majors, and working through other academically
related issues when necessary. Four faculty participants—Grace, Matt, Jack, and
Barbara in particular—mentioned the ways in which they thought differently about
approaching students during advising sessions. For example, the stories Grace heard
from students about varying faculty advising experiences greatly impacted Grace’s
91
ideas about the role advisors should take with students. She explained the
distinctions among the three students:
I was kind of impressed by the difference and their different experiences
with their advisors. For instance, the one girl who seems to be sort of
disaffected with Mountainside College, she said she just goes to her advisor
to get a signature, whereas, the other two actually got advice. Now, when I
say advice, I mean somebody sat down with them and talked about all kinds
of things (G, B, p. 4).

Students made the distinction between advisors’ roles; one involved advising as
providing information and the other as engagement with students. After realizing the
variations among advising experiences, Grace reflected, “I think that’s the one
practical repercussion from these [interviews] that has really made me see that the
advisor has a pretty powerful role” (G, B, p. 4). Grace thought about how she could
create a more positive advising experience for students. In particular, Grace said, “It
just made me realize, one, okay, I have to take this advising seriously. And, two, I
should take it even more seriously with students of color” (G, B, p. 4).
Matt also expressed his thoughts about advising. Yet Matt did not explicitly
talk about how he reconceptualized his own advising practices. Instead, Matt asked
more critical questions at collaborative inquiry meetings on which faculty
participants could reflect:
[Grace] said in the first or second meeting we had, ‘Now that I’ve had this
experience, why can’t I do this with every one of my advisees?’ Particularly
for students of color or other students whose transitions into higher
education may or may not be different, we can let them know that we care
about them. They are people and we are people who can have these deep,
meaningful conversations with them. The question is if you are in this more
formal role of advisor/ advisee, does that change the nature? Does that not
change the nature? (M, 6, p. 5).
92

Matt personally perceived that he could impact students through advising. He felt
that unless there was sustained support to continue interviewing students after the
Mountainside Interview Project grant ended, at the very least, “advising is the
opportunity for me to have these conversations” (M, 9, p. 8).
Jack also found himself thinking about the interview process in relation to
student advisement. Jack began to think about how the student interviews created a
structured conversation that facilitated his learning about underrepresented students
and could, in turn, be utilized to help him be a more effective advisor. He stated, “I
thought maybe I should do this with my advisees. I should just sit down and spend
forty-five minutes talking through a set of questions like these” (J, B, p. 6). Before
the Mountainside Interview Project, Jack took for granted the impact he had on
students as an advisor. Toward the end of the project, Jack believed that integrating
a more structured conversation into advising might be useful for all faculty and
students. He reflected,
I would like to have something like this built into the way that Mountainside
College’s faculty and students interact with each other. In other words, I'd
like to have, I don't know, an auxiliary advising program. A ‘getting to
know you’ program. But it's not a ‘getting to know you’ program. Because
the virtue of it is that it continues over a period of time. In other words, it's
not just having a, you know, dinner with your advisees, or a opening
reception for the first year of minority students. It is in fact a long-term
relationship, even if an infrequent one. I would love to see that happen for
all minority students. Or for all students for that matter (J, C, p. 13).

Jack knew that his development as an advisor could positively impact all of
his student advisees, no matter what their race or ethnicity.
93
While, on the one hand, Jack saw benefits to shifting the structure of advising
at Mountainside College, he did, on the other hand, articulate the challenges of
paying extra attention to advisees amidst the realities of a short advising meeting.
Short meetings often occurred as a result of requests from faculty who did not have
enough time in the day or students who simply wanted to meet for one minute to
have their advisor sign a form.
Likewise, Barbara acknowledged that although in-depth conversations with
her advisees could be rewarding, the time and context in which advising took place
did not always allow for deep and thorough discussions. She explained that,
Because meetings of the advisees are very structured. And when they come
to see you to register for classes, you have an agenda. You've got to get it
done. You have 15 minutes before you see the next one. Or if they come to
see you because they have to if they're in academic trouble. So you don't
have that kind of opportunity that I know probably the college would like us
to say, ‘Well, you know, really, how's it going? How's your life outside of
academics? What are the issues that concern you?’ (B, C, p. 9).

In the end, both Jack and Barbara wavered on advocating to integrate
a more structured, in-depth conversation with advisees. At one of the final
collaborative inquiry meetings, Barbara asked her colleagues, “How do we
link this process to advising? Maybe that’s not obvious… That might be
somewhere where we can put this interview project: in advising” (B, 10, p.
3). She closed the conversation on advising by adding:
If we make the interviews part of advising, we could talk about it during the
advising orientation. We could do some sort of role playing [of
interviews]... This may help the faculty to understand how to interview the
students or talk to them during advising (B, 10, p. 5).

94
Dafne, however, did not consider the interviews as potentially being
successfully integrated into advising. She said, “I believe it has to be decoupled
from advising and teaching. It needs to stand outside of that” (D, 10, p. 4). Dafne
believed this project was an important enough approach to stand alone rather than to
be phased into the advising process. She believed the impact of the project on
faculty members and students alike might get lost within the structure of day-to-day
advising. Thus, while Grace, Matt, Jack, and Barbara reconsidered their role as
advisors, Dafne did not interpret the continuation and institutionalization of the
collaborative inquiry effort in the same way.
Project Goal #3: Change Practices
Once faculty participants looked reflexively at their practices to solve the
problem of unequal outcomes, they decided to change approaches to students. The
two major ways in which faculty participants changed their approaches to students
pertained to their roles in teaching and advising. Below I describe in more detail the
various shifts, both subtle and significant, in faculty members’ practices.
Teaching Strategies
Of the five faculty participants, Grace, Barbara, Jack, and Dafne described
shifting their approaches to reaching out to students of color in their role as teacher.
After Grace learned that students wanted to feel connected to faculty members by
taking small classes wherein student discussion and participation were valued, Grace
decided to make “an effort to really make sure everyone knows that I know who they
95
are personally and I’m personally interested in what they have to say. I know it’s
making me more attuned to what an individual student might need” (G, A, p. 6).
This was an important discovery for Grace to make effective practical decisions with
students of color. By the end of the project, Grace wrote in her written reflections
that the project impacted her practical decisions both in the classroom and while
advising students of color:
The most concrete benefit has been to make me a better advisor to and
teacher of students of color--or, if not better, at least more aware. I pay more
attention to possible ‘background issues’ such as family ambivalence about
a student's attending college, etc. I try to listen more closely and carefully to
what is and is not being said (G, W, p. 1).

For Barbara, a student interviewee’s story about developing a community in
the pre-collegiate program, the Multicultural Summer Institute, made her, “think how
important that sort of pre-college experience can be to some of our students” (B, B,
p. 7). Barbara realized that students who came into this summer program before
their freshman year made important academic and social connections to
Mountainside College. The following summer, Barbara decided to teach a biology
class in the Multicultural Summer Institute due to her deepened commitment to
assisting students of color succeed.
After considering the importance of listening to students’ experiences, Jack
said, “It occurred to me, also, that I should probably just spend more time talking,
one on one, with my students, period” (J, B, p. 6). Consequently, Jack attempted to
have more structured conversations with two Latino males in his class. These two
students sat in the back of his class and rarely spoke. Jack felt the need to reach out
96
to them and engage them in a conversation. After attempting to speak to the two
students, Jack was unsuccessful in engaging the students in the same way the student
interviewees were engaged in telling their stories. Nonetheless, Jack did attempt to
make changes to his approaches to students of color to enable their achievement in
his class. While Jack felt disappointment in the lackluster result, he did not appear to
regret his decision to reach out to the Latino students.
Dafne did not explicitly state that she changed her practices in the classroom
but instead discussed inquiring further into effective teaching strategies. Dafne
learned from one of the students she interviewed the ways in which one faculty
member developed the student’s enthusiasm for learning class material through
certain pedagogical approaches. The student compared a class entailing lectures,
memorizing of material, and little critical thinking “to an education class that she has
where everything was interactive… And that just made her engage in everything. So
it wasn't kind of memorizing, but she thought about it and had conversations outside
of the classroom” (D, B, p. 6). Learning about this class prompted Dafne to want to
discuss this particular faculty member’s pedagogic style with the faculty member
herself. Dafne described her motivation to meet with this faculty member in the
department of Education:
It's a wonderful class. And I'm really committed to the interactive stuff. But
sometimes it's such a struggle to figure out how to do it. And so just wanting
to know more about the strategy… and the different tools that she has for
doing that (D, B, p. 7).

97
Though Dafne was a professor seasoned in social justice issues and interactions with
students of color, she still did not feel completely efficacious to reach her students in
the classroom all of the time. Dafne spoke to this professor by the end of the project,
willing to learn about the professor’s unique and effective practices in the classroom.
Because the student interviewee shared her experiences of her favorite professor,
Dafne decided to open up a conversation with the faculty member to improve upon
her own practices.
Advising Strategies
Approaches to advising students changed over the course of the project for
several faculty participants. For example, a couple instances of learning from
student interviews prompted Grace to say, “The way [interviewing] affected my
behavior most was as an advisor” (G, 4, p. 14). First, her interviewees illustrated
differences in the relationships they maintained with their faculty advisors: while
some employed advisors for signatures alone, others “sat down with them and talked
about all kinds of things” (G, B, p. 4). She realized that personal involvement
required a two-way relationship:
After the first interview, personal involvement is a big component about how
they feel about school, how they feel about themselves. I bent over
backwards to keep in touch with [a Latina advisee] and the African American
student. They were two great relationships” (G, 4, p. 14).

Second, of the many stories students shared with her, Grace particularly
identified work-study and financial aid as being critical issues for minority students’
success. Their stories highlighted the struggles they experienced in surviving
98
financially and sustaining their livelihood as students. Grace enacted her concerns
about students’ finances by discussing this topic with her advisees. For example, she
made a concerted effort to broach topics pertaining to summer jobs or internship
opportunities with an African American advisee. “I am doing a much better job I
think of advising him than I would have otherwise… Because I’m trying to keep on
top of his work study commitment and I never would have thought of that before”
(G, A, p. 5). By the end of the project, Grace said she went “to bat for [her advisees]
a bit more--make phone calls, write letters, etc.--when they need a bit of advocacy”
(G, W, p. 1).
Matt also briefly mentioned that he changed one aspect of his advising
sessions with students. That is, he more aggressively encouraged students to declare
a major in order to get students connected with a faculty advisor in that field. Matt
stated,
This was one of the first years where I explicitly started talking to freshman
and sophomore advisees to push them to declare a major. They kept saying,
‘I know I’ll major in this. I know I’ll major in this.’ So I said, ‘Ok. Declare
a major and grab a hold on a faculty there because you are just going to get
so much more.’ One [advisee] wants to be in religion major and he still
hasn’t declared a major. He’s a sophomore, and I said, ‘Just declare it’ (M,
7, p. 3).

While Matt did not explicitly report attributing this change in advising approach to
his participation in the Mountainside Interview Project, he had mentioned that the
project reinforced his conceptions about connecting students to the university.
Encouraging students to connect to a major and a faculty member in that major early
99
on was an extension of his value to involve students into the culture of Mountainside
College.
Project Goal #4: Institutionalization of Collaborative Inquiry
By the end of the project, Grace, Barbara, Matt, and Dafne met with the
Provost to advocate for institutionalization of the project. Jack had already left for
sabbatical, though he enthusiastically offered his feedback on the report being
presented to the Provost at that meeting. In the final meeting with Mountainside
College’s Provost, the faculty participants gave compelling reasons to require
academic departments to interview students of color: the interview project had
changed their ideas about students and allowed them to be more efficacious to
approach them. Consequently, they argued, interviewing students and meeting as a
collaborative inquiry group by department could similarly impact the college’s
faculty members on a broader scale.
The four faculty participants advocated for institutionalization in different
ways. Barbara had transformed from a quiet participant to an outstanding advocate
of the process. When the inquiry team decided to persuade campus leaders to
institutionalize the project, she was the first to volunteer her department as the newly
appointed Biology Chair to take part in the pilot project. Barbara strategically took
advantage of her leadership role to create changes on campus. After being
transformed as an advisor, Grace stood right along side Barbara in support of
continuing the efforts to interview students.
100
Like Barbara, Matt volunteered the Math Department to participate in
departmental student interviews and collaborative inquiry. Unfortunately, due to
dissent from certain math faculty members, Matt could not successfully involve the
Math Department. However, his efforts demonstrated his commitment to engaging
math faculty into critical inquiry about students of color. And though Dafne began
her participation in the project later than the others, she was just as convinced about
the positive benefits this project would have campus wide. In fact, Dafne became
the lead person for advocating for institutionalization at the final meeting with the
Provost. She felt that she “benefited from getting to participate in the meetings with
other interviewers” (D, W, p. 1). What inspired her to support the continuation of
this effort was “the conversations about what to do next with the project [because
they were] very helpful for thinking more long-term about issues related to campus
climate” (D, W, p. 1).
Additional Consequences and Accomplishments
It is important to note that in my quest to evaluate the extent to which the
four project goals were met, I uncovered instances in which other significant
consequences, both positive and negative, resulted from faculty members’
participation. First, several faculty participants disagreed with the Mountainside
Interview Project’s methodology to inquire into students’ experiences. Second, all
faculty participants developed an overwhelming sense of care and commitment to
support student interviewees’ to achieve equitable outcomes.
101
Disagreement with project’s methodology
While Matt, Jack, and Dafne were fairly comfortable with the qualitative
nature of the project, Grace and especially Barbara struggled with its methodological
orientation. Being quantitatively oriented, they experienced difficulty in considering
students’ statements as valid data findings for three reasons. First, there was no
control group. That is, the team did not compare the group of students interviewed
to another student group, such as white students, at Mountainside College. This
made it difficult for Grace and Barbara to draw conclusions from the interview data.
Second, the interview data did not allow for statistical significance. Again,
this brought uneasiness to Grace and Barbara because they could not decipher what
interview findings could be established as significant. The implication of these two
conceptions was that Grace and Barbara did not take students’ stories as legitimate
data or truth from which to draw inferences about students of color. It was as if the
narratives recorded in student interviews, because they were not compared to another
group or deemed as statistically significant, could not be used to make valid
knowledge claims. Grace and Barbara’s tendency to suppress the knowledge that
emerged out of students’ stories could have resulted in exclusion of a hidden truth
only expressed in minority students’ voices and experiences.
Third, Grace feared that her personal interactions with students during
interviews would affect the way in which students answered questions. As such, she
believed that the interview findings would be less objective. Literature by Collins
(2000) explains that, “scientists aim to distance themselves from the values, vested
102
interests, and emotions generated by their class, race, sex, or unique situation” (p.
255). Grace had to understand that while the element of human interaction did guide
the direction of the interviews, interaction was actually a central and necessary piece
to the inquiry process. Without such interaction, faculty participants would not have
developed relationships that urged them to care for students and learn more from
them. By the same token, interaction allowed students to connect to a faculty
member who would listen to them and take their stories into account. Distancing and
detaching oneself from the students would not have impacted faculty or students
themselves in the same way.
Though Barbara and Grace expressed concerns about drawing conclusions
from qualitative data throughout the process, they ended their participation having
learned the most from students. At the beginning, their orientation to research could
have easily created stumbling blocks for Barbara and Grace’s learning and
engagement in the project. But their care for students of color overshadowed their
doubts about discussing race and the project’s methodology. In fact, interviewing
students made a tremendous impression on Grace: “You know, of course we read
this. You know, they give us articles and give us talks and things like that. But it
really—when you listen to somebody's story—it brings it home” (G, C, p. 8). In
addition, had this project employed quantitative methods to compare one group to
another, Grace and Barbara would have paid much less attention to the unique
circumstances characterizing each student interviewee’s educational journey.
103
Care and concern
Over the course of the project, faculty participants developed unique and
important relationships with students of color at Mountainside College. As they got
to know them more personally, faculty members developed care and concern for
their student interviewees. This affective element became a driving force to continue
to learn from students, reconsider practices, and change approaches to teaching and
advising.
For instance, during the summer break following the first year of interviews,
Matt decided to send an email to his student interviewees. At the fourth
collaborative inquiry meeting in the fall semester, Matt told his colleagues,
I have an email here from the woman who was totally disconnected when I
first interviewed her. She said, ‘It makes me feel so good to hear from you
since not that many people write me and it makes me happy to know a
faculty member thinks about me and my summer’ (B, 4, p. 13).

In talking about the student’s email, Matt said that there are multiple reasons for
doing the interview project, “time consuming as it is” (B, 4, p. 13). He felt that the
interviews helped him make a personal connection with a student who was
vulnerable to dropping out. “It is one thing that is going to keep the student here,
make them successful, and feel that they belong here” (B, 4, p. 13). Dafne supported
Matt’s feelings about student engagement in the project: “If we know that it matters
that students get listened to, and not just listened to, but if they feel like their
concerns are being addressed, that in itself is going to save their experience here” (D,
104
B, p. 2). Faculty participants expressed their genuine care for the fate of minority
students at Mountainside College.
Barbara also discussed ways in which care and concern for students of color
resulted from her participation in the project. Listening to students about professors
who did not enable their learning by creating an uncomfortable space in the
classroom made an impression on Barbara. Her new awareness of faculty
insensitivity caused her to think about her own operating assumptions in the
classroom. Barbara remarked, “I've been thinking about that idea of just
assumptions that I might make about students” (B, C, p. 3). She continued, “So
[I’m] learning to be more aware and sensitive to those issues. And I can think of a
case where I was aware of my own classroom behavior, that I might not have picked
up on before this” (B, C, p. 2). Barbara’s caring drove her to strive to be a more
sensitive educator to students of color in the classroom. In addition, she took the
time to connect students to academic opportunities, becoming an important social
network for students. For example, she sent information about a summer abroad
program to a student interviewee. The student applied and was accepted to attend.
“She hadn’t really heard about it otherwise,” said Barbara. “So I was really happy I
was able to make that connection.”
While all faculty participants noted that students benefited from developing
relationships with them, so too did the faculty participants. The five faculty
members mentioned that they met students to whom they otherwise would have
105
probably not made a connection. In her written reflections at the conclusion of the
project, Grace wrote,
I truly value my contacts with them. When I see and speak with them
on campus, I feel a bond--it's like a secret handshake. The process
made me feel more like a member of the community, and not just a
member of the faculty (G, W, p. 1).

The Mountainside Interview Project gave Grace a stronger sense of identity and
purpose at Mountainside College. By developing relationships with students, she
created an important connection that gave her a sort of permission to become
engaged in the student community.
When faculty participants interviewed students, new social relationships
formed. These relationships were based on trust and respect. In her work with
teachers, Ladson-Billings (1995) noted that educators’ “common thread of caring
was their concern for the implications their work had on their students’ lives, the
welfare of the community, and unjust social arrangements” (p. 474). In a similar
vein, faculty participants did not idiosyncratically care for students, but rather cared
for students in a skilled manner with the intention of enabling them to achieve
equitable outcomes.
This study reveals the significance of listening to students with care. Faculty
had to learn to listen, and listen to learn. This is not a particularly new or ground-
breaking revelation. But faculty members who “have learned to listen with new
attentiveness and care, [know] that our ability to understand and respond is directly
related to our students’ success as learners” (Chan, Fortunato, Mandell, Oaks, and
106
Mann, 2001, p.336). Some faculty members, before engaging in collaborative
inquiry, did not know the extent to which listening to students of color was
important. By the end of the project, advocating for the institutionalization of
student interviews meant continuing to listen to students and placing their voice at
center stage.
Summary of Evaluation
The findings that emerged from this evaluation reveal that the project was
largely successful in accomplishing its goals. The first project goal, learning from
students’ educational lives, was achieved in a number of ways. First, all five
participants noted the dissimilarities across their interviewees’ experiences. While
students did share the common experience of belonging to a historically underserved
group, it was important for faculty to distinguish relevant characteristics and
circumstances in students’ educational lives to be able to better serve them. Second,
faculty participants learned about institutional contexts—from racist incidents in the
dorms to professors’ ability to include all students in learning—that enabled and
impeded students to succeed. Third, faculty learned about the ways in which student
interviewees experienced the classroom, uncovering circumstances that led them to
become engaged as a result of classroom structure or professors’ approaches.
Faculty members who learned about and reconceptualized their own practices
did so in varying ways. First, Grace and Barbara had to work through their
discomfort with discussing racial issues with students. They did not at first realize
the importance of acknowledging and discussing racialized experiences. Working
107
through Whiteness becomes critical because the privilege and power that underpin
this dynamic tends to unconsciously guide the ways in which individuals approach
students. Second, all faculty participants but Matt reconsidered the way in which
they enabled students of color to learn in the classroom. Faculty members reflected
on strategies from engaging students in conversation to simply inquiring further into
pedagogical practices that could improve one’s approaches to teaching students.
Third, all faculty members but Dafne reported thinking differently about their role as
advisor. They assumed more responsibility to ensure their advisees stayed on track
to successfully graduate from Mountainside College. Shifting beliefs about practices
for both teaching and advising reflected a critical change in attitude about their role
and responsibility as professors. Faculty participants approached their role with
greater conscientiousness and care toward promoting student success.
Once faculty participants reconceptualized practices with students, they
tended to shift particular practical decisions to improve students’ academic
performance. All faculty participants, with the exception of Matt, cited examples of
ways in which they changed certain teaching approaches. Moreover, only two
faculty participants, Grace and Matt, noted that they had changed an aspect of the
way they approached advising their students. Taken together, the five faculty
participants in this project shifted their approaches with students in one way or
another with the intention of being more responsive to closing the achievement gap.
The fourth and final goal constituted institutionalizing collaborative inquiry
into students’ experiences at Mountainside College. All faculty members became
108
advocates for the Mountainside Interview Project, taking a proactive stance that
would encourage upper level administrators to listen. Unfortunately, Jack could not
attend the final meeting with the Provost because he left for his sabbatical. In the
meeting with the Provost, I witnessed the commitment and passion faculty
participants expressed while advocating for the continuation of student interviews by
academic department. They truly believed in this effort. They believed that all
faculty members and departments could improve upon their ways of educating
students by systematically listening to students’ experiences and meeting as a
collaborative inquiry group.
To supplement the findings of this evaluation study, the following chapter
presents detailed cases of three of the five faculty participants. These cases offer
exemplars of the ways in which faculty participants uniquely responded to their
experiences of engaging in student interviews and collaborative inquiry.
109
CHAPTER 5

THREE CASES OF FACULTY MEMBERS’ PARTICIPATION

This chapter presents three cases of faculty participants to provide more
intimate pictures of the ways in which faculty members experienced the project. Of
the five faculty participants in the Mountainside Interview Project, I chose to analyze
Grace, Barbara, and Mike’s participation in depth. I decided to construct cases out
of these three individuals’ experiences principally because their transcripts contained
the richest material. In addition, of the five faculty participants, only Grace, Barbara,
and Matt participated in the project from beginning to end. Due to limitations in
space, I could not closely document and construct cases for all five participants.
Barbara, Chair of the Biology Department
April 25
th
, 2004. I knocked on Barbara’s office door. As I stepped into
Barbara’s office for the first time to interview her, Barbara softly asked me, “Can we
start in a couple of minutes? I’m working with a student in my lab and I want to
wrap up.” I replied, “Sure, no problem.” Barbara, a white female biology professor,
excused herself from her office and walked into the adjoining biology lab. I sat
down in a chair by the office door and prepared my audio recorder and notes. To my
left I noticed Barbara’s bookcase. Books titled with words like “ecology,”
“conservation biology,” and “biodiversity” lined the shelves, leaving no empty space
between books. The various papers, books, and manuals scattered over Barbara’s
office desktop reflected signs of a busy woman. Her computer screen showed her
email “Inbox.” Itemized email messages from what I imagined to be her students
110
and colleagues filled the page, most marked unread. Put simply, Barbara’s office
was cluttered with reminders of things to be done—emails to reply to, tests to grade,
books to read.
Barbara appeared to be a faculty member who often played “catch up” at
Mountainside College. Before my first interview with Barbara, I had interacted with
her on momentary occasions during Mountainside Interview Project collaborative
inquiry meetings. Because of other work commitments Barbara did not attend the
first collaborative inquiry meeting, showed up more than halfway through the second
meeting, and attended the last five minutes of the third meeting with few words to
share.
Admittedly, in the beginning of the project I misperceived Barbara’s lack of
participation as disinterest rather than as a consequence of her overloaded calendar.
It was not until I attempted to schedule my interviews with Barbara that I first
realized the little free time she had. Scheduling interviews with Barbara was
difficult. We even had to do a phone interview (rather than face-to-face) at one time
because she was away from her office conducting research out of town. My
observation of Barbara’s cluttered office served as one more piece of evidence that
her time was limited.
Despite having many items on her plate, Barbara did take her teaching
approaches and interactions with students seriously. In addition to her research
responsibilities, she appeared to put forth a considerable amount of energy into her
111
exchanges with students. Barbara described herself as an informal professor who
was approachable to her students.
I like for them to feel that they can come to me at any time to talk about
classes or about other things that interest them or other things that concern
them. If someone has a question, I’m happy to just stop what I’m doing in
class and deal with the question and sometimes that leads into a discussion.
I’m really sort of fluid in that way. With my research students, the ones that
have worked with me for a while, we have a pretty loose relationship. I like
them to be able to come with me in the field. So, by “loose,” I mean informal.
But it’s based on mutual respect I think. So, I’m not that sort of person that
people generally call professor. They call me by my first name or they avoid
calling me anything because they are a little shy about that even if I invite
them to call me by my first name (B, A, p. 2).

Barbara prided herself on the quality of relationships she developed with her
students. She wanted her students to feel that she was easily approachable.
Barbara’s Motivation to Participate
Barbara’s care for social justice issues sparked her interest and involvement
in the Mountainside Interview Project. In fact, the reason why she came to work at
Mountainside College twelve years earlier was because the institutional mission
reflected this value. She remembered that, “when the opportunity to work here came
along I was very excited about it. I mean it suits my politics and how I'd like to live
my life” (B, C, p. 5).
Barbara admitted that she would have liked to be more involved in diversity
and equity initiatives at Mountainside College. However, Barbara was protective of
her time because of the many responsibilities she held under her purview as a
professor.
112
You know, the first few years I was here I had a lot of other things I had to
get done. Like do my classes and get my research in order and get time
here. And so I had to be a little bit more circumspect about what kinds of
things I got involved in. But all those things, you know. I sort of have, if
not perfect, at least some sort of maintainable level [of effort]. I can put
efforts towards things that I really care about (B, C, p. 5).

Aside from the Mountainside Interview Project, Barbara recalled having been
involved in only one other initiative related to diversity at the college. Over the
course of the interview project, she informally advised a group of students of color
after having approached her for her assistance. She described these students as a
group “trying to promote diversity in science on campus. And they've had a couple
meetings and produced sort of a document, a manifesto” (B, C, p. 1). The fact that
Barbara chose to participate in Mountainside Interview Project in addition to this
informal advising in light of her busy career and her discriminating choice of
involvement in other campus activities demonstrated the importance she placed on
minority student success.
One of the factors that influenced Barbara’s decision to participate in
Mountainside Interview Project pertained to Mountainside’s institutional context.
Specifically, “I guess it's sort of wrapped in at Mountainside and the mission to the
college” (G, C, p. 5), she explained. She felt that the colleges’ mission was not to be
taken lightly, understanding the institution’s saga of upholding a diverse and
equitable environment as being important for her and her colleagues. Barbara
thought it important for her colleagues to similarly, “buy into the mission of the
college and try to organize their professional lives so they support that” (B, B, p. 8).
113
For this reason, she joined the Mountainside Interview project as “something that
I’m doing to further the mission of the college” (B, B, p. 8).
In addition to the institutional context stimulating her interest to participate in
Mountainside Interview Project, her personal observations of minority student
attrition in the sciences inspired her to become involved. She disclosed,
I’ve been concerned for a while about what I perceive as a lack of retention
in the students of color in the sciences, particularly in biology. So I’m
personally committed to doing what we can to try and include more students
in the major. A lot of students period, but I’m thinking especially students
of color enter with goals of entering some aspects of medicine and we don’t
graduate as many students who actually do go into professional areas that
are medically related. So I am particularly concerned about that and I feel
like this is one way for us to at least get the information to start addressing
this (B, A, p. 2).

Barbara took notice of how students of color experienced a lack of success in the
biology major. Their low retention rates concerned her, particularly because these
students’ chances of going into the medical profession were hampered. Her concern
for this issue was colored by the consequences attrition had on students and on
society.
First Interview, April 2004
At the beginning of the Mountainside Interview Project, Barbara was
assigned to interview three students—two Latino females and a Black male. She
experienced difficulty scheduling an interview with the male student. Eventually the
student was paired off with another participant on the team. After interviewing the
two females a first time, I spoke to Barbara about her experiences in April 2004. She
described the two women as being “pretty poised and pretty relaxed. I didn’t feel
114
they were nervous about sitting down in my office. I just felt that we were just
having a conversation” (B, 1, p. 3).
Though the students did not appear to be nervous, Barbara admitted that she
felt apprehensive in her first round of interviews with these women. Particularly,
Barbara felt uneasy with one question listed in her interview protocol: “What does it
feel like to be a student of color at Mountainside College?” She explained,
“Probably the one thing I was apprehensive about was that you never know when
you are going to meet someone--how they are going to react to you probing them on
issues that involve race or gender” (B, A, p. 3). To enter into a discussion about
race, especially when Barbara was white and the students were not, was difficult for
Barbara. She had never asked students such a direct question about racialized
experiences before. “I was really concerned about a white person asking those kinds
of questions,” (B, A, p. 3), she confessed.
In addition to experiencing challenges to engage students in conversations
about race, Barbara also had difficulty accepting the research design of Mountainside
Interview Project as adequate. Barbara’s biology background shaped her ideas about
what constituted valid research. When I asked her about her reaction to interviewing
students and analyzing these data as evidence of minority students’ experiences,
Barbara responded with hesitation about the qualitative nature of the project. Her
positivist research orientation did not allow room for studies without control groups
and analysis that resulted in statistical significance. She said, “Of course for
someone who is in the hard sciences and deals with numbers it is all so very insecure
115
for me. We don’t deal with qualitative stuff very much. My feelings are a little bit
of insecurity” (B, A, p. 4). Though Barbara did not mention one more word about
her uneasiness with accepting interview data as legitimate evidence of students’
experiences, her concern resurfaced again in September 2004.
Upon asking what Barbara learned about the students she interviewed, she
replied, “Well I think I learned they were all very different” (B, A, p. 3). Barbara,
through her interviews with the two first-year Latina women, became attuned to the
particular characteristics of each student. She began to describe the student
interviewees,
One was particularly--I’m not sure that she had really clear goals. The other
girl, she had had a goal to come to a small liberal arts college in the west
and study international relations as a sophomore in high school. So she had
very consciously taken these steps to get herself so that she would be able to
do that. So she was very methodical about what kinds of classes she was
taking and how she was preparing herself and that kind of thing. It was very
interesting to contrast them (B, A, p. 3).

Barbara became aware of the divergent paths the two students experienced at
Mountainside College. She thought about how the varying academic pathways of
these students impacted her expectations of them. Though she was concerned with
the student who did not appear to be as directed, in a fleeting moment she articulated
her feelings of wanting to accept this students’ pathway.
Maybe I learned something about what our expectations are of incoming
students--that some of them are just going to be able to ease right in and
follow their goals and be comfortable with that. And then others are going to
kind of mess around for a while. And probably both paths are fine (B, A, p.
4).

116
Though Barbara described the path of “mess[ing] around for a while” as “fine,” she
later made clear her concerns for this less directed pathway in college. In truth, some
students who take longer to set goals to graduate, through their behaviors, may be at
higher risk for attrition. This idea colored her expectations of the two student
interviewees.
They are both very personable young ladies. But because the one was so
very directed, I just imagine that she’ll have had a good, positive
experience, with her friends as well. And then the other one, I just don’t
know what to expect (B, A, p. 5).

In an inexplicit manner, Barbara hinted at having different expectations for the two
students.
After interviewing her two students for the first time, Barbara began to reflect
on the ways in which her practices impacted students in her classes. She realized
that she might need to make the extra effort to pay more attention to those students
who did not excel. Barbara easily identified with the students who did well on their
assignments, but did not think about how her inaction with students who might be in
trouble could influence their educational pathway in the major.
I relate better naturally to the students that are very directed and enthusiastic
about their studies because it’s easier to reach them. If they already have the
spark, you just have to expand it. But, I think that maybe those students
would succeed anyway without a lot of personal attention. And the ones
that we’re losing in the majors or ones from the college are the ones that are
just kind of cruising, waiting until they, until something catches. Maybe a
role we can play is to really pay attention and listen carefully to them about
what they are interested in and try to help generate that spark that would
keep them there. Because I have a personal goal of trying to facilitate
students of color, particularly women students of color, and staying in the
sciences at Mountainside College. That was something I learned that I need
to pay more attention to (B, A, p. 4).
117

As a result of what she learned from her student interviewees, Barbara thought about
the practical decisions she made in the classroom in a different way. Her resolution
to approach students who were “cruising” was nothing short of important. This
small act of care might make a difference for a student of color who bears the burden
of being the only minority student in class and who feels that she does not belong.
Thus, in addition to expanding the spark she perceived in enthusiastic and directed
students, Barbara reconsidered the importance of taking one extra step to ignite a
spark in a student on the margins of being lost in the major.
Second Interview, June 2004
In June 2004, two months after my first meeting with Barbara, I interviewed
her again in her office. She had just completed a second round of interviews with the
same two Latina women. She described the interviews as being more comfortable
because “we knew each other” (B, B, p. 1). In fact, Barbara felt she had developed a
unique relationship with her two student interviewees. She said she liked,
having these connections with students that I wouldn’t normally meet, that
aren’t going to be taking my classes, necessarily. Finding out why they’re
here and what makes them tick. So that was just another reason why I’m
glad to be part of this process (B, B, p. 5).

I asked Barbara what she learned from her interviews. She first recalled what
she learned from the student who was “still trying to come up with what it means to
her to be successful” (B, B, p. 2). This student did not necessarily define her
academic identity at Mountainside College by her performance in classes or other
118
academic arenas. Rather, the student defined her academic identity by her
involvement in a community of women who discussed issues of gender and race.
What meant a lot to her, and what seemed to be carrying her along in her
academic success here was not the classes. Um, she was sort of ambivalent
about her classes. And she thought they were too much introductory
material. But what was very meaningful to her was she was getting credit
for it, but it’s sort of an experimental class that’s being coordinated by one
of the psychology professors. And it’s called inter-group dialogue. I don’t
know if this has come up, but it seems a really powerful thing at least for
this student. It was all women, but it was women of color and white
women, learning how to talk to each other. And it was sort of a two-unit
course. And what were their common experiences, what was different
between the two groups? … And that was probably the most meaningful
experience for her, and what enabled her to carry on with her other classes
that she didn’t find totally satisfying (B, B, p. 1).

Though Barbara did not directly articulate her opinion about this student’s approach
to succeeding in college, Barbara discerned the salient classroom factors that were
important to this student. She became aware that the student’s interest was peaked
by “people with a strong interest in progressive politics and people who wanted to
make the system better. So, that was part of her definition of success, is finding that
niche and being in it” (B, B, p. 2).
In contrast, the student who Barbara described as being more directed
academically defined her educational identity and success by her academic
performance. Barbara found that this student’s experience as a student of color was
atypical.
She seemed almost anomalous, in terms of my experiences with other
students of color, in that-- and I really think this is sort of a socio-economic
correlation rather than an ethnic, racial one. But she’s so directed and so
well organized and so comfortable with the system. She doesn’t have any
hesitation about approaching professors, or sort of asking for clarification or
119
making sure she gets her due here. Which people who don’t have a strong
sort of familiarity with higher education have trouble with that (B, B, p. 1).

Barbara viewed the student’s way of being “organized and so comfortable” as
unusual for a minority student. This student exhibited behaviors that allowed her to
succeed in college. Such behaviors contradicted Barbara’s perception of behaviors
attributed to students of color or first-generation students. She said, “In interviewing
the second student, I was really struck with how she had a sense of what she had to
do to succeed here” (B, B, p. 2).
Barbara contrasted the student to first generation college students she
typically encountered:
Time and time again, I find that students who may be first generation
college students, they don’t know they have to come to my office. They
don’t know they have to check up and make sure that I have all their grades
recorded. They don’t know that they can’t just turn in papers to some
random biology person, things that seem self-evident when you, when your
background is one of achievement (B, B, p. 2).

The striking contrast between this student interviewee and past experiences with
first-generation students allowed her to think about why differences existed between
the two. Barbara believed this difference had to do with the student coming “from a
comfortable background, a supportive background” (B, B, p. 2). When I asked
Barbara to clarify what she meant by supportive, she replied,
By supportive, I mean not in the traditional sense of financial or, ‘Yeah, we
want you to achieve your goals.’ But I mean coming from an environment
where she saw models of how to get from Point A to Point B in a sort of
competitive world. It’s not something she had to figure out for herself
because she saw people doing it (B, B, p. 2).
120
Barbara understood that this student, with the help of role models, navigated the
system at Mountainside College in such a way that would likely allow her to
graduate. Barbara surmised, “this [supportive background] seems important to me”
(B, B, p. 2).
In addition to conveying the distinctions between her two student
interviewees, Barbara remarked on what they had in common. What these two
students shared in experience had to do with negative responses from past professors.
Barbara recalled,
One message that I got very strongly from both of them was they’d both had
experiences of feeling, either for themselves or on behalf of friends in their
class, that there was not acceptance of difference-- either difference in
learning style, difference in background, different cultural differences, from
their professors (B, B, p. 3).

Barbara expressed surprise that faculty members had not allowed the diversity of
students’ experiences and backgrounds to be accepted in their classroom. In fact, she
was “surprised to hear them both articulate that so clearly” (B, B, p. 3). Their
concrete examples of intolerance in the classroom refuted her belief that professors
were normally tolerant.
Both of Barbara’s interviewees articulated instances of professors limiting
students’ expressions of their identities in the classroom. One of the students, for
example, had a Black friend who experienced a negative incident with a professor.
Barbara frowned as she explained that this student was,
An urban street, kind of Black kid, and talks that way and was writing that
way. The professor really had a hard time with that. My interviewee felt
that the professor handled it poorly, because he started engaging this other
121
student in a dialogue about, ‘Okay, you know, can we define what’s
academically acceptable writing? Or I don’t know how to evaluate what
you’re turning in.’ It was just a shutdown--both of his speech and his writing
(B, B, p. 3).

Barbara realized the impact the conversation between the professor and the Black
student had on his academic experience at Mountainside College. She felt there
could have been another way to approach this student, especially in a more
constructive manner. What bothered Barbara most about this story was how it
impacted her Latina interviewee. It was this story “that made her not want to take
any more classes from this particular guy, even though he’s in her department she
plans to major in” (B, B, p. 3). Thus, not only had this incident impacted the Black
student himself, but also shaped the reality of the interviewee. As a result of this
situation, the interviewee limited her options for classes in her major to avoid the
possibility of having the professors’ behavior repeated with her.
Barbara also described the second interviewee’s own experience with a
particular professor who curbed the expression of minority students. “She felt that
there was a lack of willingness by the professor to looking to alternative
perspectives. That they hadn’t created a space that made those viewpoints welcome
or at least on the table” (B, B, p. 3), recounted Barbara. Put together, both
interviewees’ stories about professors restricting their ability to feel welcome and
comfortable in the classroom hit home for Barbara. She was surprised to learn these
behaviors were occurring given the salient mission at Mountainside College touting
diversity and equity values. She crinkled her eyebrows and said, “You know, both
122
those things really shocked me because that’s not supposed to be what we’re about…
They’re sort of powerful experiences and perceptions by these two students” (B, B,
p. 3).
Barbara realized the detrimental effect professors could have on students.
These two particular students experienced, either first hand or on behalf of a friend,
incidents of professors’ practical decisions and actions that limited their ability to
feel they could persevere. “After these experiences,” Barbara explained, “they
weren’t really well engaged with the material any more in their classes. They were
just surviving” (B, B, p. 3).
After Barbara detailed the particular stories and features of the two student
interviewees, I asked her if she had previously thought about any of the issues that
had been raised by students. She responded,
You know, being part of the Mountainside Interview Project is helping me
put some of these thoughts kind of together: things that I’ve been concerned
about or are there for a long time but hadn’t necessarily thought about them
this way. And hadn’t had the opportunity to really speak with students or
hear their experiences in their own voice. So that’s been good (B, B, p. 2).

The face-to-face and structured interactions with students offered a novel method for
Barbara to learn from students.
Moreover, Barbara began to reconceptualize her practical decisions with
students. She said, “What it made me think about is that I need to make sure that I
leave a space open in the classroom for people that may not think the same way that I
think” (B, B, p. 3). Upon my request to explain in more detail what she meant by
this, Barbara surmised,
123
I suppose it’s just to be more attentive during class. Now, I said I was good
at this, but I’m wondering. There’s got to be room for improvement. On
how people are doing. And how engaged they are with the material. And
where they fell on the, sort of, the responsibility scale. And needing to think
of that, not necessarily as being irresponsible about getting assignments in,
but maybe not really--especially for first and second year students--not
really understanding the system as well (B, B, p. 5).

Here, Barbara acknowledged that she needed to be able to discern when to step in or
intervene when the student might benefit from her assistance. Not only was
intervention important, but also its timing. Barbara added that she needed,
To make sure that there is more sort of attention and more feedback, rather
than waiting to handle it too late. So, as I think back on students that have
struggled in introductory classes, again, it’s some of the stuff could have
been preventable if I had been more in tune with what was going on. And
rather than just thinking of, ‘They’re just not a good student,’ thinking,
‘Okay, how can I help them figure out how to do this?’ (B, B, p. 5).

Barbara not only understood the importance of being attuned to minority
students’ needs but realized she needed to reframe her perception of students who
were performing less well than others. She should not ignore students at the margins
but “help them figure out how to do this,” as she said. Just as she had sized up
pertinent characteristics of her two interviewees, she had to do the same with her
own students. This attunement to particulars could potential aid her in making more
appropriate judgments to intervene and promote students’ success.
But taking a chance on students who were at the margins of failure had its
risks for Barbara. It meant exerting energy and effort on a student who might need
more time to catch up on an assignment or learn a new piece of information. She
confessed, “You know, you have to say,… ‘I’m going to take a risk on this person
124
who’s maybe a B student, not an A student. But I think they have a lot of potential’”
(B, B, p. 6). According to Barbara, providing research opportunities to students who
were not at the top of the class was uncommon for faculty members. Still, for
Barbara, the challenges outweighed the benefits of building quality relationships
with under-served students. She said that despite the fact that other biology faculty
members would never stray from selecting only stellar students to assist them on
their research, she saw this as her “personal goal.” She felt that building such
relationships was,
Actually important to me because I’m very committed to the mission of
Mountainside College. And I think we’re going to need to listen to the
students that are here and living our mission. And to see how we’re
connecting with them, what their experience is like (B, B, p. 4).

At the end of our second interview together, Barbara mentioned that she had
been thinking about the importance of educating students and preparing them to be
good citizens. Her reflection on these matters coupled with the experiences she had
of interviewing the two Latina women led her to become an instructor for
Mountainside’s Multicultural Summer Institute. This institute brought incoming
students on campus the summer before their first semester to take classes and build a
community with other multicultural students. One of Barbara’s interviewees had
participated in the Multicultural summer institute and benefited from having “this
group of like-minded, like-experienced students that she felt she could rely on” (B,
B, p. 7). The experience was certainly “key” for the student, and Barbara realized
“how important that sort of pre-college experience can be to some of our students”
125
(B, B, p. 7). As a result, Barbara decided to participate in the summer institute as a
way to encourage and promote this kind of fruitful experience for other students of
color. Barbara explicated, “It’s the things I’ve been thinking of, in conjunction with
doing this project, that prompted me to go into this--teaching the Multicultural
Summer Institute” (B, B, p. 7).
Fourth Collaborative Inquiry Meeting, September 2004
After interviewing Barbara in April and June of 2004, the faculty participants
of the Mountainside Interview Project did not meet again until summer session
ended in September of that year. It was in this fourth collaborative inquiry meeting
that I saw Barbara again. Because the faculty participants had interviewed the
students twice over the spring semester, they wanted to meet several times more in
the fall to engage in dialogue centering on the interview data. The goal of this
inquiry meeting was to discuss quotes highlighted by the Center for Urban Education
Researchers, Estela, Julia, and myself, that we deemed significant for the team to
consider.
Recall that Barbara’s hesitation to discuss race and a concern with the
qualitative research design of the project constituted two major challenges for her
when the project began. Barbara did not mention another word about her discomfort
with the research design until the September 2004 meeting. It was during this
collaborative inquiry meeting, and in fact the first meeting she fully attended since
the projects’ inception, that she expressed concern about not having a control group.
126
Barbara’s concern arose after students’ quotes were read aloud and then
discussed as a team. In particular, one of the faculty participants had interviewed a
Black male student who was quoted as saying,
Before I came here, I’m like a free-spoken person. My personality is
personality. I mean, controversy is how we get results. But I mean… I was
saying like the politically correct stuff we have to say here… It’s kind of
hard for me to just speak your mind… like I usually do (4, p. 3).

After it was read aloud, the quote elicited a discussion about the ways in which
minority students felt about the use of their language at Mountainside College.
Individuals in the meeting articulated that students’ behavior and language might be
defined by others’ expectations on campus. After a couple of remarks, Estela, the
principal investigator and co-facilitator of the group, detected a puzzled look on
Barbara’s face. Estela asked her, “Barbara, is there something you want to say?”
Barbara asked to postpone her comments until later. She seemed to want to gather
her thoughts before speaking.
It was not until about an hour into the meeting that Barbara mustered up the
courage to speak her mind about the legitimacy of students’ experiences as being
unique or different for students of color.
I’m struggling with something. We don’t have a control group. Here is the
part that is really striking to me. If I didn’t know their identity, these
statements could come from the white sorority girls from my van, they could
come from the fundamentalist Christians on campus. Part of what we have
to tease out is what’s the experience of these students is because they are
students of color (B, 4, p. 11).

When Barbara finished speaking, a momentary silence filled the room. Estela waited
to see how other faculty members or administrators on the team might respond to
127
Barbara’s concern. Lisa, an Institutional Research administrator on the team, broke
the silence, “You are right. We are not going to compare them to other students. It
is more in depth, across time look at these students. And here is what we’ve gained
from these students” (4, p. 11). Then Matt, the Math professor on the team, chimed
in, “Would you agree that there are some instances here, like the person says, ‘I’m
Black. When I speak, I have to speak polished English.’ It really is a race based?”
(4, p. 11).
Matt’s question gave Barbara pause. Again, she chose her words carefully,
meanwhile exposing her discomfort with discussions of race by her fidgeting body
language. What follows is the conversation that ensued among Barbara, Lisa, Estela,
and Matt.
Barbara: In a very fundamental way it is race. But it’s also the way Cory
feels, my son, when he can’t use his language with other kids. You have to
monitor what you say because you will be judged and categorized. There
are many societal overtones to the Black student who has to change his
whole persona, who has to be respected as an equal. However, it’s not
illegal to tease my kid because of his vocabulary. But if we as faculty
discriminate a student of color it is wrong, amoral.

Lisa: In social psychology, there is this idea of self and being different. One
is to be accepted but to be unique within that peer group. It is a thing that
any 18-year-old is going to go into that but race is one additional thing that
plays into it.

Barbara: I’m not trying to minimize the problem. It might help us in our
work to take that universal experience or at least partition the way students
experience Mountainside College.

Estela: These students felt race as a burden. I read this as a faculty member,
and asked, “Am I doing things that make the student feel scrutinized? What
changes can I make? Am I doing something in the class room? What does it
mean for what we are doing in the classroom?’
128

Matt: I think a different way to look at it is not partitioning what’s race
specific but what added complexity does their race add.
Julia: One student talked about classroom dynamics. She talked about white
students and none of the students of color speaking. She read a quote about
white students having a stronger voice/power in the classroom. I like your
[Matt’s] distinction about what adds complexity. Another student said that,
‘A lot is expected of me.’ Maybe it’s the situation of the environment
thinking that it’s a very diverse place. Part of the burden that Estela is
talking about is that they are going to be a part of making it diverse. It is
complicated. There are all kinds of ways that there is something extra that is
asked of them.

Estela: we have half an hour. We should talk about this. We did these
interviews because of the Scorecard finding that the African American
students having low retention rates. I’m wondering if we could use this to
talk about teaching (4, p. 11-12).

At this point in the conversation, Barbara excused herself and left the room
momentarily. Her flight from the room could be interpreted as a response to the
conversation, on the one hand. On the other hand, she may have simply needed to
step out for a phone call or to use the restroom. Either way, she did not respond to
what was said after her last comment.
Barbara’s reaction to the interview findings in this meeting contradicted the
significance she perceived in her interviewees’ experiences in June. When I spoke to
her in June, Barbara had acknowledged that at least some instances in these students’
classroom experiences were complicated by race. Now, she did not see the
difference between a Black student censoring his speech so that he could be accepted
as equal to other students on campus and her own son trying to fit in with his friends.
Barbara seemed to have taken a step back in her awareness of the complexities
129
students faced when their skin color became a factor that directly or indirectly
limited their educational opportunities.
Despite struggling with the idea that race added complexities to students’
educational lives, Barbara did reveal changes in the way she thought about her
students and her classroom practices. For example, in the very meeting where she
questioned students’ experiences as being unique to people of color, Barbara did
later describe to others how the project made a difference for her. She said,
It made me think about my relationships with students in the classroom…
We have a lot of students of color hoping to major in biology for pre-med.
And we lose them. Grace [the other biology professor on the team] and I
have talked about this a lot. We are restructuring the major but I don’t think
that’s the whole answer. I think part of the answer is the introductory
courses. I think one strong predictor of success is math comfort in the
sciences. To what extent do I want to pay special attention to all of my
advisees to see if they are interested in a biology career? (B, 4, p. 15).

Barbara’s thoughtful question had an implicit answer of “We must make the effort to
pay special attention.” Her continued concern for minority student retention in
biology stood at the fore among the reasons she joined the Mountainside Interview
Project.
Sixth Collaborative Inquiry Meeting, February 2005
Barbara did not make the fifth inquiry meeting, but did attend the sixth
meeting in February 2005. The team members discussed the ways in which students
discussed their classroom experiences. In particular, students listed varying
characteristics of professors who truly engaged them in the classroom. In addition,
students described professors who made them feel uncomfortable and at times
130
threatened. These accounts were similar to the two stories told by Barbara’s two
interviewees wherein students were made to feel as if they did not belong in the
classroom. Barbara told the team, “I have second-guessed myself on how I typically
present information in the classroom. I hope it doesn’t make me so overly cautious
that I completely lose any animation” (B, 6, p. 6). She maintained caution when
lecturing in the classroom so as not to make any offensive or insensitive comments
to students. Barbara had every intention of creating an inviting and open space for
students to flourish in their learning.
Another lesson Barbara learned from interviewing students pertained to the
importance of listening. She stated, “Its nice to just listen to students. We spend so
much time talking to them. It showed me how to listen more actively in class” (B, 6,
p. 6). Barbara wanted to make sure her students felt heard. She realized how easy it
might be for faculty members to lecture and not open up the conversation for
students to feel like they would be listened to. Perhaps she wanted the students to
feel validated by listening to them. This was the kind of relationship she valued and
strove to build with her students.
Third Interview, March 2005
After the collaborative meeting in February 2005, I met with Barbara for a
third interview in March. She had just completed her third and last round of
interviews with the two Latina women. The students were about to complete their
sophomore years at Mountainside College. I asked Barbara what she learned about
the students. Barbara explained that the student who placed much value on
131
community and was less directed had still not found her academic passion yet.
Barbara noted that at least she was “still going forward and making progress” (B, C,
p. 6). This student did explain to Barbara some of her disappointments with
Mountainside College.
She--during both interviews--expressed some disappointment in the
institution in terms of its commitment to diversity. That she felt when she
came to visit as a prospective student--she'd been invited on diversity
weekend or minority scholars,… she was surrounded by a high-diverse
group of students. And assumed that that was what she was getting into…
And then came back fall semester and found that it didn't mirror those other
two experiences. So she's a little disappointed in that. And she's at the
point, too, where she's looking around and looking at the faculty and
wondering how many faculty of color there are here. So that was a very
strong thing that was there the first year and then really came out strongly
this time (B, C, p. 6).

Barbara found that this student experienced and interpreted the environment of
Mountainside College differently from the other Latina woman she interviewed.
Instead of feeling isolated in what was perceived to be a more homogenous
community than a diverse one, Barbara said the other student, “really developed her
niche. And that came out very clearly in the interview with her. Whereas the first
[student interviewee] -- she's always going to question them. No matter what it is,
she's always going be a little discontent” (G, C, p. 6).
In addition to noting the differences between the two interviewees, a phrase
that the “discontent” student interviewee used struck Barbara. She said, “One of my
interviewees used a phrase that I've been thinking about quite a bit” (B, C, p. 3). The
student used the phrase “caring white privilege” to describe her experience. When I
asked Barbara to clarify what this set of words might mean, she replied,
132
The way I understood her was, you know, that people look at you and
instantly classify you as to what your socioeconomic status is. And if you
look a certain way you get instantly classified a certain way. And she was
talking about her experience as being a very fair-skinned woman of color.
And so how she was somewhat conflicted in her identity between her
parents being light and who she will really felt she was inside. She
identifies herself much more as a Latina woman than one would say by
looking at her (B, C, p. 3).

For this student, caring white privilege meant that others cared for her because of her
light skin and the socioeconomic class associated with skin color. The students’
words prompted Barbara to think about her preconceptions about students based on
their appearance. She explained, “So I've been thinking about that idea of just
assumptions that I might make about students. Or that people make about me” (B,
C, p. 3).
Though the two students were characteristically different, Barbara understood
that both students shared an experience unfamiliar to Barbara:
I never really had the sense that I had something to prove. I knew I was
going to go college. I knew I was going to succeed in college. I knew I
would probably do what I really wanted to do… So it sort of is part of that
sense of a privilege that the one student was talking about. There was never
any question in my mind that I was going to have the backup to do what I
wanted to do. Both of these young women come from very supportive
environments. So they don't have a lot of emotional chaos to deal with. But
they both express that they, you know, maybe have to prove something to
themselves. I don't know. But there's that sense of it's a test. So that's quite
different (B, C, p. 7).

Barbara recognized in this instance that students had to bear the burden of
race in a way she did not have to when she was in college.
I took this moment in my interview with Barbara to ask her about the
comments she made at the previous collaborative inquiry meeting in February
133
concerning the idea that minority students’ experiences were not race-specific.
Recall that she mentioned her own son as someone who might have felt similarly to a
student of color who had to watch her language in the classroom. In contrast to this
belief, Barbara had just acknowledged in her third interview that students do
experience the classroom differently when they are individuals of color. I found this
to contradict her statements in the meeting. I reminded Barbara at the last meeting
that she seemed to have difficulty connecting, “Where race played a part in this
person's experience or language. And I was wondering if you still feel the same
way? Is it hard to place how this person is experiencing Mountainside College as a
student of color?” Interestingly, Barbara could not recall the statements she made in
the meeting. She asked me to remind her in more detail about the conversation.
With a puzzled look on her face Barbara told me she believed the student
interviewees in the project had certain expectations of classrooms and professors.
She did not necessarily see these as race specific. However, “both the two
interviewees I had were very, very clear about what kind of issues affected them as a
student of color” (B, C, p. 8).
Thus, Barbara did understand to an extent that certain experiences were
complicated by race. What troubled her about other issues students raised was that
their relation to race was ambiguous and, in her eyes, possibly nonexistent. She felt
that if the students in this inquiry project were compared to a control group, many
issues pertaining to their experiences in the classroom and on campus would be
similar. In this third interview Barbara said again that, “I still don't really get how
134
the whole thing works put together” (B, C, p. 8) in a qualitative study. She gave a
hypothetical example of conducting the same kind of inquiry for students on the east
coast. She thought, “A person could really be surprised by the results. I don't think
they would instantly sort into two groups” (B, C, p. 8). Barbara wanted to
conceptualize differences between ethnic groups rather than among or within groups
as a way to make sense of students’ experiences.
However, Barbara did change her mind about broaching issues of race with
students. After having gone through the process of interviewing, Barbara saw the
value of asking students about their experiences as people of color. She admitted,
“Initially I was one of the people that said, ‘I think that's a little weird for me, a white
woman to be asking. I don't know how they're going to react.’ But it was actually
really good icebreaker. Because it established the reason for even doing this: that we
want to hear about what your experience is” (B, C, p. 8). She decided that, “I was
glad we had that in the protocol” (B, C, p. 9).
Without having directly acknowledged the ways in which race played a role
in students’ lives, Barbara might not have realized how the campus and classroom
were experienced by people of color. Particularly, she said,
My unawareness of what issues are--what the experience on campus for
those students and faculty of color--continues to be raised. And so learning
to be more aware and sensitive to those issues. And I can think of a case
where I was aware of my own classroom behavior, that I might not have, I
might not have picked up on before this (B, C, p. 2).

Listening to students’ experiences prompted Barbara to think about her approaches
to students in her classroom in new ways. Barbara noted that without the
135
Mountainside Interview Project she didn’t, “really have a lot of opportunities just to
sit and talk informally to students of color in this kind of way” (B, C, p. 9).
By engaging in the project, Barbara not only learned from the students
themselves, but also from her colleagues who participated in the project. Barbara
saw the discussions that took place at the collaborative inquiry meetings as fruitful in
two ways. First, she learned about the methods and steps other faculty participants
employed to engage student interviewees in discussions during their interviews. She
said, “It's always interesting to hear what other interviewers' experiences have been.
Because that makes me think a little bit, ‘Oh, gee, I should've done it that way. And
it helps put things into perspective’” (B, C, p. 10). The meetings allowed Barbara to
“check in” with other team members and compare notes about the processes and
challenges of organizing and conducting interviews. Second, Barbara learned
through the collaborative dialogue with the team about other student interviewees’
experiences. Sometimes the students shared similar dilemmas, and others
experienced unique events in their lives that defined their pathway in college. When
Barbara heard others talk about “what kind of things they got out of the students, it
helps to put the things I learned in context. So I think that's a valuable part of the
process: hearing everyone go around and say that they looked at how they did the
interviews and what they learned” (B, C, p. 10).
Beyond learning from students and from her fellow team members, Barbara
perceived the connection she made to her two student interviewees as crucial. She
136
saw this kind of relationship as benefiting herself as well as the students. For herself,
Barbara noted,
I feel like I have a really pretty solid connection with the two young women
that I now interviewed several times. As faculty members, we don't see as
much of the student experience as it's good for us to know about. I've
enjoyed that. I'd like to continue to keep up with them (B, C, p. 4).

In addition to growing professionally and personally from her connection to the two
Latina women, Barbara hoped these relationships provided resources to the students
themselves in both concrete and subtle ways. For example, Barbara informed one of
her interviewees about a summer abroad opportunity in Vienna. The student ended
up applying for the program, and she was accepted to participate. Barbara felt great
about playing a role in connecting the student to this opportunity. Barbara smiled,
“She hadn't really heard about it otherwise. So I was really happy I was able to make
that connection” (B, C, p. 4). Thus, Barbara’s caring relationship with her student
interviewee resulted in a very tangible resource for the student.
Barbara also hoped that the students would benefit from this connection on a
broader scale. That is, she saw the relationships she developed between students and
herself as symbolic of a greater connection the students might feel to the college.
She reflected on the importance of “giving attention that students of color need” (B,
C, p. 11). Barbara wondered aloud,
the aspects of their experience that keeps them coming back. And you can't
really do that without talking to them. So I hope that in outcomes that…
just the fact that these students have been talked to a lot makes them feel
connected enough to the institution that they come back next year. It's
probably too small a sample… But still be interesting if, you know, just a
137
few people said, ‘That was fascinating to me that a professor would actually
want to sit down and talk to me for an hour.’

While Barbara saw the possibilities this kind of project might have on
students, she did not deny that developing these kinds of unique relationships and
connections outside of the project would be difficult. Barbara, already a busy
professor, had just been promoted in fall 2005 to serve as the chair of the biology
department. She acknowledged that though in-depth conversations with her advisees
would be fruitful, the time and context of advising did not always make in-depth
conversations possible. She explained that,
Because meetings of the advisees are very structured. And when they come
to see you to register for classes, you have an agenda. You've got to get it
done. You have 15 minutes before you see the next one. Or if they come to
see you because they have to if they're in academic trouble. So you don't
have that kind of opportunity that I know probably the college would like us
to say, ‘Well, you know, really, how's it going? How's your life outside of
academics? What are the issues that concern you?’ (B, C, p. 9).

However, Barbara did have close relationships with a few students who assisted her
in her research or enrolled in her upper-division classes. She said, “I do have those
kinds of conversations with them. And they've done quite well. And I know what's
going on in their life” (B, C, p. 9). Yet due to the demographics of students who
comprise the upper-division biology classes, most of the students with whom she
developed such relationships were overwhelmingly white, Barbara confessed.
Nevertheless, Barbara did attempt to make connections to students of color in
her classroom as a result of participating in the Mountainside Interview Project. One
small but important way in which Barbara thought about retaining students of color
138
in the sciences had to do with offering examples of scientists of color in her
classroom. She said she had become “real increasingly resolved to try and find ways
to make those connections [about race] with students. And if I can show an example
of a scientist who happens to be Asian woman whatever—you know, sort of subtly
meet the point that anyone who wants to can be involved in those kind of research—I
think that's good” (B, C, p. 10). This new approach Barbara employed served to
inspire students to keep moving on in the sciences. Barbara believed that if minority
students saw people of color succeeding in the science field, they might believe in
their potential to succeed in this field as well.
Ninth Collaborative Inquiry Meeting, April 2005
The last collaborative inquiry of the spring 2005 semester took place in
April. Barbara was not able to attend the previous meeting, a gathering with student
interviewees who discussed their experiences in the project over pizza. Instead,
Barbara attended the entire ninth collaborative inquiry meeting but stayed silent until
the end. During the meeting, the team discussed future action steps they might take
now that the Center for Urban Education researchers would no longer be working
with them due to the end of the grant period. They realized that to continue this
important effort—of interviewing students, learning from them, and meeting as a
group to discuss the institutional and practical implications of what they learned—
they would need institutional support and funding. Team members debated on how
to persuade campus leaders to invest funds into such a project. At this time, Barbara
spoke up. She suggested that it was not just the students who reaped benefits from
139
the interviews. She conveyed to the Provost and interim President of the campus that
faculty members stood to benefit on a practical level. Barbara articulated her
thoughts, “There has to be some sense that the faculty get something out of this. We
need to be able to communicate what we’ve all gotten out of it to our colleagues for
them to participate. It’s more than, ‘I feel good because I got to talk to these
students’” (B, 9, p. 9). In particular,
[for] one student, it has really helped his performance in the class since I
started interviewing --because he wasn’t mine last year. I don’t know if
that’s the only thing but he just seemed to turn around mid semester. And
partly I think it’s because I started talking to him more because he was one
of those guys in the back of the room who never started talking. I feel like it
really made a difference and it helped me think a lot about how I did my job.
It gave me the sense of connection to students that I don’t have with some of
the students in my lab (B, 9, p. 9).

These words were an important contribution to the team discussion. Not only did
Barbara highlight that she had seen a student turn around in his academic progress in
her class due to her informed decisions to speak to him. She also noted that this
made a difference for her. Because Barbara’s decision to take action did have an
effect on the student, she further deliberated and reflected upon how her actions
might produce similar results with students in the future.
Fourth Interview, June 2005
After discussing the student she interviewed from her class in the
collaborative inquiry meeting, Barbara mentioned the him once again when I met
with her in June. This student, an African American male, had actually originally
been interviewed two times by an administrator who participated in the
140
Mountainside Interview Project. In fall of 2004, the administrator decided to work at
another college, thereby leaving the student interviewee without an interviewer.
Barbara decided to take him on as her interviewee. Interestingly, the African
American male was also a student in her class. Typically, student interviewees were
not matched with faculty members who taught their classes. But Barbara and the
team facilitator agreed they felt this situation would not pose any problems.
Barbara described the dynamic nature of her relationship with the African
American student interviewee. Barbara immediately noted that he was “one of these
African-American males that always sits in the back of the class and seems
disconnected” (B, D, p. 2). Once Barbara interviewed him, however, she noticed a
change. “We hit it off, and from that moment he was so much more engaged in the
class” (B, D, p. 2), she remarked. Through her interviews she felt as if she “had an
excuse to find out sort of what his experiences are here, what makes him tick, what
he’s interested in” (B, D, p. 2). Because she got to know him and his interests,
Barbara was able to provide some support and encouragement. She said,
I encouraged him to apply for something that I don’t think he was selected
for. But the fact that someone had said, ‘Hey. You know, this seems to fit
you. You should apply for it.’ You know, I think that made a difference to
him. So, he really-- it just kind of drew him into the class through doing
that I think (B, D, p. 2).

By actively supporting the student and paying “more attention to him” (B, D, p. 2),
Barbara believed that she successfully engaged the student in her classroom.
After interviewing the African American male and two Latina women,
Barbara became aware of the conditions that allowed her to make connections to
141
students. That is, she had to find some shared interests or experiences with students
to which she could relate. All three student interviewees happened to be involved in
study abroad or international issues, something that Barbara cared deeply about and
had experienced herself as a college student and researcher. The African American
male, for instance, decided to go to Ghana to study abroad. She desired to know
“how it [his experience in study abroad] fit with how he sees himself in the future”
(B, D, p. 3). Also, one of the Latina interviewees worked in the international
programs office at Mountainside College. After talking to her, Barbara “saw an
announcement for a program that seemed to really to fit her. And so I matched her
up with that and she went on it. She was accepted to it and it was a really good
experience for her” (B, D, p. 3).
From Barbara’s perspective, to find these commonalities had its challenges,
especially with students who were not of the same background. Barbara explained,
It’s much easier for me to engage with students that have a background
similar to mine. And, I mean, that doesn’t seem terribly insightful. But it
was brought home to me through this experience. That once there was, I
don’t know, an excuse for us to establish what we had in common, then that
worked (B, D, p. 2).

Barbara made an important breakthrough from this insight. She began to understand
that the responsibility to develop quality relationships with students of color largely
lied in her hands. “I’ve realized through this process that some of the barriers to
reaching students aren’t just on their side” (B, D, p. 2), she remarked. Barbara
needed to take initiative to get to know her students. She knew this process would
142
require her time and commitment, noting that, “it’s sort of part of an ongoing process
for me of understanding [students’] barriers” (B, D, p. 11) to achieving success.
In addition to taking initiative to get to know students, Barbara realized she
needed to be more assertive with students by intervening in important educational
events in their lives. For example, Barbara described a group of students of color
who had advocated for changes and accommodations in the science majors because
of the low retention rates of minority students. Barbara, as busy as she was, could
not always find time to meet with the group. She recounted this experience:
Well, one lesson was that, you know, I have one huge regret, which was…
they invited me to their meetings. I said, ‘Gee, I’m really supportive. But I
can’t come to that meeting. Come see me in my office.’ And they never did
come see me in my office. And my regret is that I didn’t sort of follow up
on that and say, ‘Gee, I’m really sorry I can’t come. Can you come
tomorrow or whatever time?’ You know, I left it to them and I think that
part of their frustration is that—I said this in the meetings of our
[collaborative inquiry] group—that a lot of these students come from a
background where they’re not comfortable with being sort of being really
assertive with faculty. And I let it slide and they weren’t really assertive
with me. And they need to be because the semester flies by. And so, I wish
that I had been sort of more, ‘Come on, I need to see you guys. I need to
hear what’s driving you, what the issues are.’ I don’t think that might not
have changed anything except to make them feel like someone took them
seriously earlier on in the process. Now they know we take them seriously
but I wished, just, you know, for my own conscious that I had really worked
harder to let them know that earlier on. So that’s one lesson that I hope I not
only learned but can implement is to really force myself to slow down when
there’s an issue blooming like that. And make sure that the students can see
that it’s important to us (B, D, p. 11).

Even though Barbara could not change the past, her reflection on this experience
allowed her to reconsider how she might react to students with pressing issues in the
future.
143
While Barbara felt an increased responsibility to be more assertive to enable
students’ learning and retention, she struggled with how to facilitate this process.
She recognized that the Mountainside Interview Project served as a vehicle to get to
know students in a way that she could not always facilitate in everyday situations.
She commented,
The process of interviewing them provided a structure for me to figure out
who they were and what I could talk to them about outside of any sort of
classroom stuff. And that doesn’t happen so easily in most kinds of
situations here. And it really helped to have, you know, this basically
formal set of things that we were trying to accomplish in the interviews (B,
D, p. 2).

Barbara compared the formal structure of the interview setting to everyday
opportunities she had to get to know students.
It is awkward. I mean, what am I going to do? Walk up to a random group
of students at in the cafeteria and go, ‘Oh, hey. How ya doing? And what
makes you tick? And what do you like and what do you don’t like? Or, you
know, even if I had the time or the option really to be one of the faculty
advisors in the dorms, that’s still doesn’t give it the structure… and advising
doesn’t do that because, you know, I have 20 advisees and I have to get
them plugged into classes. And I don’t have time to find out stuff like, you
know, what’s it like for them living in the dorms and that kind of thing (B,
D, p. 2).

Because holding such key conversations with students proved difficult,
Barbara believed that Mountainside College should “institutionalize this… [by
having] faculty advisors for clubs. We have faculty advisors for the athletic teams”
(B, D, p. 3). She believed that “if the faculty member takes it seriously, then that
provides a way to get to know the students outside of the classroom. And I think you
need some structure like that” (B, D, p. 3). Through this kind of structure, faculty
144
might learn skills that Barbara learned, such as “listening and making the
connections” (B, D, p. 3) between students’ educational experiences and institutional
responsibility.
As the meeting with the Provost fast approached, Barbara made suggestions
on topics for which the team should advocate. She noted that students wanted the
Mountainside College and its faculty to “expand our curriculum,” make “connections
to the world issues—issues they are facing” in the classroom, and “see some
institutional attention towards… more creative design of space that would foster a
sense of community and foster better classroom dynamics and relationships” (B, D,
p. 5). Barbara personally advocated for the promotion of study abroad because she
felt students could reap many personal rewards from an international experience. In
addition, Barbara desired to integrate an “ecological footprint, including the social
and cultural dimensions” (B, D, p. 7) of the sciences. This would allow students to
understand the social implications of applied science. All of these issues, according
to Barbara, proved important to advocate to the Provost.
Tenth Collaborative Inquiry Meeting, October 2005
The penultimate meeting of the project was held in October 2005. This
meeting was called to order to prepare a presentation to the college Provost that
would be given in the next week. In this presentation, the Mountainside Interview
Project team would advocate for continuing student interviews on a broader scale. In
addition, they would vie for recommendations to change policies and practices that
145
pertained to topics student interviewees raised as being helpful or challenging to
their learning.
Barbara really seemed to find her voice in the meeting, indicating a new
awareness of and value for the issues students of color faced at Mountainside
College. When discussing the project report to be presented to the Provost, Barbara
made suggestions regarding content to include in the body of the document. For
example, in the beginning of the meeting, Barbara raised a point about
recommending that classrooms be structured in a flexible way. More specifically,
she mentioned,
One thing I’d like to emphasize is the physical set up of classrooms. There
is a terrible classroom in the Biology building that has chairs nailed down to
the floor. I would like to see in the report how that affects student learning
and forces things that you can’t get away from (B, 10, p. 2).

Barbara knew that students felt more engaged in classroom lectures and discussions
when the chairs had the ability to be moved in a “U” shape or in a circle. A number
of student interviewees in the Mountainside Interview Project mentioned this.
Barbara had not only read about it in the interview transcripts, but also previously
discussed this with other team members. Now, she wanted to advocate for
classrooms to be restructured or that students be moved to classrooms that allowed
for a more productive conversation and learning environment.
When the team discussed how they might proceed with the process of
interviewing students to gain knowledge about their experiences, Barbara offered
some insight. She noted to others in the team discussion that interviewing students
146
was not only about talking with them once. This kind of work had to be done over
time to gain the trust of students. The presence of trust could enable students to offer
more detailed and truthful stories about the ways in which they experienced
Mountainside College. This kind of information, she suggested, was not the kind
you “get the first week we interview them. But they built up some confidence over
time. So multiple interviews are important” (B, 10, p. 4). In the same vein, Barbara
saw this continual process as something that might be integrated into advising
students. She asked others on the team to think about the possibility: “How do we
link this process to advising? Maybe that’s not obvious. For my 2 interviewees who
are not in biology, things came across that I was able to say, ‘That sounds like so and
so’” (B, 10, p. 3). By “so and so,” Barbara referred to other ethnic minority students
she taught and advised. She made sense of her interviewees and students by
connecting their experiences to each other. She concluded to the team, “That might
be somewhere where we can put this interview project: in advising” (B, 10, p. 3).
It was Dafne, a faculty member of Religion, who disagreed with Barbara
during this very team meeting. Dafne felt that advising did not provide the right kind
of space and time that would continue to make the connection between faculty and
student effective. She said,
I believe it has to be decoupled from advising and teaching. It needs to stand
outside of that because we are the ones listening. It works because of the set
up. It’s not in an evaluative setting but its wide open. Part of me thinks its
in the residence halls… we should link faculty to residence halls. It’s
looking at their whole experience (10, p. 4).

147
Barbara respectfully disagreed with Dafne about integrating it into the residence
halls, claiming, “I got the sense that the students felt special being part of project, not
just coming and hanging out with an economist [in a residence hall]” (B, 10, p. 4).
However, Barbara did seem to agree with Dafne about the importance of this being
part of a separate project. Barbara explained, “For any sort of outgrowth to be
successful, that was a piece [in reference to participating in a project] that there was
some sort of impact” (B, 10, p. 4). But later on in the conversation, Barbara
suggested that advising might still be an appropriate venue in which to continue the
interviews of students.
If we make the interviews part of advising, we could talk about it during the
advising orientation. We could do some sort of role playing [of
interviews]... This may help the faculty to understand how to interview the
students or talk to them during advising (B, 10, p. 5).

Toward the end of the tenth meeting, Barbara declared her devotion to the
Mountainside Interview Project by advocating for it in two ways. First, she urged
others on the collaborative inquiry team to list the Mountainside Interview Project on
their annual faculty report to the Academic Advisory Council. Of the three parts to
this report—research, teaching, and service—Barbara asked that the faculty on the
team “make our participation in this interview project known” (B, 10, p. 5) as service
to the college. She believed that if the Advisory Council observed them
“documenting this in our report, then they’ll be aware of this project” (B, 10, p. 5).
Second, Barbara courageously decided to take matters into her own hands in
order to sustain the efforts of the project at Mountainside College. As chair of the
148
biology department, she decided she might be able to convince the biology faculty to
volunteer to conduct interviews of students.
Some of our biology students came to us last spring who were concerned
about students of color in the sciences. Maybe we [the biology department]
could be a test case or pilot that will come forward and say we’ll engage in
this process. We have people in the department who have the desire (B, 10,
p. 6).

Final Meeting with the Provost, October 2005
The final meeting with the Provost, who also served as interim President, was
scheduled to discuss how the project might continue without the CUE researchers.
The CUE researchers had reached the end of their funding and would not be able to
assist Mountainside College any further with the interview process. However, the
team decided to advocate for institutional support to continue funding the project in
spite of the absence of CUE assistance. During this discussion, Barbara stayed true
to her word. She volunteered her department to start up their own interviews as a
departmental review process. This pilot project could impact the biology faculty’s
awareness of students’ educational lives, and in turn, their practical decisions. The
Provost received this proposed pilot project with great enthusiasm and support.
Barbara started this project not being very involved. But at the end, she was
one of the project’s most enthusiastic advocates. She learned about her student
interviewees’ experiences—from the way they were engaged in the classroom to the
complications race brought to their academic pathways. By connecting to these
students, by listening to them, Barbara realized the importance this kind of a
relationship had on students. These very things, she realized, informed her practices.
149
Her deliberations in the classroom and in advising were based on a more refined
attunement to the needs of her students of color. In addition, she valued the inquiry
and learning of the interview project so much that she successfully recruited 6 other
biology faculty, including Grace (a biology professor on the interview team) to
conduct interviews of students of color. Barbara knew the potential this kind of
work might have on these faculty members. She hoped that listening to students and
paying attention to the salient features that characterized minority students’ academic
experiences would impact other faculty members in the same way they impacted her.
Barbara’s Final Written Reflections
Over the course of the project, Barbara’s participation transitioned from
minimal to becoming a project leader. When the project ended in the summer of
2005, I asked Barbara and the other faculty participants in the Mountainside
Interview Project to answer various reflective questions about their experiences in
the project. Barbara put into writing her responses to the reflective questions
presented to her, demonstrating new commitment, awareness, and skills she
developed in the project. She wrote, “I took the time to listen to students and to hear
their concerns, which we don't often do. This has given me specific ways in which I
can improve my teaching and improve the classroom environment.” Some of the
topics that informed her teaching included “many things going on, on campus and in
student life. For example, I was unaware of the degree of racial tension in the
dorms. This was pretty mind-boggling to me, because I honestly don't see it in
classes.” Barbara ended her written responses by suggesting that the institution
150
engage faculty members on a broader scale. She specifically recommended “training
for faculty in how to listen effectively” and “look for ways for faculty to interact
with existing student groups/student life programs, e.g. ALAS [Association of Latin
American Students]/MeCHA [Movimiento estudiantil de Chicanos de Aztlan, BSA
[Black Student Association].”
Grace, the Plant Biologist
In April 2004, Grace welcomed me into her office for our first interview.
Her office was located precisely one floor below that of Barbara’s in the science
building at Mountainside College. The layout of her office was the same. Even the
books laying on her desk on plant biology and ecology—to someone unfamiliar with
issues and research on plants—appeared similar to those of Barbara’s books on
conservation biology. Grace urged me to sit in her chair by the computer. She sat on
the other side of the desk where it seemed students usually sat. Directly face-to-face
with Grace, I noticed her kind and attentive bright blue eyes.
Grace, a middle-aged white woman, described herself as “the plant biologist”
at Mountainside College. She had initially served as an adjunct lecturer for four
years in the biology department. For the last two years, she served as an associate
professor after the department hired her on a tenure track position. The interactions
she experienced with students varied. From large lecture courses to field trips with a
small group of students, Grace described her exchanges with students as ranging
from not taking place in “an interactive environment” (G, A, p. 1) to “really getting
to see what people are like” (G, A, p. 1). Like Barbara, Grace advised a number of
151
students who were not biology majors. Advising was part of her common faculty
responsibility at Mountainside College as a faculty advisor.
Grace’s Motivation to Participate
When I asked Grace how she became involved in the Mountainside Interview
Project, she recalled receiving an email from the institutional researcher asking if she
would like to participate. Grace decided to volunteer her time to this effort because,
I’m really interested in what is the fate for all students, but in particular I was
interested in what would happen to minority students. I think particularly as a
biologist, I was thinking ‘I wish I saw more faces of color in my classroom’
(G, A, p. 2).

Like Barbara, the other biology professor on the Mountainside Interview Project,
Grace cared about how minority students fared in the sciences. She understood that
to better address the problem of attrition in the sciences, she would have to gain a
deeper understanding of factors that impacted students’ decisions in school. Grace
said,
I think that I was hoping for some insights into why students make the
choices they do in terms of what they study and what they choose not to
study. I was also hoping for some insight into what it’s like to be a student
and particularly what it’s like to be a minority student here (G, A, p. 2).

Like Barbara, Grace saw this project as being aligned with the mission of the
college. In fact, she saw her participation in the Mountainside Interview Project as
an opportunity to find out if Mountainside College was living up to its mission of
promoting equity and diversity. Grace articulated, “Mountainside College has a
good reputation and I just wanted to see if their reputation was justified” (G, A, p. 2).
Grace’s intent to discover whether Mountainside College’s reputation was justified
152
indicated more than mere curiosity. Grace had stepped up her commitment to the
college’s mission by participating in a meaningful effort of inquiring into equity
issues on campus.
Before participating in Mountainside Interview Project, Grace had only been
involved in one other initiative at Mountainside College that aimed to promote
success of students of color: the Multicultural Summer Institute. In this summer
program, Grace participated as a guest lecturer several times.
Aside from participating in this program the few times that she did, Grace
mentioned also having attended a presentation to the Mountainside College faculty
about the campus’ Intercultural Center. This was a one-time presentation meant to
share the resources that the Intercultural Center offered to the students. The director
of the Intercultural Center encouraged faculty to refer students to this resource
center. When I asked Grace how this presentation—meant for faculty members’
professional development—compared to the process of the Mountainside Interview
Project, she replied that the two compared “nowhere near” each other. Grace
pondered about the difference between the presentation she attended and her
participation in the interview project. Interviewing students impacted her decisions
in a more powerful way. She said, “I don't even know that I would've necessarily
paid attention. I don't know that I would've felt the personal need to follow through
if I hadn't gone through the interviews” (G, C, p. 1). She decided to “follow
through” with students of color more often than she had in the past. While the
presentation, she said, “made you feel a certain way,” the interview project
153
“sensitized me to think that I need to be more active” (G, C, p. 1). Grace felt that
feeling a certain way was not enough. She said, if you feel a certain way, “who
cares!” Faculty and administrators have to “do something” (G, C, p. 1) about their
feelings in order to truly assist students to overcome academic inequities.
First Collaborative Inquiry Meeting, February 2004
It was in February of 2004 that the Mountainside Interview Project held its
first collaborative inquiry meeting. During the meeting, team members put forth
their opinions and feedback when constructing the interview protocol that would be
used for the second round of student interviews. Grace eagerly proposed suggestions
about topics she thought worthy of addressing in interviews, as well as feedback for
careful phrasing of interview questions.
In a similarly enthusiastic manner, Grace was the first to speak up when the
facilitator asked the team how they experienced the first round of interviews with
students. Grace looked around the room and said, “I met 3 wonderful people that I
wouldn’t have met otherwise. I felt there is a real diversity among the three. They
are so divergent in the way they are fitting in and the way they are feeling” (G, 1, p.
1). From the beginning, Grace appeared to be attuned to the varying characteristics
of each of the 3 student interviewees.
Third Collaborative Inquiry, April 2004
While Grace did not attend the second collaborative inquiry meeting, she
attended and participated in the third. Grace, in fact, became a more active
participant in the inquiry meetings compared to Barbara, the other biology faculty
154
member. In this particular meeting, the dialogue Grace engaged in with others
prompted her to think more about how she might be able to make a stronger
connection to students of color in her biology classes. Grace offered her
interpretation of students’ responses regarding engaging classroom environments:
I looked at the classroom environment question. The student felt like he or
she was called upon in a personal way/interactive way in the classroom to
talk about material. If it didn’t work it was impersonal and if it did work it
was personal (G, 3, p. 3).

Grace noticed that students attributed a positive classroom environment experience
with personal and interactive dynamics between student and professor. Conversely,
the classroom environment “did not work” if the interaction between student and
teacher was impersonal.
Like Barbara, however, Grace immediately perceived limitations in the
research approach employed in the Mountainside Interview Project. At the third
inquiry meeting, Grace asked the team,
Do we have a control group? The reason I ask that is because these students
say no to math and science and I suspect whites would say the same thing. I
don’t mean that to validate this it needs a control group. But it may not have
anything to do with being a minority student (G, 3, p. 5).

Grace suspected that retention in the sciences was not just a minority student issue,
but one that applied to all students. She felt the qualitative nature of the inquiry did
not capture the ways in which race complicated or added another layer to students’
experiences. Grace would raise this particular concern again later in the project.
155
First Interview, April 2004
During my first interview with Grace in April 2004, Grace’s concerns about
the project’s methodology seemed to be alleviated. Even though Grace and Barbara
as biology faculty both held positivist stances about research, Grace wavered on her
acceptance of qualitative research methods as an appropriate inquiry approach over
the course of the project. She said, “I really wanted some insight. Not quantitative. I
think I wanted to just sit down with a student who is not in one of my classes” (G, A,
p. 2). Grace realized that having these kinds of conversations, in light of unequal
outcomes among minority students in the sciences, proved necessary. From Grace’s
perspective, opportunities to have rich conversations with students about their social
and academic lives did not always present themselves. She felt that discussing
matters of race and inequity with students of color from her own classes was nothing
short of difficult. As such, having these kinds of conversations in the Mountainside
Interview Project, Grace said,
Was my main goal because certainly I have students of color and good
relationships with them, but you just don’t want to sit them down and say,
‘By the way, let’s not talk about your paper, let’s talk about your life.’ That
doesn’t work (G, A, p. 2).

Grace viewed student interviews in the project as an appropriate avenue to garner
information from students.
Grace, however, felt nervous and anxious about explicitly inquiring into
racial matters with students of color. Like Barbara, Grace became uncomfortable at
the moment that she asked a question that requested student interviewees to explain
156
what it was like to be a student of color at Mountainside College. As a White
woman, Grace wondered about the consequences of asking students about their
experiences as racial minorities:
I think that being a 50-year old white woman, why in the world would they
want to tell me what it’s like to be a minority student? It makes me
uncomfortable to ask the questions. I think that I could seem patronizing. I
was not really fearful but certainly if the tables were turned I would want to
know, ‘Why does she want to know this?’ (G, A, p. 4).

Despite Grace’s concerns about broaching the issue of race and racism,
Grace’s interviews with students proved to be a pleasant experience. She went on to
describe the interesting insights she gained from interviewing students for the first
time. Once again, Grace immediately noted the distinguishing characteristics of each
of the three students she interviewed. None were alike. Grace explained,
One thing I have learned is that I would never generalize about somebody’s
experience based on the three people I spoke with because they have very
different experiences here. I mean, certainly a trained individual could look
at not only the three interviews that I conducted about all of them and find
patterns I’m sure. Being untrained, what impressed me the most is I’m
talking with three very different people with very different backgrounds and
very different expectations (G, A, p. 3).

Grace keenly discerned the particularities of each student and the features that
characterized their circumstances at Mountainside College. As each student was
different, Grace grappled with what she learned from the students as a collective.
She said, “I have to say that I don’t see much of a pattern yet. I think I may be
searching for something that is more conclusive” (G, A, p. 6). Grace appeared to be
surprised that each student did not fit a certain preconceived mold.
157
The first student Grace interviewed was a Mexican American female from
Texas. Grace found this interview to be the most difficult—not only because it was
her first but also because the student described encountering blatant racism.
Specifically, the student’s roommate talked negatively about Mexican Americans,
commenting “about people, how they smell. Just awful comments. So it’s very hard
to hear because that’s way more fundamental. I was thinking of perhaps a slightly
more subtle adjustment. That’s a huge open sore” (G, A, p. 3). Grace did not expect
to hear about unashamedly racist remarks. Her eyes were opened to the possibility
that students experienced the burden of being ethnic minorities in harsher ways than
she imagined.
Grace mentioned that this Mexican American student’s stories were
“humiliating.” The student not only discussed racial conflicts with her roommate,
but also described how whites in California were more racist than in Texas. The
student’s story disturbed Grace to the point where she “felt guilty as just an Anglo”
(G, A, p. 3). Grace’s humiliation reflected a worry that the student projected her
negative perceptions of white people onto Grace.
Grace did not describe the second student she interviewed in detail, perhaps
because this student “had adjusted to life and her friends and thought that
Mountainside College’s diversity was all that it was cracked up to be. So she seemed
very comfortable” (G, A, p. 3). The third student interviewee, however, made a
greater impression on Grace. This student was a Black male recruited to
158
Mountainside College to play football. Grace reflected on his experiences as an
athlete:
Somehow [playing football] didn’t seem to me to be working so well for
him in that he also wanted to be a bio major. He’s a freshman and has a
girlfriend in Long Beach. The demands on his time were such that he
couldn’t really think things through and he needed to think things through as
to what his priorities were (G, A, p. 3).

Grace became concerned for the student’s well being. She had even mentioned this
student’s busy schedule in the first inquiry meeting and noted that to think about it
“makes my head hurt” (G, 1, p. 5). She wanted to assist him or direct him to
resources so that he would be able to successfully balance his time at Mountainside
College. Again, Grace raised her uneasiness in balancing her roles as an interviewer
and as a faculty member who cared for this Black male student. She said,
So just being not only a professor but a Mom, I really wanted to give him
some advice, but I know that’s not our role. So that was a little bit
uncomfortable. I shouldn’t say ‘give advice,’ I’m not exactly sure what I
would have said. You know, direct him to somebody. Not that he’s in
trouble or anything like that. Just that you could tell the right kind of
guidance would be really helpful (G, A, p. 3).

Grace ultimately decided to take a proactive stance to intervene—as a faculty
member, not an interviewer—during her first interview with the Black male student.
Grace realized that two of her three interviewees experienced problems with their
financial aid. In particular, “the work study is a big issue. I realize it’s a big issue for
a lot of students, but I have a feeling that it’s disproportional for minority students”
(G, A, p. 4). It was after she learned about the Black student’s dilemma with their
work study and financial aid that she stopped the tape during the interview and told
159
him, “‘You have to straighten this out with the Dean of Students. You just can’t let it
build until you owe hundreds of hours at the end’” (G, A, p. 5). As the student
divulged information to Grace, she could not help but to put the interview protocol
aside and offer some guidance. Her ability to pay attention to the student and
understand the salient issues that plagued the students’ success at Mountainside
College allowed her to make a judgment call to intervene.
After Grace learned about the significant role financial aid and work study
played in the Black student interviewee’s life, she paid attention to this topic during
her advising sessions with other minority students. As Grace discerned the important
factors in this students’ academic life, she attempted to gauge if the same issue of
financial problems surfaced in the lives of her advisees. She said,
There is one very practical way [student interviews are] important to me and
that is I have a freshman African American male as an advisee. I am doing
a much better job I think of advising him than I would have otherwise…
Because I’m trying to keep on top of his work study commitment and I
never would have thought of that before (G, A, p. 5).

Grace used the knowledge she gained from her interview to learn more about her
advisees as a way to make more responsive practical decisions in her advising
sessions. She felt that as a result of her probing more into her advisees’ lives, she
attained a better sense of who they were. Grace described a renewed relationship
with her Black male advisee. She said,
I know a bit more about what to expect for what he can and can’t do in the
summer. For instance, I suggested to him that he try to find a research thing,
but can’t do that because he’s working…I’m just learning, so I learned that
(G, A, p. 5).

160
Aside from benefiting from the student interviews as an advisor, Grace
shared the extent to which she valued her participation in the collaborative inquiry
meetings. She viewed the meetings as an experience to learn from others more so
than as a venue to participate and exchange with her colleagues:
It sounds kind of passive. I would really like to listen to people who know
more than I do out there. For instance, I would like hear Estela [Project
Director] talk about what she has learned from this process. I feel like…I
can certainly say how I feel about this and what I’ve learned and I think that
is very valuable, but I also feel that there are people who know how to take
these kinds of data and interpret them. I would really like to listen to those
people (G, A, p. 5).

Grace felt she had much to learn from others, especially the facilitator of the group.
As she stated earlier, she wanted more conclusive results that were organized by
experienced qualitative researchers.
One particular benefit gained from participating in the collaborative inquiry
meetings pertained to analyzing the interviews and discussing them with the team.
This kind of exchange sparked a renewed interest in Grace to engage students in the
classroom. Grace said,
I actually thought about it a great deal in the classroom about making eye
contact, making certain that I call on quiet people. I think it is true…I’m not
sure I think I gathered it from our talking together as a group. But it’s
something that I knew before. But the group is reinforcing and that is I think
particularly students of color might respond in kind of a personal interest,
particularly when they don’t expect one from say in a large biology class (G,
A, p. 6).

Though Grace knew about the importance of expressing personal interest in students
and their learning, her participation in the collaborative team meetings allowed her to
rethink and reemphasize this behavior. This kind of reflection informed Grace’s
161
practical decisions in the classroom. She made it a point to pay attention to
particular students’ needs.
So I am making an effort to really make sure everyone knows that I know
who they are personally and I’m personally interested in what they have to
say. I know it’s making me more attuned to what an individual student
might need. I’m not sure it’s making me a better teacher because in some
ways… I think I actually am getting a little bit less accomplished in a lecture
because I’m really trying to include people, but in a way maybe they’ll
remember more. So even if I’m teaching less, they might be remembering
more (G, A, p. 6).

Grace willingly expressed interest in students as a way of engaging them in the
classroom, even if this meant that covering class material was compromised. She
knew the concession of limiting the material she discussed was worth doing as long
as students of color succeeded in her class.
Second Interview, June2004
I interviewed Grace again in June 2004. She had finished interviewing the
three student interviewees a second time. Meeting with the students again was “like
seeing old friends” (G, B, p. 1) for Grace. Of the three students, the Latina woman
from Texas particularly made an impression on her. Grace said, “She seems fairly
high risk. She is not sure what she wants out of Mountainside College” (G, B, p. 1).
The student, as Grace recalled, expressed that her needs were not being met. Going
to college did not seem practical for her. The student said, “I’d rather work than be
in school” (G, B, p. 1). Grace gathered that the student’s concern did not stem from
financial hardships, but more so from the fact that “her view of her role in the world
is maybe more the role of a working person, not a college student” (G, B, p. 1).
162
Grace expressed concern over the Mexican American student’s attrition. She
thought about the implications of this student’s dilemma:
As a person who kind of sees what goes on with first generation college
students, it really strikes me as very reasonable attitude… [College] does
have to demonstrate why it’s… a really reasonable alternative to working
instead. And, for her, we didn’t demonstrate that (G, B, p. 2).

Grace realized Mountainside College might have to take a more assertive role in
communicating to first-generation students why college was so important. If not,
these students could be at risk for dropping out of the institution.
Another student who Grace thought at length about was the Black male
interviewee. When Grace asked him what factors engaged him in a classroom,
Grace noted that he did not mention an interactive or dynamic class environment.
Rather, he gave an example of one of his professors “who’s incredibly enthusiastic;
he’s also incredibly devoted to this students” (G, B, p. 2). The student saw these two
characteristics as equally important. Grace summarized the students’ interview
narrative: “So it’s not as though [the professor] just talks about his subject and
they’re out there, could be anybody out there. He knows them and responds to them
as individuals too” (G, B, p. 2).
As a result of interviewing and participating in collaborative inquiry
meetings, Grace reprioritized making connections to students of color in her class.
She attempted to make eye contact with her students and followed up on topics she
thought to be critical (e.g. financial aid) with her advisees. Yet she had not seriously
thought about the ways in which expressing enthusiasm for her subject matter could
163
effectively draw in her students. Put simply, Grace said, “If you don’t like what
you’re doing, how can you possibly expect them to” (G, B, p. 2). She went on to
say,
It just made me think, ‘Okay, I should be a little bit more up front about,
okay, I love roots.’ I know most people don’t. You know, don’t be ashamed
of your enthusiasm, let it show. And I think that that’s something. So, I did
learn that. And it’s good to have that reinforced (G, B, p. 2).

Grace later mentioned that she felt “Quite liberated when I heard the importance of
enthusiasm. And I thought, ‘Well, okay, good!’ Yeah, so I’ll just go ahead and let it
all hang out” (G, B, p. 6).
In addition to sparking outward enthusiasm about biological topics in class
lectures, the interview project prompted Grace to think more critically about her role
as an advisor. She remarked, “I think that’s the one practical repercussion from
these [interviews] that has really made me see that the advisor has a pretty powerful
role” (G, B, p. 4). Grace particularly noted the difference among her student
interviewees’ experiences with their respective advisors. She detailed the
distinctions among the three students:
I was kind of impressed by the difference and their different experiences
with their advisors. For instance, the one girl who seems to be sort of
disaffected with Mountainside College, she said she just goes to her advisor
to get a signature, whereas, the other two actually got advice. Now, when I
say advice, I mean somebody sat down with them and talked about all kinds
of things. And it just made me realize, one, okay, I have to take this
advising seriously. And, two, I should take it even more seriously with, uh,
students of color (G, B, p. 4).

Grace realized the varying ways in which faculty advised their students—from
simply signing documents to truly advising students on their academic experiences at
164
Mountainside College. Those faculty who had a genuine interest in advising
students, expressed by talking to students and getting to know them, made for a more
positive advising experience on the part of the student. Grace said this dynamic was
“something that I’m interested in” (G, B, p. 4) and she took the responsibility of
faculty advising “really seriously” (G, B, p. 4). Listening to these stories and
reflecting on them brought Grace clarity about what she should do in her role as
advisor. She noted that this awareness carried over into informing her practices in
advising. She measured the success of her advising skills by her continued
connection with her advisees of color: “I think that it worked, in that, well, at least
they keep coming to see me and they keep asking me for advice. And they seem to
be thinking things through” (G, B, p. 5). Without having been a part of this kind of
interview project, Grace thought that as an advisor, “I just would have kind of
muddled along” (G, B, p. 6).
While Grace’s experiences with interviewing students had largely been
positive, Grace still took issue with asking students about their experiences as
minority students. She particularly feared she would be perceived as being “rude”
by asking such questions. After her second round of student interviews, Grace said,
I guess that’s part of the power dynamic. The part of the power dynamic
that actually made me uncomfortable was not so much the professor-student
as the non-minority, minority. I seemed to be asking them to talk about
their perceptions as a non-white person, and here I was, a white person
asking them. And that struck me as—I mean, I knew that that’s part of it—
but I thought, ‘Oh, I wonder, you know, if I were a Latina, would they feel
more open and would they feel like I had more of a right to ask the
questions that I was asking?’ (G, B, p. 4).

165
Fourth Collaborative Inquiry Meeting, September 2004
After my second interview with Grace in June 2004, I did not see her again
until the summer passed. She attended the next collaborative inquiry meeting of fall
2004 in September. The team discussed interesting quotes that caught faculty
members’ attention during their interviews. One of these quotes spoke to the topic of
students expecting a diverse campus at Mountainside College. Before attending
Mountainside College, the institution boasted a mission that strongly supported
equity and diversity. Also, some students attended the Multicultural Summer
Institute, a bridge program to prepare incoming freshman to college. The students in
the Multicultural Summer Institute comprised a diversity of ethnic minorities. When
the students arrived to Mountainside College for their first year of college, either
after receiving advertisements or participating in the Multicultural Summer Institute,
some felt that the college was not as diverse as they imagined. Student
demographics neither reflected Mountainside’s promotional advertisements nor the
student composition of the summer program.
The fact that students felt they were inadvertently misinformed about the
student demographics and culture concerned Grace. She said,
The whole thing about feeling misled, it’s a calling card and a money maker
to call itself diverse. Maybe this is backfiring in a way. Maybe they feel a
burden about carrying this banner but it’s not as diverse as its banner said…
Maybe we need to work more at the substance and a little bit less on the
window dressing here… in our literature, in our brochures (G, 4, p. 12).

As Grace articulated these words to the others in the group, she called for
Mountainside to take responsibility for living up to their institutional mission and
166
their advertisements that portrayed a diverse campus. She knew that claiming
diversity did not translate into diversity and equity that permeated into the deeper
structures and processes of the institution.
It was at this collaborative inquiry meeting that Grace also shared with the
team her experiences of being impacted by the Mountainside Interview Project,
particularly as it pertained to her advising skills. Grace told the others on the team
about her experience with one of her Latina advisees,
The way [the project] affected my behavior most was as an advisor because
of what I learned in the interviews. I emailed my interviewees particularly
hoping for them to respond. One student came to me and cried every time I
saw her in the fall. She ended up with a 3.96 and got an award. I had seen
her grow like this and I’m not saying it was anything I did as an advisor.
But I took particular care making sure she was in the right classes after the
first round of interviews. She was in the wrong chemistry class. She needed
to be in this super accelerated track. Maybe we could talk to advisors about
this. I realized after the first interview, personal involvement is a big
component about how they feel about school, how they feel about
themselves. I bent over backwards to keep in touch with [the Latina
advisee] and the African American student. They were two great
relationships…. it changed the way I advised (G, 4, p. 14).

Grace wanted to discuss her development as an advisor with others on
campus. She felt that the new knowledge she applied in her advising practices
should be shared to inspire other faculty members on campus to rethink their
deliberations and judgments when advising students.
Nobody wants more work but it doesn’t take more work to say that these are
the things that pay off. Maybe they can take one step more with their
students of color because they might come in with less experience with a
college background (G, 4, p. 14).

167
Fifth Collaborative Inquiry Meeting, November 2004
Grace raised two brief but important points in the collaborative inquiry
meeting she attended in November 2004. First, she gave the collaborative inquiry
team an update on the Mexican American student interviewee who she previously
described to the team. Grace shared her interpretations of the perspective held by the
“fairly high risk” Mexican American student:
She wants more of an applied education. I think she wanted more of a
business degree—something she could take right into salary job. This
wasn’t really what she was looking for in terms of intellectual climate. And
she didn’t see herself as a Mountainside student, the notion of liberal arts
student vs. practical degree (G, 5, p. 2).

Grace regretfully announced to the others that the student “did not return” (G, 5, p.
2). The student’s feelings of being mismatched with Mountainside College resulted
in her attrition.
The second point Grace raised occurred while the team discussed the
development of the next interview protocol for the third round of student interviews.
Grace reminded the team of her struggle with the impact her ethnic identity might
have on students’ responses. She said, “I would stand to take out the question about
what does it feel like to be a student of color” (G, 5, p. 4). But after some team
discussion, she acknowledged that asking a variation of this question, one that might
be less direct, remained central to the interview project; faculty members desired to
know about the challenges and triumphs associated with the experiences of students
of color.
168
Third Interview, March 2005
In March 2005, over a year after the interview project’s inception, I
interviewed Grace a third time. By this point in the project, I noted that Grace
consistently and enthusiastically participated in the collaborative inquiry meetings.
After having participated in the project for over a year, I asked her about her
impressions of meeting with the other faculty members and administrators on the
team.
It's good to hear how other people, or what other people have learned from
their students. And so I think I've learned just more about what students are
experiencing. And it definitely extends. I mean, many people observe
things that I don't. And so my learning has been broader (G, C, p. 9).

While the dialogue during inquiry meetings enriched Grace’s background
understandings about students, she also became inspired by others on the team who
expressed commitment to the project and its goals. She said,
It's pretty good to see people that I didn't know and how much they care
about diversity issues. And how important it is. And okay, if they're going
to take this seriously and devote time to it, too. I mean, Matt has no time.
Jack, no time (G, C, p. 15).

Witnessing colleagues who were leaders at Mountainside College devote a great
amount of energy to the project seemed to enhance the collective responsibility and
care of the group, particularly from Grace’s perception.
And what of the students she interviewed a third time? Unfortunately, the
female Mexican American student from Texas left the college. Thus, Grace had two
remaining students to interview that spring semester. Grace thought of these
169
students fondly as she had seen them grow personally and academically. She
particularly recalled their resiliency. She learned that,
The two people… had found really good ways of getting either over or
around these barriers. Or that two people who had decided that they are
really going to take it upon themselves to try to, you know, chip away at
barriers. I mean, it's just such a success story for each of them (G, C, p. 3).

Grace thought about the most important lesson she learned from listening to
students’ experiences at Mountainside College. What made an impression on Grace
was the relationship between students of color and their professors. She said,
I do think that they all, the three of them the first year, said that that was
something really important to them was the personal relationship with the
professor. And if they didn't feel that it was encouraged, if they felt it was
discouraged, that meant that the class was not really a success for them (G,
C, p. 7).

Her student interviewees defined classes’ success by the way in which faculty related
and connected to their students.
Grace realized that developing positive student-faculty relationships held
great importance for students of color. She began to think about how such
relationships were colored by faculty members’ expectations of minority students.
Even the most well-intentioned faculty member might indirectly communicate
lowered expectations that existed subconsciously. Grace explained,
There's a tendency to have lower expectations for students of color. And I
know that people would fight against that. And I know that faculty with the
best of intentions would not allow those expectations to ever show or come
out. But I think they might be there (G, C, p. 5).

Such expectations, Grace knew, affected students’ performance. Because students
“perform according to expectation,” she said, “I really have to examine [my]
170
expectations” (G, C, p. 6). For instance, when minority students in her class
performed well, Grace admitted she was pleasantly surprised. “I'm so happy when I
see students of color succeed,” she reflected. “And that means to me if I'm that
happy, that's stupid, because it means that I've pre-judged them [by] thinking they
won't succeed” (G, C, p. 6).
Given the barriers students of color faced, Grace made a more concerted
effort to support the success of minority students in her classroom. She wanted to do
to a better job of “keeping track” of them. She said, “It made me think that I do need
to perhaps go a little bit out of my way just to make sure that I do care about them
personally” (G, C, p. 7). Grace did want to make a distinction between giving
students preferential treatment and doing what it takes to assist them to improve their
performance: “I don't like to think of treating students differently, but I'm hoping
that that doesn't have so much to do with expectation. That has to do with something
I've learned helps people succeed” (G, C, p. 7).
Before the Mountainside Interview Project, Grace had not achieved such an
intimate grasp of students’ daily struggles. Students’ stories transformed Grace’s
notions about their educational lives from imagined to real. She recalled,
I think that in particular talking to the one young woman who didn't come
back. Well, actually in talking to the young man. I think I realized that it's
more difficult for them than I thought it was. It's more difficult in terms of
they're kind of—for a number of them—in uncharted territory. They don't
have necessarily family members who have done this, you know. So a lot of
it is newer to them (G, C, p. 9).

171
What brought home this message for Grace did not have to do with content of
students’ stories alone, but the way in which these narratives were delivered. Grace
said,
You know, of course we read this. You know, they give us articles and give
us talks and things like that. But it really, when you listen to somebody's
story, it brings it home. And so just, you know, talking to one young
woman about her roommate experience… And I thought, ‘Okay. Well, I
didn't expect anything like that.’ I really didn't… you don't expect such
ugliness (G, C, p. 8).

Had Grace read from a text about the very experience she heard from the Mexican
American woman who encountered a racist roommate, the story probably would
have not impacted her in the same way. The interaction and dialogue which
occurred during interviews brought this story to life by putting a face to the story.
Additionally, the student associated to the story became someone that Grace cared
about. In this way, Grace was not emotionally detached from a written narrative, but
affectively involved with the student telling the narrative. Thus, the delivery of the
message impacted Grace in a more powerful way.
Grace keenly noted that the Mountainside Interview Project created a venue
for role reversal of the teacher and student. That is, the professor listened to students
and learned from them as the students taught professors about their lives.
What I ideally think is good about the interview process is that the student
actually is the focus. The student is the source of information, is the source
of power. And I think that's good. Too often we're the ones who are in
charge. And we're still in charge. I mean, when we're asking the questions,
right? But they're the ones with the knowledge rather than me. And that's a
good thing for a faculty member to learn, is that other people have superior
knowledge in some things. Like their own lives (G, C, p. 15).

172
Grace willingly relinquished her power and authority in this project to learn from
students. She understood that her role in this process constituted that of a student.
And she gladly accepted the stories students told her as truth that could inform her
practices.
Over the course of the project, Grace transitioned from feeling weary about
asking students about their experiences as ethnic minorities to understanding the
ways in which conversations about race were imperative. In fact, she began to view
silence as a barrier to progress on racial issues. She articulated the following:
I think the barrier is that I think everybody so wants to think that race is not
an issue. That one barrier is silence. And, you know, I'm not going to spend
time in my class really talking about it so much because it doesn't seem
appropriate most of the time. But perhaps I do need to be more
conscientious about scientists whose work I present and identify them. (G,
C, p. 13).

Grace came to understand dialogue and questions about race as “legitimate
questions.” She especially echoed what she heard from colleagues of color. Grace
explained,
I think that the more I hear from say faculty members of color here is that
they wish there were more open discussion. That it isn't a colorblind
society. And we can't just pretend it is and wish it were, and behave as
though it is. And so part of is, yeah, it's good to discuss it (G, C, p. 5).

Grace, despite understanding the importance of race-related discussions,
remained slightly uncomfortable with having these conversations as a white woman.
She said, “It's not easy. In particular, I think it's not easy to initiate if you're white”
(G, C, p. 5). But Grace knew that not thinking about race was something she took
for granted. As a white woman, Grace was not forced to think about her race every
173
time she stepped into a room full of people who were not like her. She admitted that
her experience as an undergraduate student in this way was different from those of
her student interviewees: “I know that I never thought that they [faculty members
and peers] never would give a thought to my race. I mean, that just didn't come
up…. I just was part of a large group” (G, C, p. 7). Grace did not carry the burden of
race that her student interviewees had.
While she acknowledged the challenges inherent in being a student of color
in college, Grace—like the other biology professor, Barbara—still held lingering
doubts about the extent to which the interviews could reveal significant findings
about racialized experiences. She wanted a control group or a group of students with
whom she could compare to the minority student interviewees. Grace mentioned
that Barbara, “said it the first year: there's no control group. So you've got to be able
to compare these experiences to something else” (G, C, p. 15). To confirm her belief
that a control group was necessary, Grace asked one of her research assistants about
the idea that students of color were more likely to drop out of the sciences. Grace
remarked,
That did come up when I was talking with my research student. And I said,
‘Well, you know, it seems to me that some students of color are not
becoming science majors.’ [My research assistant] pointed out that there's a
lot, I mean, most students don't become science majors. And most students
switch out (G, C, p. 15).

Thus, while Grace acknowledged the complexities and challenges race brought to
bear on students of color, she continued to struggle with the validity of findings
pertaining to students’ experiences as being racially complicated.
174
Another challenge Grace experienced was difficulty to come to terms with
the nature of the interviews, with particular attention to the interviewer’s role. As a
concerned faculty member, Grace’s emotional reactions to students’ stories appeared
evident to students during her interviews. Grace feared that her emotional display
might have influenced the ways in which students articulated their experiences at
Mountainside College. Grace recalled,
One thing that bothered me is they seemed to be telling me what I wanted to
hear a little. And I began to wonder about the objective reality of what I
was hearing…. But they could see, you know, when my eyes would light up
when they'd describe a certain activity. You know, it's just natural. It's the,
‘Oh, well. She wants to hear more of that’ (G, C, p. 2).

Grace wanted to hear “some hard truth” so that she could gain a genuine
understanding of the factors that inhibited and promoted students’ academic success.
She felt that her personal involvement in the interview process was not getting her
more objective information. When I asked her to clarify, she responded,
It isn't the subjectivity of the process that bothers me. I think what bothers
me is perhaps that I tend to get the kind of response, not that I want. But my
own responses tend to direct their responses too much. I deliberately was
not, I was trying not to, you know, guide them or steer. That I really wanted
it to be open. But unfortunately, I'm not a stone face. I think I might've
been more effective had I been much less involved. Although, I think that
one of the virtues of the whole process is that they do get to interact with
students whom otherwise I would never be able to. And they also got to
interact with me and they never would have otherwise (G, C, p. 3).

Grace expressed this concern over several interviews. While she had previously
acknowledged the powerful impact of having face-to-face conversations with
students, she also viewed this element as a challenge to garner accurate information
from them.
175
Although Grace felt like her participation in the interviews may have skewed
the kind of information she collected from students, she understood the benefits this
process could have on the students themselves. She valued the fact that she
developed relationships with student interviewees. She said, “I still believe in the
interview process. I think it's good. I think it's good for the students” (G, C, p. 2).
In addition, she saw this kind of project as beneficial to other faculty members,
especially if the students’ stories were genuine. Grace explained, “It's good for the
faculty members in terms of it as a way to learn hard truth. I don't know whether we
can” (G, C, p. 2). But she admitted, “I did learn some hard truth, I guess, the first
year when it was pretty clear to me that one of the young women that I was
interviewing would not come back” (G, C, p. 2).
Moreover, without being intimately involved in the inquiry process, Grace
might not have been so empowered to modify certain judgments she made while
teaching and advising students of color. First, by taking what student interviewees
said to heart, Grace integrated what she learned from students into her classroom
practices. Grace remarked, “It's been very important to me in terms of how I go
about just my classes. And my teaching. And my interaction with students” (G, C,
p. 16). For example, Grace began to “make a list of non-white scientists and their
contributions” (G, C, p. 14) that she could share in her class lectures. She thought
this technique might “seem stupid” (G, C, p. 14), but it was one way of providing an
example of a person of color’s success and contribution to the science community.
176
In a small way, this gesture might inspire students of color to see a role model in the
sciences from an ethnic minority background.
In addition to highlighting scientists of color in her class lectures, Grace
decided to call on her students to contribute to class discussions. She said,
I never used to call on people. I just go ahead and sort of just rephrase the
question…. But now I will call on people. Because I think it's really
important for everyone to learn how to speak up. And in particular minority
students (G, C, p. 14).

Grace suggested that her decision to call on students in class was inspired by a
discussion she had with one of her student interviewees.
It's something that I think one of my student [interviewees] suggested.
[They] didn't suggest that I call on people. But suggested that they didn't
feel comfortable speaking in class. So I thought, ‘Okay. Well, there's a way
to learn.’ It might be the hard way (G, C, p. 14).

Though being called on spontaneously could very well be uncomfortable for
students, Grace perceived this technique as tough love. She figured they would
benefit and learn from being prompted to articulate their thoughts in class.
A third deliberate change that Grace made to her practices by the time March
2005 came about pertained to meeting with students. She decided she wanted to
connect with each and every student outside of her class. Again, this decision
stemmed from her learning about the importance of the student-faculty connection.
Grace recounted,
All three of them [the student interviewees] said that was the type of style
and interaction that they felt was most successful with them. So I definitely,
I always schedule personal conferences even with a student, with everybody
in the class. You know, just for a couple of minutes (G, C, p. 14).

177
Before engaging in the Mountainside Interview Project, Grace had not made the
effort to meet with each student to check in with them outside of class. Her decision
to connect to students in a new way reflected her renewed commitment and care
toward all students, especially those who did not traditionally succeed in the
sciences.
Eighth Collaborative Inquiry Meeting, April 2005
After my interview with Grace in March 2005, I saw her again for a
collaborative inquiry meeting in the same month, and did not see her again until two
meetings later in April 2005. In this meeting, student interviewees gathered together
as a group to hear about the project—the impact their voiced concerns would have
on institutional practices and on the faculty participants themselves. Grace
articulated the motivation to participate in the Mountainside Interview Project to the
student interviewees:
I went into it with a real mission: to try to understand perhaps if there was
something we were doing that was preventing students of color from going
on in the sciences… I just wanted to hear what you were thinking. I still
care about that (G, 8, p. 7).

After Grace told the students why she joined the project, she described what she got
out of participating in the project. Again, Grace mentioned her realization of how it
was important for her to express enthusiasm for her areas of interest in biology,
plants and roots. She announced to the student interviewees,
That was one thing that I learned from this. I thought, ‘Ok, I don’t have to
be embarrassed about how much I like these plants even though not
everybody likes roots. I can just be excited about it and hope that rubs off a
little bit (G, 8, p. 1).
178

Lastly, Grace mentioned the way in which the project impacted her advising. Grace
said,
What I got out of it, the main thing is, I’m a much better advisor. I have
some advisees who I pay so much more attention to now that I have some
idea of all the things that they must bring with them to school (G, 8, p. 7).

Though Grace had joined the project with an authentic interest in assisting minority
students to do well in her classes, her participation in the project sparked a renewed
commitment. This commitment was evidenced by her thoughtful analysis of
students’ stories and application of her learning to inform her judgments with
students. Grace’s words touched several students in the meeting. They were
comforted to know their own words inspired professors to improve upon their
practical decisions when interacting with students of color.
Fourth Interview, June 2005
I saw Grace for my fourth and final interview with her in June 2005. Before
this interview took place, students of color at Mountainside College held a protest on
campus. These students advocated to not only increase diversity on campus, but to
improve the campus climate for students of color. Minority students organized
meetings with campus leaders during this time, recounting incidences of racism,
particularly during interactions between faculty and students. The students became
concerned that these incidents occurred and that no one decided to intervene at the
moment they happened. Grace decided to discuss this critical topic with students in
her class. She explained the students’ concerns:
179
The students weren't -- at least my students in that class -- weren't talking so
much about everybody making racist comments. They were more talking
about, ‘Okay, when a racist comment is made, nobody rallies around to
support or to point out or to point it back on the commenter and say, Let me
just tell you what I think you just said’ (G, D, p. 12).

What Grace learned from the student protests, in conjunction with her
interviews, allowed her to contemplate the situations in which she wanted to make
the right decision about what to say or how to intervene. When students or faculty
said racist or prejudiced remarks, Grace felt obligated to say something. Grace
admitted, however, she did not always know what to say in response to these kinds
of remarks. She said,
That's one thing that the students wanted to make clear is that when you hear
something that is racist or ethnocentric or stereotyping, you shouldn't just let
it pass. But I don't know good ways to not let it pass. And that's another
area in which I learn from my class that I need some training. And we all
probably need some training (G, D, p. 12).

Though Grace did not feel confident about her skills in reacting to negative racial
remarks, she knew that to say something was superior to silence. According to
Grace, one cannot “let such incidents go by without comment, without trying to turn
it to some kind of educational. Silence is wrong…. I've got to acquire that ability.
We all have to acquire that ability” (G, D, p. 14). For example, in a faculty meeting
that concerned the topic of student protests, she did not voice her opinion or advocate
for students. Her inability to speak came back to haunt her: “I didn't hear my own
words come back at me in that faculty meeting. I did have my own silence come
back at me. And we have to learn how not to be silent” (G, D, p. 12).
180
A prerequisite to not being silent and responding to students was actually
listening to students’ concerns. Grace expressed to me that, in retrospect, listening
became a key component for her in this project. Listening was “the most important
thing that I learned” (G, D, p. 2). She reflected, “You just forget how important it is
just to listen…We can't promise them [the students] anything. But we could promise
to just listen (G, D, p. 1). This revelation was sparked because the project required
Grace to listen “to some very real… episodes that need to be heard” (G, D, p. 2). For
example, Grace learned by listening to student interviewees about “feeling
unprepared” and “feeling made to feel stupid” for a Latina interviewee, and “why the
sciences didn't seem to be providing a congenial place” (G, D, p. 2) for her Black
male interviewee. Grace said, this constituted “the most important message that I’ve
gotten: listen, and then if you need to respond, respond. Or, you know, allow the
students to respond” (G, D, p. 2).
It is important to note that Grace viewed listening by itself as important but
insufficient to meeting students’ needs. Changes to institutional and personal faculty
members’ practices were necessary. While she had previously articulated how she
changed her own practices in teaching and advising, she believed Mountainside
College and its institutional actors should make some alterations to promote the
academic success of minority students. Grace believed that the Mountainside
Interview Project is “hollow if nothing happens, I suppose. If the climate doesn't
change or something like that” (G, D, p. 2). She asked, “All right, so we've listened
and what are steps to take for the sciences in particular?” (G, D, p. 3).
181
An important lesson Grace reflected on was her and her colleagues’
expectations of students. She realized her expectations and assumptions likely
colored the ways in which she approached students. Grace felt other faculty
members’ expectations impacted their practices in the same way. As a result, she
believed some key questions about expectations could be asked of her colleagues on
campus:
What are you basing your expectations of that student on? Are you basing
your expectations on what you know about him or her, what you know
about the work? Or are you putting him or her in a group and making
conclusions on that basis? So, I think still that's something that we have to
be on guard against. I mean, somehow you've got to understand a student in
context of a group that he or she may be from. But you should not have
expectations based on that understanding. You should expect, you should
set high standards and just somehow make sure that if people need some
additional resources to achieve those standards. Well, Mountainside College
better come up with them if it's going to admit them in the first place (G, D,
p. 14).

In reframing her expectations of students, Grace began to shift the
expectations she had on herself as an advisor. Grace did admit, “I didn’t think about
advising much before I became a part of this project.” She began to wonder how
altering faculty members’ expectations of students and of themselves as advisors
might inspire them to also shift their advising practices. I asked Grace to articulate
specifically how her role as advisor changed since becoming a participant in the
Mountainside Interview Project. Her thoughts are worth quoting at length:
Well, it's so simple and I think it actually reflects kind of poorly on the
person or the job I was doing before. I mean, before I just saw my role as
finding out how they were doing in classes and giving them information
about what was required in different majors, making sure that their
schedules worked out, etc., and just kind of bulldogging problems like that,
182
scheduling problems. Now, I realize that there aren't very many chances
just to ask them how things are going. And it's pretty important. I mean,
they don't all need it or respond to that question in anything but a superficial
way. But sometimes it's surprising how if you just give them a chance just
to talk a little bit. And I don't know that this necessarily makes them happy
or feel better, but it's just to give them an opportunity to say how things are
going as people here. And I guess it's simply a matter of not taking the time
before and taking the time now. It's kind of odd that that shouldn't be
obvious right from the very start that you have to listen to them as people.
You just tend to think of them as advisees. Okay, so if you're my advisee,
I'm going to advise you on what courses to take rather than, okay, so here
you are, we're both at this place, you're here 24 hours a day, and so, you
know, what kind of personal interactions they want to talk about with you
(G, D, p. 5).

Because Grace experienced a shift in the way she thought about her role as advisor,
and in turn, making practical decisions in action while advising, she felt all faculty
members at Mountainside College could benefit from being involved in something
like the interview project. She said, “Faculty have to somehow be helped to listen to
their students. And maybe it means training” (G, D, p. 9). Again, she emphasized
learning how to listen: “[Students] need a little bit more intensive listening from you
as a professor and you as an advisor. So, I think there is an element of teacher
training that we need” (G, D. p. 9).
Reflecting on her own advising skills brought Grace to think about how she
might have reacted differently to the Latina student interviewee who dropped out of
the college and returned home to Texas. This specific student wanted to learn about
topics that would be applicable to a job or a vocation. Grace contemplated,
If somebody had taken the time to work with her and say, ‘Okay, well, this
may not look like it's directly applicable. But look, you know, the goal here
is to get you to be a better writer. The goal here is to get you to be a better
communicator.’ If somehow that had been made clear to her, or at least if
183
she'd had someone to talk with about that. And actually maybe I should
have talked with her a little bit about it because I could kind of see it
coming. Because she would say things like well, I'm just not interested in
that kind of thing. Which also goes with not getting good grades; so she's
just not encouraged (G, D, p. 6).

Grace realized that she might have been able to assist the student in understanding
how she fit in at Mountainside College by explaining the outcomes the student could
have achieved had she stayed.
Along the same lines, Grace believed Mountainside College and its
institutional members could do a better job at communicating the importance and
relevance of degree attainment.
My overall sense of reading this is Mountainside College needs to do a
better job of explaining to students why it is we teach what we teach…. So
if you can somehow say, ‘All right, so this may not look like you're ever
going to use it in the future, but here's how it might come into play.’…It
needs to be done (G, D, p. 8).

Grace believed Mountainside College’s responsibility to explain this to students was
especially critical to students of color. As many were first generation college
students, learning about how one can use a college degree in life could be new and
essential information. Grace explained,
Well, and particularly if they're the first member of their family to go to
college, you know,… ‘What is college? College is just a bunch of people
talking about stuff or, you know, what's the point?’ And also because I'm
sure economic pressures are more intense for many of them. You've got to
say, ‘Okay, am I spending money on this conversation?’ (G, D, p. 8).

In addition to communicating explicitly the purposes of college and how the
education students receive at Mountainside College applied to the real world, Grace
184
believed students needed greater support in general. In her eyes, all students should
be given the chance to thrive and do well at Mountainside College. Grace stated,
I think it is that Mountainside College does need to do a better job of
supporting students once they're here… Somehow, though, there has to be
some give in the system or some additional resources devoted to making
sure that every student who's admitted is allowed to succeed. Otherwise,
they shouldn't be admitted (G, D, p. 15).

Tenth Collaborative Inquiry Meeting, October 2005
Grace became a particularly vocal figure in the second to last inquiry meeting
in October 2005. In this meeting, the team discussed key points they wanted to
highlight when presenting findings and recommendations to the Provost. Grace gave
much feedback about which quotes and findings to include. Of particular interest
was her advocacy for professional development of faculty by having them engage in
a similar interview process. She said,
Maybe the departments are the place to do this. It’s notching [the project] up
on institutional priorities. It’s saying, ‘Let’s really evaluate our program and
let’s listen to students and find out what they need.’ It’s enough difference
to get more buy-in (G, 10, p. 5).

Grace acknowledged the team’s concern that engaging in a project like this by
academic department “could be threatening because some departments are so small.
But if we really want to do is change the way things are done, we really have to
focus on something” (G, 10, p. 5). She used the example of the Composition and
Literature department to exemplify an instance of change. One of the other faculty
participants in the Mountainside Interview Project, Jack, was a faculty member in
that department. Some of Jack’s interviewees expressed concern over the
185
circumscribed curriculum. Grace reminded the team, “One of the things that came
out of the interview process and it is now reflected in hiring in Literature and
Composition, that the canon in literature is too narrow. They would like to enlarge
it. They are trying to hire [faculty members] with that in mind” (G, 10, p. 5). Grace
believed that other departments could make such changes by learning from student
interviews.
Final Meeting with the Provost, October 2005
By the time the team met with the Provost, Grace had partnered with Barbara
to support her in the endeavor to volunteer the Biology department to conduct
interviews with students. She showed up to the meeting and articulated very clearly
what she gained from her participation in the project as a way to persuade the
Provost to support this kind of initiative:
One of the most important things I realized is that I need to take personal
responsibility toward Mountainside College and believing in the college. I
need to be personally involved and responsible toward these students. It
also made me a much better advisor. I have been advising here at
Mountainside College for 2 years. And I don’t think I was a bad advisor
before. But after I interviewed these students I realized I had to listen a lot
more. I would not have done that had I not been taught to ask questions like
“What did you do over the summer?” Those are important questions. It has
also made me a better teacher. I don’t think this could be measured
tangibly. But I try to treat them as individuals, make eye contact, and make
sure they know I’m personally interested in their success. And especially
students of color, from what I learned in these interviews, really responded
to that. This was an experience I would exchange in the world (G, 11, p. 2).

In her enthusiastic speech to the Provost, Grace powerfully highlighted her enhanced
care and commitment toward the college and the students and her improved advising
and teaching skills.
186
Grace’s Final Written Reflections
In the summer of 2005 I asked Grace to answer various reflective questions
about her experiences in the project. She expressed that her participation in this
unique collaborative inquiry process had more to do with developing her skills in
interacting with students. Participating in the Mountainside Interview Project made
her feel more connected to the Mountainside community, its students in particular.
She wrote:
I met and got to know students whom I would otherwise not have met, and I
truly value my contacts with them. When I see and speak with them on
campus, I feel a bond--it's like a secret handshake. The process made me
feel more like a member of the community, and not just a member of the
faculty.

A more tangible benefit of participating in the project constituted the
development of teaching and advising skills. Grace valued what she learned from
students, especially because it could be applied to her approaches as a teacher and
advisor.
The most concrete benefit has been to make me a better advisor to and
teacher of students of color--or, if not better, at least more aware. I pay more
attention to possible "background issues" such as family ambivalence about
a student's attending college, etc. I try to listen more closely and carefully to
what is and is not being said. As for my advisees, I try to go to bat for them
a bit more--make phone calls, write letters, etc.--when they need a bit of
advocacy.

Grace cultivated a greater sense of responsibility for student success. She did not
only care about closing the achievement gap. Her renewed care and commitment
underpinned the change in her practical decisions made in action.
187
Grace ended her written reflections by advocating for the institutionalization
of the inquiry project, specifically with academic program reviews. She believed
that the way in which this project touched her professionally and personally could
also impact faculty members across various departments in a similar way. Grace
wrote:
One possible future direction is to make the project more directly associated
with academic departments. I think it would be enlightening for each
department to interview some of its majors (or even better, some of its
students who were initially interested and then chose another major).
Although the possibilities for personal defensiveness and hurt might
increase, each department should examine how it's doing with respect to
under-represented students--we learned this last spring, and without some
prodding, we'll forget and fail to move forward.

Grace understood that the potential risk departments took to interview students and
find out “hard truths,” as Grace had put it earlier, was a risk worth taking.
Mountainside College and its academic departments could not battle inequities
unless it faced the ways in which they did not serve students of color equitably.
Matt, the Mathematician
Like Grace and Barbara, Matt—a white, male Associate Professor of
Mathematics—participated in Mountainside Interview Project from beginning to
end. My first encounter with Matt took place at the first collaborative inquiry
meeting of the Mountainside Interview Project in February 2004. A tall and slender
man, Matt sat straight up in his chair, his undivided attention paid to the group
discussion. I immediately noted Matt’s articulate descriptions of his experiences in
the project and analyses of his student interviews. As it turned out, Matt’s
188
involvement in the collaborative inquiry meetings over the course of the project were
key to eliciting important dialogue about students and Mountainside College’s
practices. He kept the team on task during meetings and redirected the conversation
when he felt necessary. In addition, he provided insightful perspective on
constructing student interview protocols and analyzing the interview transcripts.
Matt not only played a critical role on the Mountainside Interview Project
team, but also undertook key responsibilities on the Mountainside College campus.
When the project began, he served as part-time Chair of the Math Department. Matt
additionally served as Deputy to the President. In this capacity, he worked with the
Vice Presidents of the college and staffed committees “doing all sorts of projects:
dealing with parents, alumni, trustees and faculty and students” (M, A, p. 1). From
July 2004 to May 2005, Matt served as the Director of Junior and Senior Years at
Mountainside College. Matt was then asked to become the Interim Director of
International Programs for a semester, from August 2004 to December 2004. Toward
the end of the Mountainside Interview Project in June 2005, Matt transitioned his
role from Deputy to the President to Associate Dean of Curriculum. Needless to say,
Matt provided leadership skills in a number of capacities at Mountainside College.
Unlike Grace and Beth, Matt also participated in a number of diversity efforts
on and off campus prior to engaging in the interview project. Off campus, Matt was
selected to be an American Council on Education Fellow for four years. This
national program engaged its fellows in activities centered “on issues of diversity,
gender issues, race and ethnicity in higher education, whether it's [about] students or
189
faculty” (M, C, p. 2). On campus, Matt served on the Council for Access and
Achievement, a committee whose purpose was to promote the academic success of
students of color, and taught for the Multicultural Summer Institute (MSI) for two
years. In fact, Matt said, “I had previously been Director of the MSI for five years”
(M, A, p. 2). Matt found his involvement in MSI to be particularly enlightening,
because I got to engage… [in] dealing sort of with issues of power and race
and gender, and things like that. So it was really empowering to work with
faculty who are either researchers on that or who are explicitly teaching
issues related to that during the MSI process (M, C, p. 2).

Matt summed up his experience by saying that, “throughout my time at
Mountainside College, I’ve been involved in various diversity and multicultural
initiatives” (M, A, p. 2).
Matt’s Motivation to Participate
After being asked to participate in the Mountainside Interview Project, Matt
agreed to volunteer his time and efforts to the project. As Matt had already involved
himself in diversity initiatives for a number of years, issues of social justice were
constantly on his mind. He shared that,
In just about everything I do I try to think explicitly about diversity. I would
say implicitly it's always there. Most of the time I try to make it explicit,
whether it's thinking about who is studying abroad when I was Director of
International Programs; or what the makeup of the math majors looks like;
[and faculty] hiring processes. All that kind of stuff (M, A, p. 2).

Thus, before the Mountainside Interview Project began, Matt’s intentions of
promoting ethnic minorities’ success informed his practical decisions in the various
roles he assumed at the college.
190
It was not until my third interview with Matt that he revealed that his gay
identity underscored and shaped his commitment to issues of social justice. He
explained,
Honestly, probably the underlying force is the fact that I'm gay. So I have a
one particular piece of me that is sort of in a less powered position. And so
I see the impact that that can have living in society. And through that
perhaps, I learned also that there are lots of other aspects of me being a
male. Being white. Being well educated. Being, you know, upper-middle
income. All that stuff that does give me power. And sort of thinking about,
‘Okay, well, how do I put all this together and think about others?’ (M, C, p.
1).

Matt evaluated his dual identity as an individual with and without power. On the one
hand, he understood and empathized with individuals from marginalized and
subordinated groups. On the other hand, Matt acknowledged his status as a
privileged white, male. He continually questioned the interplay between these two
competing ways of being.
Matt’s conscientiousness about power relations inherent in the politics of
difference among groups attracted him to work at Mountainside College because of
its mission to diversity. He stated,
I think one of the reasons I came to Mountainside College was because of its
commitment to diversity. And it was an explicit choice and an explicit thing
that I thought about coming. And I think I've continued to try to educate
myself. What does that mean? And what's my part of the commitment to
it? Because I believe in it and it's become a part of who I am. And so it
becomes very explicit in the day-to-day things that I do (M, C, p. 1).

By continuing to ask questions about diversity, equity, and his commitment to these
causes, Matt strove to raise his awareness and understand Mountainside’s campus
climate and dynamics, particularly concerning race, gender, and sexual orientation.
191
He embodied Mountainside’s dedication to such causes by using this knowledge to
guide daily decisions on campus.
First Inquiry Meeting February 2004
During the first collaborative inquiry meeting, Matt became highly involved
in the team’s discussion. He brought forth constructive commentary, thoughtful
questions, and suggestions to improve upon the logistics of the project, for example,
the creation of the interview protocol. The meeting began with discussion of team
members’ impressions of their first round of interviews. Like, Grace and Barbara,
Matt noted the unique characteristics of each student interviewee that distinguished
each one from the other. Matt noted,
It really struck me how it was so much individual—more personality than
color of their skin, background. One student didn’t have friends and didn’t
feel anyone listened to her and the other had a lot of friends. But both were
Latinas (M, 1, p. 2).

In particular, Matt took notice of the varying pathways that students chose to receive
support on campus. He shared this analysis with the others on the team:
I found that people [students] choose different ways to get their support.
This one young man sought out sports as a support structure. The other one
said that they went to CASA [Central American Student Association], but didn’t
see it as a support structure. Some students identify cultural support
structures as supportive and some did not (M, 2, p. 2).

Later in the meeting, Matt responded to one of the institutional researchers on
the team who noted his surprise to find that each student interviewee was different
from the “stereotypical Latina” he expected. Matt tied in this individual’s comments
to his concern for issues of power. Matt said,
192
That is the culture of power. Some people can pass in different places….
[The institutional researcher] talked about within group differences. There
are light skinned African Americans and dark skinned African Americans.
And then there are Latinos who don’t speak Spanish and those who do (M,
2, p. 2).

Matt believed that observing dissimilarities among students was only the first
step in investigating students’ experiences. An equally important analysis of
these experiences required attending to the underlying dimensions of power,
such as “passing in different places,” inherent in culture and skin color.
In addition to pointing out intricacies in students’ experiences to his
colleagues, Matt questioned and reiterated the purposes of the Mountainside
Interview Project. Matt asked,
What is it that we are trying to do with this project? My interpretation is
that we are trying to see if we can do things differently or provide things to
help everybody to succeed to their fullest potential. And if there are
blockages we need to address those. Some of those things are about power
and authority and these questions [in the interview protocol] talk about that
(M, 1, p. 4).

While he questioned his fellow team members’ intentions in the project, Matt at the
same time explicitly communicated his interpretation of the project’s goals. Matt
indeed emphasized the main purpose of the project clearly. By restating the project’s
central goal, he assisted others in becoming clear about what they hoped to achieve
in the Mountainside Interview Project. Matt added,
The issue for the college here is sophomore to junior retention now.
Freshman to sophomore year used to be a problem several years ago. It may
be worthwhile to see what problems crop up for students during sophomore
year (M, 1, p. 8).

193
With Matt’s extensive leadership experience and knowledge of Mountainside
College, he appeared to be clear about the role of the interview project. He
understood the way in which the project was situated among the dynamics of
Mountainside College and how it could inform Mountainside College’s practices
with students. In addition, Matt noted to his team members that this kind of project
could establish relationships and connections to students, providing them a unique
source of support. He described this process by saying, “You keep touching them by
saying that there is a person who is a resource for them. We are trying to create a
community for them” (M, 1, p. 6).
While Matt was not necessarily concerned with having a control group, as
were Grace and Barbara, Matt did express several concerns about the project’s
methodology. He asked one of the institutional researchers on the team, “Have we
checked to see how representative of the population these students are?” (B, 1, p. 7).
The institutional researcher assured him that the group of students did constitute a
representative sample.
Later in the meeting, another institutional researcher raised another
methodological question. He asked the team if, “It would be advantageous to look at
[academic] transcripts early” (1, p. 7). Analyzing student interviewees’ academic
transcripts could provide clues into how well they fared at Mountainside College.
Matt did not believe analyzing students’ transcripts from the beginning would be
wise. He feared that his new knowledge or understanding of students would taint his
ability to be more objective. Matt stated, “It might not necessarily be a good thing
194
because I’ll ask different kinds of questions of the students knowing what I know”
(M, 1, p. 7).
Second Collaborative Inquiry Meeting, March 2004
Matt once again participated enthusiastically in the second inquiry meeting in
March of 2004. He vocalized his concerns and suggestions when the team
collaboratively generated interview questions for the second round of student
interviews. Matt noted that he felt an important focus for this interview protocol
pertained to students’ “classroom and academic experiences” (M, 2, p. 5). His
suggestions to the team reflected this proposed focus. Aside from the designated
facilitators of the inquiry team meeting, Matt was most involved in directing and
redirecting the flow of conversation to keep the team on task.
First Interview, April 2004
My first interview with Matt took place in a formal conference room in the
Administration Building at Mountainside College next to the President’s office. As
the Deputy to the President, Matt’s office was situated in this building. After telling
me about himself and the various positions he occupied at Mountainside College,
Matt articulated his expectations of the Mountainside Interview Project. He
explained that he felt comfortable with the qualitative methods of the interview
project—a stark contrast from the opinions of Barbara and Grace. Matt remarked,
Yes, it really has and it’s very similar to the type of research I do in
mathematics education. I actually do sort of qualitative research studies,
interviewing students while they are solving math problems, which
obviously that part is very different (M, A, p. 3).

195
Because of Matt’s familiarity with qualitative inquiry methodology, he felt much
more at ease about the project’s methods and was “comfortable” in his role as
interviewer. Matt had a clear understanding of the purpose of the interview project.
He said,
I knew it was going to be qualitative research, interviewing the students. I
think my sense at the beginning was we were going to try to find if there
were specific qualities or actions or support structures that specifically
helped underrepresented students to achieve to their fullest. If we could
figure out what those were, then we could put a focus on those and also
build other structures similar to those, to support particularly
underrepresented students. But I also expected whatever we do is going to
help all students here at Mountainside College (M, A, p. 2).

Similar to Grace and Barbara, Matt desired the student interviews to inform his
understanding of the ways in which particular students felt encouraged or hindered
from succeeding at Mountainside College. Yet Matt perceived the impact this
information could have on institutional practices on a grander scale compared to
Grace and Barbara. As biology professors, Grace and Barbara hoped students’
stories might shed light on ways to improve practices in the division of the sciences
or in science classrooms. Coming from various leadership roles, Matt saw this
information as having potential to inform decisions campus-wide and at many levels.
I asked Matt to describe what he learned from his interviews with two Latina
women and one Latino male. He found that “all three interviews were very engaged.
Students talked very openly and freely about their experiences” (M, A, p. 3). Matt
recognized the distinctive features of each student, as had Grace and Barbara. He
commented that, “Every student was completely different. All three of my students
196
are Latino or Latina, but all three from incredibly different backgrounds and three
having completely different experiences here” (M, A, p. 3). Matt became
particularly concerned about one of the Latina students because, “she wasn’t so
happy here” (M, A, p. 3). In particular, Matt observed from his interview with her
that,
She hadn’t connected very well. She didn’t feel ‘in.’ But at the same time,
she talked about these incredibly deep friendships she had with two other
women here. So the three of them did everything. When she talked about
that, it seemed like somebody who was just really well adjusted to college
and she really felt a part of it. And maybe the three of them sort of feed
each other on this idea that it’s the three of them against the whole college,
or something like that, and the three of them don’t fit in. She lives in the
multi-cultural dorms, but feels somewhat disconnected from it (M, A, p. 3).

Matt’s naturally inquisitive nature prompted him to question the
circumstances that characterized the Latina student’s disconnect from
Mountainside College. He went on to say,
So it’s almost like I wanted to probe deeper: why is this? Is it her choices?
Because she is really choosing to really spend almost all of her time with
two other people and that choice excludes interaction from everybody else.
Or is it because of her background? She talks a lot about being…seen more
as Mexican than either Mexican American or Latina. It’s sort of an identity
issue. But is it her own identity issue? Or is it an external identity issue of
how people view her? (M, A, p. 3).

Though Matt did not necessarily ask these questions of his interviewee, he continued
to entertain and reflect on the circumstances relating to the students’ detachment to
the campus community.
All together, Matt’s three interviewees brought to his attention the
importance of social networks. Matt gathered from his interviews that “they all find
197
their own network” (M, A, p. 4). He described the various networks by detailing two
of the three student interviewees’ experiences with developing supportive social
groups:
For this [Latina] woman it was a network of three. For the guy I interviewed
it was basically the network of the track team. He was in inter-collegiate
athletics and that was really his support structure in the friends he made and
that kind of stuff (M, A, p. 4).

While Matt keenly observed that networks played a role in students’ engagement to
the campus community, he admitted that this very notion was not new to him. He
said, “None of that is surprising. Even the fact that they are all different… isn’t really
surprising to me” (M, A, p. 4).
Beyond the role of learning about students’ experiences in the Mountainside
Interview Project, Matt assumed an additional role to simply interviewing. Right
after his first interview, Matt immediately became a form of support for the
particular Latina student he worried about. The student approached Matt to ask him
to write a letter of recommendation. He recalled,
The interesting thing is that she also came to me a few weeks later and asked
me to write a letter of recommendation for a position in the Intercultural
Community Center. It seemed like an unusual request from somebody who
feels so disconnected. But I also thought that was a fabulous opportunity for
her to become connected. I think it’s probably dissonance within herself:
feeling like though she belongs and she doesn’t belong. So it was a really
wonderful thing to see her wanting to get involved in particular ways (M, A,
p. 4).

Matt viewed himself as a student advocate in spite of the fact that he did not know
the Latina student very well. He took this role seriously and did not hesitate to
question whether he should behave as more than an interviewer to student
198
interviewees. He, in fact, planned to play an active role as is evidenced by the
following statement:
Now I want to intervene, and I want to find out a little bit more about why
she is speaking and feeling some of the things she was. And how do I help
support that? I think in some ways I’ve done that, in a very indirect way by
continuing to keep in touch with all three of the students and finding out
how I can help at sort of various stages in their life here at Mountainside
College (M, A, p. 3).

Matt’s concerted efforts to continue to connect with students was a sign of
commitment and dedication—not only to the project but, more importantly, to the
students.
While one might typically view students as the beneficiaries of developing a
connection to a campus leader like Matt, I found that Matt equally benefited from
this relationship. He said,
It’s a great way to get to know a couple of frosh that you don’t know. And
in some ways I created a different type of connection with the three students
I’m interviewing than I would with students in general. I feel connected to
them outside of this project as well, but know that my connection to them is
basically from this project (M, A, p. 2).

At this point in the project, Matt realized the unique and rich kind of relationship he
created with these students. This was just the beginning of Matt’s process of
learning from students over the course of the project.
Second Interview, June 2004
Though Matt could not attend the third collaborative inquiry meeting at the
end of April, I met with him right after he interviewed his three students for the
second time. He continued to focus on the Latina student, who in their first
199
interview, felt lost, disconnected, and disengaged from Mountainside College. “She
was the one before,” recalled Matt, “who was talking about nobody talking to her
and feeling completely isolated” (M, B, p. 1). To Matt’s surprise, he found that
when he interviewed her the second time, a major transformation had occurred:
The last time we talked, there was one I was particularly worried about.
And it was really interesting, because it was a complete flip-flop. She was
the one who I felt, now, was most engaged and happiest here and just really
excited (M, B, p. 1).

This turn of events caused Matt to feel “stunned and incredibly pleased at the same
time” (M, B, p. 1).
I asked Matt to explicate further the ways in which the student had changed
her mind about how she felt as a student of color at Mountainside College. After
probing and asking the student further questions, Matt explained what the Latina
student revealed:
It’s almost like she just realized that she could make herself feel more
comfortable and feel happy here. She was the one who asked me for a letter
of recommendation to apply for, it’s like a peer advisor in the Intercultural
Community Center. And I actually started out by asking her how that went.
And she said she didn’t get it. And I think she was disappointed about that,
but it was almost like that was the trigger that led her to feel like it was okay
to try these things and to be more involved. And suddenly she talked about
how many friends she had in her residence hall. And how close everybody
was (M, B, p. 2).

Quite pleased with the students’ transition, Matt understood more clearly the
elements that contributed to her enhanced connection to the college campus. While
the student did not successfully obtain the position in the Intercultural Community
Center at Mountainside College, from Matt’s perspective, this event became
200
instrumental in teaching the student that life constituted taking risks, whether or not
such risks resulted in achievement. Perhaps this healthy risk-taking behavior carried
over into the student’s willingness to develop relationships with peers on campus.
By the time he spoke to her the second time, Matt noted that her relationships with
other students had grown in quantity and quality.
Matt felt that the majority of issues his three student interviewees faced were
not uncommon. Students’ narratives materialized into “typical stories that I sort of
get used to hearing from, especially frosh, of procrastination. Theoretically, they
understand what would help them be more successful students, but rarely do they
actually practice it” (M, B, p. 1).
Matt continued to keep in touch with all three of his interviewees. Out of
care and concern, he contacted the three students via email to continue to remind
them that he was a resource for them at Mountainside College. Matt did not falter in
his efforts to become more than just an interviewer to the students as he,
emailed the three students, I think, every other week. Just as far as, ‘How’s
it going? You know, it’s registration time. Did you get everything you
wanted? You know, do you need to talk?’ (M, B, p. 3).

In one sense, Matt continued his qualitative inquiry of the students by asking
questions of them via email. Yet his purpose in persisting with such inquiry did not
solely serve to inform his own understanding of students. He truly wanted to assist
them through their college-going career.
In response to Matt’s emails, the students did not raise any new matters of
concern. Matt said that,
201
They always wrote back and said, ‘Thanks for e-mailing me.’ But there was
never any big issues that they came back with, except, again, for the request
for the letter of recommendation. But I think just sort of having yet another
resource and knowing that somebody cared, it just sort of helps (M, B, p. 3).

Like Grace and Barbara, Matt expressed care for his interviewees. Yet Matt
demonstrated his commitment to students by taking a more proactive stance with
them. He remembered to email them on a continual basis, never wavering in his
decision to intervene when necessary.
Matt differed from Grace and Barbara more so in regard to his comfort with
the methodology of qualitative interviews and also with engaging in a discussion
about racial experiences with students of color. Matt reiterated that, “for my
research, I actually interview students. And so it was quite comfortable” (M, B, p.
2). In addition, Matt did not worry about power dynamics between him and his
student interviewees. “I didn’t really feel [the power dynamic] either time” (M, B, p.
2) he interviewed the students, Matt commented. Discussing racial matters did not
make him uneasy. Matt attributed his ease to the fact that students had been
informed about the purpose of these interviews. Thus, Matt and the students were on
the same page in terms of understanding that race would be a topic of conversation.
He stated, “They know this is a study about issues of diversity on campus” (M, B, p.
2).
Similar to Grace and Barbara, Matt perceived his development on the
Mountainside College Project team as a way to further facilitate and accomplish the
202
diversity mission of the university in two ways. First, Matt expressed the importance
of this project for his personal growth as a member of Mountainside College.
I think, from a personal perspective, we can all continue to learn. Having
the opportunity to talk, sort of so personally with students of color--and find
out where they’re coming from and what their challenges are and what they
see as their successes--I continue to learn about how I interact with all
students, but particularly students of color. And what I could do better and
what my challenges are. So on a personal level, it’s sort of exciting because
I continue to develop and grow (M, B, p. 2).

Matt’s inquisitive nature continued to influence the way he conceived his role on the
Mountainside Interview project. He viewed himself as a learner who benefited from
this unique kind of professional development.
Second, in addition to noting his personal growth in the project, Matt
identified the interview project as informing institutional practices. “I think, from an
institutional perspective I just think it’s very important work” (M, B, p. 2), Matt
observed. Matt served on many committees at Mountainside, including the Council
for Access and Achievement. He explained that this council and the president aimed
to move the discussion about students of color from structural diversity (or
representation of student ethnic groups) to issues of equity. Matt agreed that
structural diversity included “really important goals and we need to keep pushing on
the structure front, but there’s a whole lot more to the diversity conversation that we
all need to have” (M, B, p. 3). Matt felt that the Mountainside Interview Project,
Was getting beyond that [discussion of structural diversity] and talking
about achievement of all students, and trying to see if there’s inequity in
that. And looking at ways that we can continue to foster success with all
students. So, institutionally, allowing us to have these dialogues about
pushing beyond just the numerical results to, ‘Well, what do we do with
203
students when they actually get here? How does that change the
institutional culture? And, and how do each of us sort of have to reform
what we think about higher education?’ Even for a place like Mountainside
College, I think that’s the challenging next step, as an institution. I think
there are lots of individuals who think critically about that. But as an
institution, we’re still, you know, taking the baby steps there (M, B, p. 3).

Matt’s focus on institutional dialogue was well aligned with the goals he had in mind
for Mountainside Interview Project. The dialogue between faculty and student
interviewees and the dialogue among members of the collaborative inquiry group,
according to Matt, could “elevate the institutional dialogue” (M, B, p. 3). What he
learned from students and from collaborative inquiry meetings could inform his
decisions on campus. For example, Matt carried out affirmative action measures
when admitting students to the college. At times, he received criticism for his
admission practices.
Every time I have a round of admission cycle, you know, everybody’s like,
‘Oh, we have two or three Latino students and, you know, five more
African-American students, but eighteen fewer Asian-American students.
What are you doing? And why are you screwing up here?’ (M, B, p. 3).

Matt felt that the information he gained from the interview project would assist him
to address these kinds of questions and criticisms from his colleagues. The
information from student interviews had the potential to inform his decisions and
bring legitimacy to those decisions.
Matt ended his interview by adding his reflections on the importance of
questioning one’s assumptions about students, especially about the way they
experience learning a subject like math. He felt that,
204
For all professors, part of our ongoing challenge has to be that we can’t
make assumptions that everybody is like us or wants to be like us. So, you
know, not everybody is going on to get a PhD in mathematics. Not
everybody learns mathematics the same way. Not everybody is challenged
by the same things or thinks the same things are easy (M, B, p. 5).

Matt encouraged challenging his own and his colleagues assumptions. He viewed
this kind of personal inquiry as necessary to meeting students’ needs. Matt believed
that “everybody has to develop an understanding of these issues, and then
continually sort of challenge themselves to strive to address them, in the classroom,
out of the classroom” (M, B, p. 5).
Fourth Collaborative Inquiry Meeting, September 2004
When the faculty and administrators came back from their summer break, the
team met in September 2004 for their fourth collaborative inquiry meeting. At this
point in the project, two full rounds of student interviews had been conducted by the
faculty participants. Another facilitator and I assisted the team in analyzing the
transcripts from these interviews. We extracted quotes that appeared to be
noteworthy or that served to represent a common theme that emerged from the
interviews.
One of the major themes that students discussed in their interviews pertained
to the desire to feel connected to faculty members. Wanting rich interactions with
faculty members, many students cited small, interactive classes where faculty
member were passionate about students and the subject they taught as their favorite
kind of learning environment. Matt chimed in to this discussion by adding that, “the
205
literature also points to the fact that students stay in college when they feel
connected” (M, 4, p. 5).
As the discussion continued, the group discussed the implications of larger
class sizes. Matt noted that 30 to 40 students typically enrolled into freshman
classes. Large classes might prevent the close interaction with peers and professors
that students desired. Matt surmised,
Just the structure of higher education may prevent every class from being 16
students. But how do you create an atmosphere where there are places and
times where they feel really connected? And how do we, those of us who
teach the 50-60 lecture classes engage students? (M, 4, p. 6).

Matt’s thoughtful questions gave the team pause. While only a couple of team
members directly responded to this question, Matt had prompted an instance of
personal reflection across the Mountainside Interview Project team.
Another interesting finding that came across from the student interviews was
students’ concern for a lack of diversity at Mountainside College. A number of
students felt misled by Mountainside’s advertisements of a diverse institution.
Individuals on the team discussed the implications of this finding. During this
discussion, Matt keenly noticed the conflicting sentiment of some students—those
who felt Mountainside was diverse but needed more diversity. Matt wondered
aloud,
It’s also interesting because there is this dichotomy that a lot of students of
color say. They say it’s a diverse campus and at the same time they say it’s
not that diverse. What do they compare this diversity to? The U.S.? The
environment [they] feel more comfortable with? (M, 4, p. 6).

206
Matt questioned the various ways one could interpret students’ opinions about
Mountainside’s campus climate and student diversity.
The complexity of students’ experiences that Matt pinpointed was consistent
with the complex experience of the Latina interviewee to which he often referred.
She felt at one point disconnected from the campus community and connected at
another point. In the project meeting Matt explained to the team that the student did
not feel disconnected from Mountainside’s community any longer. He described her
as having undergone an “incredible transformation” (M, 4, p. 10). In particular, Matt
shared,
She had a lot of self-identity issues and she saw herself as Mexican. And she
felt that people didn’t interact with her because of her identity. But when I
interviewed her the second time around, she had more friends, she was
engaged, she applied for a position in the Intercultural Community Center.
This summer we had some email exchanges and she was so excited (M, 4, p.
10).

Matt felt that some of this student’s transformation could be explained by the
relationship he and the student developed. In fact, he felt that connecting with
students in this unique way benefited all three of his interviewees. He shared with
his team members,
It’s interesting to me, having done the interviews. It truly affected the three
students I interviewed. They suddenly felt a new connection in a completely
different way to a completely different person. This summer I wrote to all
of my interviewees and said, ‘Oh, hey. How is your summer? Just checking
in.’ And they all wrote back. I have an email here from the woman who was
totally disconnected in February. She said, ‘It makes me feel so good to
hear from you since not that many people write me and it makes me happy
to know that a Mountainside College faculty member thinks about me and
my summer adventures.’ And she goes on and on. That’s one thing that is
going to keep the student here, make them successful, and feel that they
207
belong here. So I think there are multiple reasons to do these types of things
(M, 4, p. 13).

Matt ended his thoughts by adding:
Time consuming as [the Mountainside Interview Project] is, it connects us
to students and makes them want to stay. It continues to give us information
about what we can continue to do. But somehow we have to get the
information to the right places. And ask the right questions of the
information (M, 4, p. 13).

In expressing his enthusiasm for the project, Matt listed the many ways he saw this
project as a great contributor to realizing minority student success. Not only could
this project make students feel as if they mattered on campus. The information from
student interviews could also be used to improve upon campus processes and
structures that affect students.
Later in the fourth collaborative inquiry meeting, Barbara, one of the biology
professors on the team, mentioned that she was “struggling” with the idea of not
having a control group. She felt that any of these stories heard in the interviews with
students of color could have “come from the fundamentalist Christians on campus”
(4, p. 11), for example. Barbara suggested that, “Part of what we have to tease out is
what’s the experience of these students is because they are students of color” (4, p.
11). Afterward, Matt intervened by asking Barbara a question: “Would you agree
that there are some instances here--like the person says, ‘I’m Black, when I speak, I
have to speak polished English’--it really is a race based?” (M, 4, p. 11).
Barbara did not directly answer Matt’s question. She later commented, “I’m
not trying to minimize the problem. It might help us in our work to take that
208
universal experience or at least partition the way students experience Mountainside
College” (M, 4, p. 12). After some brief discussion amongst the team, Matt chimed
in: “I think a different way to look at it is not partitioning what’s race specific and
what’s general for all 18 years olds. But what added complexity does their race
add?” Matt’s questions served to stimulate thought among Barbara and the
Mountainside Interview Project team members. In fact, Matt’s way of adding to
team dialogue was by asking questions. Asking questions and prompting individuals
to think critically about campus and student issues became Matt’s role on the team.
Toward the end of the collaborative inquiry meeting held in September 2004,
Matt brought the team discussion to a close by offering none other than questions for
the team members to ponder. He boldly asked the team:
What from the stories of these 23 students can help us think hard about our
roles as faculty, what we do in and out of the classroom, etc.? How can we
tell that story and share that story broadly? I think the same can be said
about how we think about student affairs professionals, what we do in the
residence halls, student activities, support services. And what in the stories
of these 23 students help us think about structural aspects of the institution,
from classrooms with fixed seating to who we put in dorm rooms together?
How can we build from these stories to get us thinking hard about what we
as an institution and we as individuals of this institution can do? (M, 4, p.
13).

As the meeting concluded, Matt declared his commitment to the project as
the team discussed whether to continue interviewing students into their sophomore
years. Matt responded,
Yes, I’m personally willing to continue sophomore interviews, to continue
the connection with those students. I’m also willing to continue frosh
interviews and bring in new faculty. We have to develop themes that are
supported by these students’ stories and can inform faculty discussions and
209
what we do, student affairs discussions and what we do, VP discussion and
what they do, and structural discussion and what they do (M, 4, p. 16).

Fifth Collaborative Inquiry Meeting, November 2004
The team met briefly in November to finalize the interview protocol for the
third round of student interviews. Once again, Matt served an instrumental role of
guiding the discussion on constructing the protocol, offering thoughtful suggestions
and advice. Matt urged the team to think of critical questions: “Why students left is
all over the map. There was no unifying reason why they left but I think that was a
function of superficial questions. We may want to dig deep” (M, 5, p. 3).
In addition to facilitating conversation about the kinds of questions that
should be included in the protocol, Matt suggested that the interview findings should
be shared with others on campus. As in the past, Matt stated that the interview
findings should be disseminated to the Council on Access and Achievement, a
committee on which he served. Packaging and delivering the interview project to the
committee seemed to be important to Matt as well. He communicated that the way
in which the information was delivered mattered: “The [committee] should get a
copy of the interview protocols, plus the two page summary, and the newsletter as
one little packet” (M, 5, p. 1). Always thinking strategically, Matt pushed the team
to look beyond the interview protocol itself to the ways in which the findings could
be communicated to persuade the committee that this project held great importance.
210
Sixth Collaborative Inquiry Meeting, February 2005
After the meeting in November 2004, the Mountainside Inquiry Project team
convened in January to strictly discuss interviewing techniques with an expert
interview trainer. At this meeting, the interview trainer suggested that the third
round of interviews follow a loosely structured interview format. Instead of reading
questions verbatim from the protocol, the interviewers were encouraged to explore
designated themes with each student, allowing for more of a conversation than a
rigid question and answer format. Matt voiced that he particularly did not like this
idea during the meeting, perhaps because it was a change in the way the interviews
would be conducted mid-project.
The team met again in February 2005 to have a dialogue about the third
round of interviews they conducted. Matt admitted,
Frustrated as I was at the last meeting, I was very happy that’s where we
ended up because what I did was I read their previous [interview] transcripts
before they came into the interview. And then I wrote down categories that I
wanted to get at. I tried to do something with ‘community,’ something with
‘diversity.’ And something always tied with what they had said previously
(M, 6, p. 2).

He continued by telling the team about the outcome of his reformed method of
conducting interviews:
It was very positive. It’s amazing, really interesting. I just love talking with
all of these students. I even said that to them. I said that this has been a
great opportunity for me to get to know you all—people I probably wouldn’t
have gotten to know just through the normal course of what I do at
Mountainside College (M, 6, p. 2).

211
Aside from feeling satisfied with the way his third round of interviews
materialized, Matt learned more about “the woman who felt she didn’t belong” (M,
6, p. 2). In particular, “language came out as a big thing for her” (M, 6, p. 3). Matt
told the team that “her parents are from an indigenous tribe in Mexico. It’s
interesting. She talks a lot about fitting in. When she speaks in class she tries to
speak with what she calls very proper English” (M, 6, p. 3). Matt’s story of the
Latina student sparked a discussion among the team about the ways in which some
students of color felt scrutinized in the classroom. “I tried to get at some of these
issues” (M, 6, p. 3), remarked Matt. He asked the students whom he interviewed,
“Do you see ethnic identity or how others perceive you has an effect on your
success? Maybe with the exception of this woman who says she has to check herself
because of the way she speaks English, the other two didn’t feel that much” (M, 6, p.
4). Matt wondered aloud, “I think part of that is getting used to being in this
particular environment from freshman to sophomore year. My guess is that the
issues are deeper, that the structural barriers are deeper. And it’s both harder for us to
get at and harder for them to articulate” (M, 6, p. 4).
Matt believed that the barriers students experienced might manifest
themselves into feelings of marginalization on the students’ part. While students did
not or could not yet articulate the ways in which structural barriers facilitated their
marginalization, the students could still describe the feeling of marginalization itself.
Matt shared with the others:
212
I think we can think of sophomores, juniors, and seniors, while they may
like the institution well enough to stay here and love the institution, also
have very deep-seated concerns about how they are still at the margins. It’s
in the margins in very particular ways and particular contexts (M, 6, p. 8).

The Mountainside Interview Project, according to Matt, might contribute to this
feeling of marginalization. Matt surmised that the project had a dichotomous effect
on students: “It may make them feel like they both matter and are marginalized at
the same time” (M, 6, p. 8). On one hand, Matt acknowledged that this project
facilitated a new connection between faculty and students, allowing students to feel
as if they mattered. Matt accordingly verbalized at one point in the meeting that,
“The literature does say that the relationships with faculty and others has to do with
persistence” (M, 6, p. 7). On the other hand, selecting these students particularly
because of their minority status and asking them about this status might contribute to
the feeling of being an outsider.
Still, Matt took the opportunity during his student interviews to use the
structured time wisely. He attempted to allow students to voice their experiences
and suggestions to improve upon institutional barriers. Noting that institutional
actors habitually operate from the state of mind that, “It’s about [the students]
changing as opposed to the institution changing” (M, 6, p. 3), Matt purposefully
approached this topic with his student interviewees from the opposite point of view.
It was the students, he figured, who could provide some insight into how institutions
could work more effectively toward promoting equal outcomes. “I tried to get at that
in the interviews,” Matt recalled. “And I said, ‘What can the institution do?’ That
213
would be about the institution changing. The question didn’t work very well. I’m
not sure 19 year olds think about institutions changing” (M, 6, p. 3). In fact, for the
Latina interviewee who Matt consistently mentioned, she had “a sense and a feeling
that she had to adapt” (M, 6, p. 3), as opposed to the faculty and administrators at
Mountainside College.
After student interviewees articulated their feelings about how others
perceived them, marginalization, and structural barriers, Matt purposefully reflected
on the conclusions he could draw from the interviews. These conclusions brought to
bear implications for institutional change. For instance, Matt touched on an issue
that Grace referred to in a past collaborative inquiry meeting about the ways in
which this project could impact faculty-student advising relationships. He said to the
team:
[Grace] said in the first or second meeting we had, ‘Now that I’ve had this
experience, why can’t I do this with every one of my advisees?’ Particularly
for students of color or other students whose transitions into higher
education may or may not be different, we can let them know that we care
about them. They are people and we are people who can have these deep,
meaningful conversations with them. The question is if you are in this more
formal role of advisor/ advisee, does that change the nature [of the
relationship]? Does that not change the nature? (M, 6, p. 5).

After posing these questions, others chimed in. Matt sparked a thoughtful
conversation about the advising culture at Mountainside College as a result of his
reflective questions.
In addition to discussing the impact the interview project might have on the
college, Matt spoke about the ways in which the project had affected him personally.
214
Sharing his thoughts with others on the team, Matt communicated what he learned
about certain issues students faced from a different lens or perspective. For example,
“One student did talk about diversity. When I asked about diversity she said
[Mountainside College] wasn’t as diverse. But she said, ‘Maybe that’s our
perceptions as students of color.’ So it’s about looking at things from different
lenses” (M, 6, p. 4). Later in the meeting, Matt built upon his previous statement by
noting that the project, “Deepens my thinking and commitment that was probably
already there in terms of thinking about everybody as individuals and coming from
lots of different places that I can’t understand and that I want to try to understand and
engage in” (M, 6, p. 6).
Matt challenged himself to understand the perspectives of his student
interviewees, such as the way in which they identified themselves, viewed diversity,
and felt others placed them at the margins. In noticing the lens or perspective from
which students of color operated, Matt was reminded of the fact that his reality was
different from theirs. This differentiation naturally limited his ability to fully
comprehend how students perceived their experience at Mountainside College. As
such, Matt confessed that in his thoughts and actions he was not always sensitive
toward others’ realities. He remarked, “I continue to realize the stupid, dumb things
that I think and say as I engage in this kind of work.” More specifically, Matt
disclosed,
I say racist, sexist stuff. By critically engaging in this work, it just helps me
realize that I carry lots and lots of baggage with me. I come from very
specific perspectives. And I say things that seem reasonable from my
215
perspective, but as I interact with others in this kind of work I realize that,
‘Hmmm, what I just said completely did not resonate with this person who
probably views it from a completely different perspective’ (M, 6, p. 6).

Third Interview, March 2005
My third interview with Matt occurred in his office once again. The location
of his office changed to a smaller space on the first floor situated within the same
administration building on campus. Matt was no longer the Deputy to the President.
He now served as Director of Junior and Senior Years at Mountainside College. I
sat down across from him in his quaint office. In this interview, Matt continued to
speak about students’ experiences in very intricate ways—from discerning
dichotomies in students’ stories to acknowledging underlying racial matters that
were often inexplicit or hidden in students’ stories. He compared his experience as
an undergraduate to those of his student interviewees. Matt recounted,
Being a white person in a predominantly white institution with all white
faculty, I can't even think of a faculty member I had who was a person of
color when I was an undergraduate. You know, there aren't issues of voice
and things like that that are defined by race or ethnicity to think about and
wonder about and wonder what's missing or what's not there (M, C, p. 8).

While Matt found that race did complicate his student interviewees’
academic lives compared to his own, he did note that issues of identity and
experience affected the degree to which race played a role in their lives.
Specifically, he mentioned, “The interesting thing is, I think partly it's how they
choose to primarily define both themselves as well as their experience and how they
interact with the campus” (M, C, p. 7). Matt contrasted two of his student
216
interviewees: the Latina female to which he usually referred and a Latino male. He
first spoke of the Latina female:
So I think, you know, one student, the fact that she is a student of color is
primary to just about anything else. And so it really defines a lot of her
experiences. And it defines the good things. And it defines the really bad
things. And even the way she integrates or doesn't integrate within the
community of students of color on campus, is so much highlighted.
Because it is such a strong part of how she thinks of herself right now (M,
C, p. 7).

For this particular student, race played a central role in the way she experienced
Mountainside College and her interactions with individuals on campus.
The Latino male interviewee, conversely, developed a much different
interpretation of the way in which issues of race played a part in his life. Matt
explained,
[For] another student… being a student of color is not very high up on his
consciousness. And, well, he knows he's a student of color. But he
probably identifies as a soccer player more than anything else. And that's
what defines his experiences and who he's with and how he lives his life on
this campus (M, C, p. 7).

In sum, Matt felt that part of students’ academic experiences had to do with “where
they are in terms of their various identifications… So I think it depends on where
they are in terms of their thinking about being a person of color and how that does
shape their life and their experience” (M, C, p. 7). Like Grace and Barbara, Matt
discovered that the student interviewees were characterized by “different textures”
(M, C, p. 5). He “made a really deep connection with three particular students” (M,
C, p. 4) who were more dissimilar to each other than similar. Noting students’
217
distinctiveness reminded Matt that over-generalizing about students hid the varying
features about each individual student.
Matt, however, did find some commonalities among his interviewees,
particularly in terms of students adapting to the college. It was not until after his
third round of interviews with students who were now sophomores that Matt
confidently said, “All three of them had just sort of found a place here” (M, C, p. 7).
Matt attributed this newfound sense of comfort and belonging to students’ ability to
adapt to the campus environment. While Matt “felt good” about hearing that the
students were more secure at Mountainside College, he questioned the idea of
students adapting to the college rather than the college adapting to the students. He
remarked,
Institutions in some ways are structured. You know, to be successful you
speak in this way, and you write in academic pros, and there's a certain
meaning for that. People just adapt to that. It's almost like they know that
this is the game that they have to play. And so you adapt to what it means to
be there. So it's like some things you just sort of wonder how you would
change (M, C, p. 10).

Unfortunately, in his attempt to garner ideas about how the institution could
change, student interviewees did not or could not successfully articulate to
Matt the various ways structures or processes that might potentially be altered
at Mountainside College. Matt reiterated,
They don't even seem to see it as barriers. Because they feel that that's
exactly what they're supposed to do and sort of change to it… But there are
other structures that are just sort of there. And that's the way it is. Is it more
about adaptation? And is that a good thing? How do we get at that? So
those are institutional structures that sometimes just seem really invisible.
That's just sort of the way they are. And so students don't really think about
218
the fact that their either adapting to it. Or may not even be aware that this is
a barrier to what's going on (M, C, p. 11).

The limited information Matt gathered from students on the ways in which
the institution could change caused him to ask more questions. Nevertheless, he still
felt strongly about the potential impact student interviews could have on institutional
practices. Matt thought about the various levels at which institutions and
institutional actors might develop their ability to serve students as a result of
dialoguing with students:
You're using those dialogues to continue to help us think critically about
how we teach, how we do research, how policies influence various groups,
how we shape our curriculum. All those types of things. But ultimately,
this has got to impact more peoples’ thinking. And it's got to impact the
institution (M, C, p. 14).

Matt expressed how he himself became affected by interviewing students.
Once again, he touched on the point he raised in the last collaborative inquiry
meeting regarding “the stupid, dumb things that I think and say” (M, 6, p. 6). Matt
expounded upon being reminded that his circumscribed perspective sometimes
clouded his judgments:
In some ways I'm continually reminded of all the stupid mistakes that I
make and all the assumptions that I still bring to the table. And, you know,
things that seem okay to me. And I say them or do them and then realize,
‘Well, maybe that impacted or affected somebody else in a very different
way.’ And so I think it's probably one of the hardest things about trying to
engage in diversity work. But it's also one of the best things for people who
choose to sort of be vulnerable, and be willing to engage in that work (M, C,
p. 3).

Compared to Grace and Barbara, Matt more willingly took risks that pertained to
engaging in diversity and equity work. Perhaps because he had extensive experience
219
in these kinds of efforts in the past, he felt less inhibited to talk about race than did
Grace and Barbara.
Matt understood that to make progress on a phenomenon as complex as racial
inequities, difficult discussions needed to place.
Any time you talk about these really difficult issues, you always wonder,
you know, you always worry a little bit about are you hurting anybody. But
you know what? To get anywhere, I think all of us have to take risks that,
you know, people will get hurt, but then we work together to move past that
(M, C, p. 13).

Rather than shying away from difficult conversations, Matt welcomed them. In fact,
contrary to Grace and Barbara’s perceptions, Matt believed that discussing issues of
race with student interviewees could empower students. Matt mused, “I think that
might be empowering for them to be asked that question. Like, ‘Somebody knows
I'm a student of color and that maybe my experiences are different’” (M, C, p. 9). He
believed that the Mountainside Interview Project gave students voice, serving to
“help empower them and get them to speak” (M, C, p. 11). Matt saw this as a
critical aspect of the project. Providing a space for students of color to communicate
their concerns gave them a minute but nevertheless important sense of power, a stark
contrast from “feeling they don't have a voice, that they aren't sort of central to
what's going on, that they can be marginalized” (M, C, p. 11). As such, Matt viewed
the Mountainside Interview Project as an “opportunity to help [students of color] in a
very particular way” (M, C, p. 11).
Matt summed up the various ways in which the project became rewarding for
him and the student interviewees. On the one hand, he enjoyed the “one-on-one
220
interaction with students and getting to know that student a little better” (M, C, p.
12). On the other hand, the students knew “that there's some other person, this
wacky guy who's talking to them, who seems to care. And, you know, feel that they
matter and their voice matters” (M, C, p. 12). Matt’s care and concern for student
interviewees deepened over the course of the project. For this reason, he wanted to
ensure that the findings from the Mountainside Interview Project would eventually
inform and influence campus practices and culture.
Matt viewed the project as an instrumental resource. He felt the team had a
responsibility to use that resource wisely: “I think we have to think hard about what
we want to do with this and how we want to carry this forward here at Mountainside
College” (M, C, p. 4). Matt spoke of the various ways in which the project might be
institutionalized or utilized to make changes:
My guess is at some point we either make the choice that somehow we're
going institutionalize this type of work. Maybe answered in different types
of questions. Or getting at different types of issues. Or, how do we inform
many other people of what the work is and what we're finding, and what that
might mean to us. How that might inform how we think about the
curriculum. Or how we think about pedagogy (M, C, p. 4).

Matt ended this third interview by asking more thoughtful questions. He posed these
questions for himself but also to the wider campus community: “How do we educate
the rest of the faculty? How do we raise these broader issues?… And how do we
change things at Mountainside College to try to address that?” (M, C, p. 13).
221
Seventh Collaborative Inquiry Meeting, March 2005
I saw Matt again in March for another collaborative inquiry meeting. During
this meeting, the team discussed significant themes they drew from students’
narratives. Matt recalled that, “The third interview was so relaxed, like we all knew
each other. They seem so much at home now. Even the ones who felt at home their
freshman year seem to feel more at home” (M, 7, p. 3). Feeling “at home,” as Matt
described, was aligned with the notion Matt previously raised about the students
adapting to the institution. He believed that making connections to the institution
mattered.
In addition to discussing the interviews, faculty members on the team began
to discuss their own practices. In particular, the topic of advising students emerged
in the collaborative inquiry team’s conversation. Matt chimed in about the way in
which his advising had changed compared to years past:
This was one of the first years where I explicitly started talking to freshman
and sophomore advisees to push them to declare a major. They kept saying,
‘I know I’ll major in this. I know I’ll major in this.’ So I said, ‘Ok. Declare
a major and grab a hold on a faculty there because you are just going to get
so much more.’ One [advisee] wants to be in religion major and he still
hasn’t declared a major. He’s a sophomore, and I said, ‘Just declare it’ (M,
7, p. 3).

When Estela, the facilitator of the group asked Matt what caused him to change his
mind about advising students to declare a major early on, Matt responded,
They seemed fairly well with their mind made up. You know, I can give
them a lot of great general advise and befriend them and all that kind of
stuff. But they are going to get more specific advise from someone in their
major and be more specific. They’ll feel they belong more to this group—
222
kinesiology major for example, as opposed to floating independent (M, 7, p.
3).

While Matt did not specifically articulate that the Mountainside Interview Project
was the sole reason for his shift in advising students about majors, he had mentioned
in the past the importance of students making connections on campus. He drew this
theme out of student interviewees’ stories. Perhaps Matt felt that by declaring a
major early on, students could make a connection to a faculty member who could
provide more resources and direction to the student earlier than later.
Ninth Collaborative Inquiry Meeting, April 2005
A month later, the collaborative inquiry team convened. By the time the
April meeting rolled around, the team minimally discussed interview findings. They
wanted to move beyond talking about factors that inhibited and promoted minority
students’ success to action steps that could potentially redress inequities in academic
outcomes.
Before dialoguing about proposed action plans, Matt shared with the team
what he shared with me in his past interview about student voice. He perceived
acknowledging students’ voices as particularly significant given campus climate
issues. A number of students of color had just protested and demanded to meet with
university officials about addressing concerns pertaining to racial incidents at
Mountainside College. Matt compared the student uprising to the Mountainside
Interview Project: “One of the big themes of what’s going on this week is students
having voice and being listened to. For the first time in the last couple weeks, they
223
felt listened to. This was the purpose of the project” (M, 9, p. 3). Matt additionally
noted that the structure of the interviews—where faculty listened to students and not
the other way around—muted the power differential between faculty member and
student. “They didn’t feel the power differential as much in this situation. But when
you really have them in your class, there is the power differential there” (M, 9, p. 3).
Matt realized that concerns pertaining to issues of voice and power, the very
themes that emerged from the interviews, informed the team in a very specific way.
He looked around the room of faculty and administrators and explained that the
project,
… has encouraged faculty to discuss that there are different approaches to
pedagogy. One is to spew out the content and that will get transmitted to
students. The other is to get students to understand and learn how to learn
content. There comes a point where you can’t in one semester spew. We
have to change our mind set pedagogically (M, 9, p. 3).

Matt confirmed that the project provided a space that facilitated a deepened
understanding of instructional and pedagogical issues among team members.
After ending the discussion that centered on the interviews and interview
findings, the team transitioned into sharing ideas about how to sustain the work of
the interview project on campus. The team was ready to take action. They devoted
the meeting in April to discuss future steps of the project. Because CUE facilitators
would no longer be able to work with the Mountainside Interview Project team after
the spring semester of 2005, the team had to decide which course of action would be
most effective to ultimately improve the performance of underserved groups such as
Black and Latino students. Without making a concerted effort to institutionalize the
224
project or utilize findings from interviews to change institutional practices, Matt felt
the only way he could impact students personally was through advising. Unless
there was more support to continue this work, “advising is the opportunity for me to
have these conversations” (M, 9, p. 8), said Matt.
Fortunately, the team had, over time, developed a collective responsibility to
continue the work of the project to improve student outcomes on a larger scale. One
idea that the team seriously considered during the meeting in April was to encourage
other academic departments at Mountainside College to conduct their own student
interviews and meet as a collaborative inquiry team. Departments in the areas of
math and science became the focus for the team given the significant achievement
gaps in these fields among students of color. The interviews and collective dialogue
could enlighten math and science professors about department specific issues they
could address by changing structures, processes, or instructional practices. Estela,
the facilitator of the team, enlisted Matt’s help during the month of April to assist in
writing a grant for funding this project. Matt spoke to the interim president about
this idea and he was “on board” (M, 9, p. 1). Like Grace and Barbara, Matt
volunteered the Math Department to participate in conducting interviews and
collaborative inquiry meetings. Matt explained to the team,
My sense is that we can talk to students by engaging in the same kind of
process… but focus on background, obstacles, access, strategies for
achievement related specifically to math and science entry, pipeline,
climate, all of those issues. What are the things we can learn about students
in a place like Mountainside College going into the math and sciences?
How does their interaction impact us as faculty? How do we reflect things
we’re learning to the curriculum that we have organized and are teaching,
225
and pedagogy that we use in the teaching of that material? It’s sort of
learning from our students, but the transformation is in ourselves, in the
curriculum, in our pedagogy (M, 9, p. 2).

With a clear vision of where he felt the Mountainside Interview Project should be
headed, Matt became an advocate for the project. He desired the project to influence
the areas of math and science, the departments that needed to improve most in terms
of educating students of color.
I think there are some significant issues in the math department, as committed
as we are to scholarship of teaching as well as professional scholarship. But
there are some really significant problems with access and pipeline issues
certainly with underrepresented students. But with all of our students right
now, our major is very small. There are some significant reasons for that that
we have to uncover… Zero African American majors have graduated from
chemistry in the past five years. What’s going on? (M, 9, p. 2).

Matt hoped his question would be answered by continuing in-depth interviews with
students at Mountainside College to find out why they did or did not enter into and
graduate from math and science majors.
Fourth Interview, June 2005
I met with Matt for our last interview at the end of the spring semester in
May 2005. The faculty and administrators on the Mountainside Interview Project
team had convened the student focus group in April. As one of the original
advocates for conducting a focus group earlier in the semester, Matt felt satisfied
with its outcome. He perceived the focus group to be an appropriate way to bring
closure to the project. Matt explained that the project successfully gave an
opportunity for the students to “realize it was, in some ways, both a very personal
experience for them and the person who interviewed them” (M, D, p. 2). The
226
process of interviewing and developing relationships became an extraordinary part of
the project. Furthermore, Matt added that,
It was also a shared experience across, you know, 20 plus students. And I
think bringing them together was probably, hopefully meaningful to them to
see that this was not an isolated caring and isolated attempt to try to get their
voice heard, but that we were really trying to hear from a broad spectrum of
underrepresented students (M, D, p. 2).

The opportunity for students to hear about other students’ and faculty members’
experiences in the project pleased Matt. He wanted to make sure student
interviewees understood that this project held a larger purpose aside from getting to
know them individually. By taking into account a number of students’ stories,
campus practices could likely be informed on a larger scale.
Another item on the team’s agenda during the final course of the project
constituted writing a report to the interim president. This report detailed the process
the team underwent of interviewing and meeting collaboratively, as well as described
the themes that emerged from student interviewees. I asked Matt to share his
thoughts about what content he deemed critical to include in the report. He
responded,
I think one of the most important things to include in the report actually is
about the process and about listening to student voices and about the impact
that this has had on the faculty and staff who have participated. Because we
have to continue in some of form (M, D, p. 3).

Given the context of the student movement on campus at that given time, Matt
realized students wanted to be heard. The element of giving voice to students, he
believed, should remain inextricable to any efforts they continue with students:
227
I think what has really come out of just the expression of student sentiment
and discontent over the past two months is that they want to be heard. They
don’t feel that issues that are important to them are being addressed. And so
we have to challenge ourselves to continue to involve them in processes and
hear their voices and things like that (M, D, p. 3).

In another sense, Matt did not feel that the students alone should benefit from
such efforts. For Matt, both faculty and students could reap rewards from engaging
in efforts to ultimately redress unequal outcomes. He shared,
I think it’d be great to find a way to continue this type of or intense
involvement between our students of color and faculty/staff. Sort of
intentional intense involvement. And whether that happens through the
advising process or we continue these types of, you know, one-on-one
dialogue relationships where we create small focus group relationships, I
think it just has an important enough impact both on the faculty and staff.

Matt recognized the development and growth of the faculty participants. Observing
others who expressed enthusiasm, new learning, and renewed commitment to
improving the academic success of minority students invigorated Matt’s passion to
press forward with this kind of work.
One idea Matt conceptualized for structuring the report to the president
pertained to aligning the report with an institutional document that outlined an 18
point action plan. Mountainside College’s president, along with other campus
leaders, created the 18-point plan in response to the student movement that had
occurred in April. The items on this document contained action steps to ameliorate
negative campus climate issues. Matt believed that the president of the college
might take the Mountainside Interview Project report more seriously if it connected
to certain action steps in the 18-point plan. Continuing to be strategic, Matt believed
228
that aligning the report with the “dialogue that’s happening on campus… puts a
double stamp on the importance of those types of things” (M, D, p. 6).
By the end of the project, Matt did not exclude himself from his proposed
ideas for future action plans to address inequities in student outcomes. He expressed
his desire to connect his deeper understanding of “issues of diversity and identity”
(M, D, p. 5) into his role as Associate Dean of Curriculum. He planned to pay
particular attention to curricular and campus climate concerns. Matt said,
I think probably the overarching thing that has come out this is sort of how
issues of diversity and identity really just get played out on this campus.
You know, how we treat each other, how we perceive each other, how we
respect each other. All those things. And it gets played out in all sorts of
ways in the halls, in the classrooms, in the curriculum, by representation of
who we bring in (M, D, p. 5).

As Associate Dean of Curriculum, Matt wanted to examine the often underlying and
hidden dynamics—such as identity, respect, and relationships—that played a part in
curricular and campus climate matters. His participation in the Mountainside
Interview Project allowed him to develop a keener perception of these abstract yet
important dynamics.
Tenth Collaborative Inquiry Meeting, October 2005
Matt continued his discussion of various issues that impacted campus climate
during the tenth collaborative inquiry meeting in October 2005. The team met to
finalize the report to the Provost who served as interim president before meeting and
presenting the document to him. A discussion about whether to focus on statistics or
229
the student narratives in the report ensued. Matt discussed the various facets he
viewed as critical to include in the report:
One thing that can tie into this report is that… I mean there are differences
in students’ preparation levels and backgrounds and things like that. You
see that in the predictive GPA data where is a gap. But yet that doesn’t talk
about everything. There is a lot of other stuff going on. It’s not just about
underprepared students or something like that. It’s about the experiences
they have in the classroom; it’s about the climate; it’s about the advice they
get to go into or out of various disciplines. And you see that also there is
more stuff that we can’t quite explain just using the numbers or just using
the predictions. It’s about bringing these two documents [the data report
and the interview report] together to tell the whole story (M, 10, p. 2).

From a holistic perspective, Matt advocated for both quantitative and qualitative data
to be communicated in the report to the president. The quantitative data detailed
trends on campus and the qualitative data could fill in the individual details of
students’ experiences on campus.
The discussion continued in the meeting about embedding the Mountainside
Interview Project into the structure of the college. Team members proposed
recruiting academic departments to begin their own collaborative inquiry groups
among department faculty. Pitching it as a departmental review process could
encourage the institution to make this kind of collaborative inquiry a standard
process on campus. Each department could interview students about the factors that
influenced their decisions to enter into the major and graduate from the department.
“Math can be a pilot too” (M, 10, p. 7), Matt declared to the team, volunteering his
department.
230
Matt believed in interviewing students and using the consequent
understandings garnered from interviews to inform personal and institutional
decisions. He perceived this kind of work as beneficial to everyone: “It’s about the
impact on us and impact on students” (M, 10, p. 3). Matt strove to engage the
broader campus community into this work. “We need to broaden the base for this
impact to people outside of this project” (M, 10, p. 3), he said. Again, Matt critically
thought about the ways in which to strategically institutionalize the Mountainside
Interview Project. He stated,
It impacted faculty and students both. The faculty especially experienced
this deepened learning... But it’s the linking together of these various
projects and things that we want to do on campus. We have to figure out
how to cull these various things together. And having larger impact on
campus (M, 10, p. 3).

Final Meeting with the Provost, October 2005
Like Grace and Barbara, Matt became one of the strongest advocates to
continue the efforts of the Mountainside Interview Project. In particular, he noted to
the Provost, “This was the first time students felt they mattered” (M, 11, p. 2). Matt
pointed out that this project worked because “we had to sit and listen” (M, 11, p. 2).
Matt alluded to the fact that faculty experienced a difficult time listening to students
and knowing what to talk about with them. The Mountainside Interview Project was
unique because “students didn’t know how to raise issues. But this gave them a safe
space to do that and the students felt legitimized. This was all because they were
listened to and it was part of a larger study that was recorded” (M, 11, p. 2).
Moreover, Matt reiterated that the information the team gathered from students was
231
even more powerful because students were not individually sharing their stories as
isolated incidents. Rather, a number of students’ stories had been recorded and
documented, representing shared struggles and triumphs.
Matt pointed out to Mountainside College’s president that in this project the
students developed relationships with faculty in an innovative way. Students of
color became more engaged in the Mountainside College community because of this
project. Ultimately, Matt emphasized the institutional changes that might come out
of continuing this initiative: “The engaging of faculty and students is important, but
so too is what comes out of the interviews that can inform institutional change” (M,
11, p. 7). Matt urged the Provost to offer “a prolonged commitment” (M, 11, p. 4) to
go about institutionalizing the project in an effective manner.
Matt’s Written Responses
Like Barbara and Grace, Matt responded to a set of reflective questions that
provided closing thoughts on his experience in the Mountainside Interview Project.
When asked how this project impacted him, Matt eloquently responded,
This project has been invaluable to me as I weave the personal stories of
three of our students of color, their perceptions of the institutions, with my
perceptions of the institution, our policies, and our structures. It helps me
gain a deeper sense of difficult questions about equity that must be asked
and must be addressed. It helps me think about how I bring my own
experiences and, yes, prejudices, to the shaping of my teaching and the other
work I do in this institution, and how this may or may not resonate with all
of our students. I hope that more faculty might take the chance to
participate in this project as a way of better understanding students whose
backgrounds may be different from our own, and ultimately helping the
entire faculty and staff to expand our discussions of excellence and equity.
232
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION
The primary goal of the Mountainside Interview Project was to assist faculty
members to develop a deeper understanding of African American and Latino
students’ educational lives. The belief was that learning about students could serve
as a vehicle to develop a greater capacity to appropriately teach and advise them.
Developing this capacity is critical as the achievement gap between students of color
and other postsecondary students continues to grow.
Opportunities for faculty members to learn about students were facilitated in
the Mountainside Interview Project by participation in student interviews and
collaborative inquiry meetings. These two dimensions of the project provided a
space for faculty participants to think about and reconsider, in a structured and
reflective manner, students’ educational experiences. In addition, they allowed
faculty participants to think about the ways in which their daily practices played a
critical role in impacting students’ experiences.
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the extent to which faculty
participants learned about students, learned about and reconsidered their own
approaches to students in light of new understandings, and changed educational
practices with students of color. Altering faculty members’ understandings and
perspectives about students and their role in students’ lives can be difficult to
achieve. I evaluated the Mountainside Interview Project as an example of how this
shift could be accomplished.
233
In this chapter, I begin by discussing the significant findings from this study.
I weigh the factors that played a role in the success of the Mountainside Interview
Project. I then explore implications for practice, considering the conditions
necessary for the project to help other faculty members develop their internalized
experiences and understandings and, in turn, practices. I subsequently discuss the
limitations of this study. Finally, the chapter ends with recommendations for future
research.
Important Findings
The primary findings of this evaluative study were that when faculty
participants engaged in interviews with students of color and collaborative inquiry
meetings over 20 months, they learned about students, learned about themselves as
educational practitioners, and changed teaching and advising practices. The analysis
of faculty participants’ experiences conducted by studying the extent to which
program goals were achieved and by constructing narrative cases revealed that
engagement in this project was transformative for faculty participants (Mezirow,
2000). Mezirow (2003) asserts that transformative learning is “learning that
transforms problematic frames of reference—sets of fixed assumptions and
expectations (habits of mind, meaning perspectives, mindsets)—to make them more
inclusive, discriminating, open, reflective, and emotionally able to change” (p. 58).
The problematic frame in this case had to do with the way in which faculty members
framed or made sense of students of color and their relationships to these students.
234
By the end of the project, faculty participants shifted their frame of reference
regarding their relationships with and responsibilities toward students of color at
Mountainside College. More specifically, they formulated new ideas about the
extent to which they should be responsible for becoming agents of improving
academic outcomes for students. They began to see students of color in a new light
and, in turn, began to place more responsibility on themselves to take on an inquiry
stance by listening to students more purposefully. This type of listening required
them to become active inquirers into their own approaches to teaching and advising
students (Schultz, 2003). Learning from students in this fashion encouraged faculty
participants to consider initiating connections to other under-served students at
Mountainside College and building relationships with them.
This shift in frame of reference constituted the impetus for faculty members
to take action in terms of meeting minority students’ needs. As such, the outcome of
learning in this project resulted in a higher-order kind of outcome for participants,
one that was behavioral and practical. Faculty members adopted new educational
practices. From an evaluation perspective, this very concrete kind of change was
strong evidence of project impact on faculty members’ personal and professional
development.
In fact, by the end of the project, faculty participants advocated for the
implementation of pilot collaborative inquiry projects in the departments of biology
and math. As faculty vied for this project to be institutionalized, they demonstrated
that they were true believers in the collaborative inquiry process. The change in
235
perspective that they experienced about their role and responsibility to students
prompted them to become strong advocates of changing other Mountainside College
faculty members’ perspectives in the same way. This resulted in the two academic
departments conducting systematic interviews with students of color at the college.
Thus, by faculty participants’ advocating for institutional change, the Mountainside
Interview Project began to infiltrate practices from a personal, faculty participant
level to a broader, institutional one.
In the following section, I first describe the process that led up to the
transformation of perspectives. Secondly, I provide insight into the varying ways
perspective transformation took form.
Transforming Perspectives

Amidst developing richer understandings of students, understandings of
themselves as education practitioners, and decisions made in teaching and advising
practices, the critical juncture of faculty participants’ change was the point at which
they began to integrate what they learned to inform their practices with students of
color. Learning in and of itself is important. But to use, integrate, and apply that
learning to daily practices means that a true shift had occurred in faculty members’
professional lives.
The analysis I conducted revealed that the link between learning and
changing behaviors was a transformation of the ways in which faculty viewed their
role with students (Mezirow, 2003). In this study I found that by processing and
reflecting on the new knowledge and understandings about students during
236
interviews and collaborative inquiry meetings, faculty participants experienced a
shift in perspective about their responsibilities to improve student success. This shift
was gradual and cumulative. It was a kind of change that included obvious
differences as well as subtle, incremental changes. Just like evolutionary change,
such subtle shifts are difficult to notice and capture if one were not looking for them.
They are important and significant to the development of faculty members because
they suggest deeper changes in values and thought processes that guide practical
decisions.
During interviews, the face-to-face dialogue with students allowed faculty to
learn from students by building relationships with them. Faculty participants did not
just read about experiences in a journal article but learned about students in a more
personal, relational manner, building rich and meaningful conceptions about
students. In the beginning of the project, faculty members started with an
understanding about diversity as a property or characteristic of Mountainside
College. By the end of the project, they had moved from a generalized
understanding of diversity to one that included more concrete experiences that
represented the variance and intricacies of students’ educational lives. Faculty
members gained a more realistic understanding of the ways in which minority
students experienced Mountainside College.
As students teetered on a seesaw of educational success on one end, and
failure on the other, faculty participants began to understand the ways in which their
own beliefs and actions carried weight on either side of that seesaw. By learning
237
about the important roles faculty members played in student interviewees’ lives,
faculty participants developed a greater sense of efficacy with students. Faculty
members became more aware and more confident in the belief that they could make
a difference to meet students’ academic and emotional needs.
In addition, the collaborative inquiry meetings served as a dialectic exercise,
a structured dialogue that supported and refuted conceptions about students and
about faculty members. Through this dialogue, faculty participants could check their
understandings and assumptions against those of other participants, collectively
gaining fuller and deeper understandings about students. These two critical
components of student interviews and collaborative inquiry became the catalyst for
shifting faculty members’ conceptions about students and about their own practices
with students. The shift in perspective, in turn, empowered the faculty members to
assume greater responsibility for student outcomes.
Below, Figure 1 depicts the process of change—from learning about students,
to adapting perspectives, to changing practices—over the course of the Mountainside
Interview Project. Box 5 represents the point at which faculty members’
perspectives about their role as education practitioners was transformed. It is
important to keep in mind that Figure 1 does not illustrate the repetitive nature of the
interviews and collaborative inquiry meetings, but is rather meant to represent the
whole process in an uncomplicated form. In addition, the kinds of changes in
understanding, reflection, and practices reflected in the boxes actually occur
238
iteratively and continuously. The boxes in Figure 1, again, only show a simplified
version of the dynamic process of change in this project.
Figure 1: The Process of Transforming Faculty Participant Perspectives

⇓

⇓

⇓

⇓

⇓
2.
Gain deeper understanding of
students’ educational experiences
(including the impact faculty have
on students)
1.
Interview African American
and Latino students
3.
Participate in Collaborative Inquiry
Meetings
5.
Adapt or acquire new perspectives
about faculty relationships and
responsibilities toward students
6.
Use new perspectives about faculty
role and responsibilities toward
students to change practices
4.
Discuss and reflect on new
understandings about students and
about role of faculty
239
The kind of change of perspective or frame of reference documented in Box 5
of Figure 1 is akin the transformative learning that Mezirow (2003) described. For
example, such a transformation was experienced by Beth. Beth developed richer
conceptions about students by listening more purposefully to them to enable their
academic success. In this exercise, she realized that her lack of initiative to connect
to students and understand their educational experiences before the project was a
“barrier” to forming relationships with students. It was as if a light bulb turned on
inside of Beth when she realized, “The barriers to reaching students aren’t just on
their side” (B, D, p. 2). Likewise, Grace saw her responsibility as an advisor in a
new light, and Jack realized the extent to which he needed to take initiative with
students of color in his classroom to academically engage them.
Transformative learning occurs when individuals engage in dialogue that
leads to critical reflection, an introspective, inquisitive evaluation of one’s
assumptions and beliefs (Mezirow, 2000). The interviews and collaborative inquiry
meetings prompted such critical reflection. To listen to students’ stories, while
regarding the students as ‘experts’ of their educational lives, faculty participants
were confronted with information that contradicted existing beliefs. This process
prompted faculty members to reassess and adjust their understanding of what
students of color experienced. In addition, faculty members conversed during
collaborative inquiry meetings about what they learned, sharing interpretations and
coming to a more authentic understanding of students’ lived educational experiences.
240
An important aspect of Mezirow’s concept of transformative learning is that
it is characterized by critical consciousness. That is, the person who engages in
transformative learning does so by unearthing assumptions, perspectives, and
behaviors that promote or undermine social inequity, marginalization, and
oppression. This requires reframing and adjusting perspectives that distort the cause
of inequities as natural rather than socially constructed. Developing critical
consciousness is at the heart of the Mountainside Interview Project. Faculty
members came to view the very contexts, institutional policies, and individual
behaviors that marginalize and oppress minority students. Though they listened to
only several individual students in several interviews, faculty members gained
significant insights about the struggles student interviewees shared as a collective.
Faculty participants became conscious of, and later challenged, the role of
Mountainside College and their own role as faculty members in sustaining the
cumulative impact of seemingly unimportant acts that can tend to silence and
marginalize African American and Latino students. This kind of critical
consciousness was key to their transformative learning. Faculty members began to
adopt the view of themselves as institutional agents, educational practitioners who
become influential figures by developing caring and supportive relationships with
students (Stanton-Salazar, 2001). This meant taking personal responsibility and
initiative to enable students to succeed. Even enabling as little as one student of
color in each classroom or advising session was one small step toward a greater
cause: redressing inequitable educational outcomes at Mountainside College.
241
Instances of Perspective Transformation
To provide more clarity to the concept of perspective transformation, in this
section I provide examples of changes in perspectives about faculty members’ roles
with students of color as experienced by faculty participants in the Mountainside
Interview Project. In particular, faculty members readjusted their perceptions about
listening, building relationships, and taking initiative to connect to students.
Listening
Taking time to genuinely listen to students in an in-depth, purposeful manner
does not always come easily for faculty members. Perhaps this is so because of the
inherent nature of faculty-student relationships. Often, interactions between students
and professors take place as transactions, whereby professors impart knowledge to
students who require this knowledge to earn academic credit. The nature of this
transaction often colors the kinds of relationships faculty and students develop; the
faculty member holds power and authority because of the information she possesses
necessary to the student’s success. In this kind of environment, some faculty
members do not recognize a need to devote time to purposefully listen to students
because it is the student who is often expected to listen and learn.
The Mountainside Interview Project provided a space that prompted a
reweaving of relationships wherein students became the “experts” and knowledge
providers and faculty members became the students. The power dynamic shifted,
requiring faculty members to listen, on the one hand, and allowing students to have
their experiences considered, on the other. Grace aptly described this dynamic:
242
What I ideally think is good about the interview process is that the student
actually is the focus. The student is the source of information, is the source
of power. And I think that's good. Too often we're the ones who are in
charge. (G, C, p. 15).

This quote exemplifies a reconsideration about faculty members’ roles in
listening to students. The structure of the project prompted faculty
participants to reassess the ways in which they listened to students (or not).
Before engaging in the Mountainside Interview Project, listening to students
could easily be passed off as insignificant because it was an underestimated part of
students’ educational experiences. But by the end of the project, learning how to
listen and viewing its importance played a key role for faculty members. According
to Chan, Fortunato, Mandell, Oaks, & Mann (2001), for a faculty member who
strives to enable student success,
Listening becomes a necessary art, and teaching—and the knowledge upon
which it is based—becomes an ongoing project of locating and/or creating
imaginative learning tools to respond to the academic needs of individual
students whose voices we can never disregard (p. 335).

Similarly, listening to students about their educational struggles and triumphs clued
faculty participants into the needs of student interviewees. They learned the
inescapable truths of students who were often at the breaking point of academic
success. Faculty, then, reported using this knowledge about students to tailor certain
teaching and advising approaches as a way to engage them in their learning.
Barbara, for example, thought differently about her role as a listener at a very
early stage in the Mountainside Interview Project, saying that, “maybe a role we can
play is to really pay attention and listen carefully to them [students] about what they
243
are interested in and try to help generate that spark that would keep them there” (B,
A, p. 4). She shared with her colleagues in an inquiry meeting, “Its nice to just listen
to students. We spend so much time talking to them. It [the project] showed me how
to listen more actively in class” (B, 6, p. 6). By the end of the project, Barbara had
reconsidered her perspective on listening to students. She wrote, “I took the time to
listen to students and to hear their concerns, which we don't often do. This has given
me specific ways in which I can improve my teaching and improve the classroom
environment.” She recommended that Mountainside College provide “training for
faculty in how to listen effectively.”
Similarly, Dafne felt the project was effective in engaging faculty members
because, “we are the ones listening. It works because of the set up” (D, 10, p. 4).
The “set up” in the project required faculty to sit down with students, face to face
and actively hear about their educational lives. Matt pointed out to his colleagues
that this project worked because “we had to sit and listen” (M, 11, p. 2).
Grace knew there was no substitute for listening to students in this way: “You
know, of course we read this. You know, they give us articles and give us talks and
things like that. But really, when you listen to somebody's story, it brings it home”
(G, C, p. 8). By the end of the project, Grace asserted that listening was “the most
important thing that I learned” (G, D, p. 2). She reflected, “You just forget how
important it is just to listen…We can't promise them [the students] anything. But we
could promise to just listen (G, D, p. 1).

244
Building relationships
When faculty members learned to listen to students, they built relationships
with students. Because of the nature of the Mountainside Interview Project, where
faculty and students were required to sit down and discuss students’ experiences over
the course of nearly two years, faculty and students developed a connection, a
trusting relationship, similar to what was found in Luis Moll’s work (2000) with
teachers investigating the funds of knowledge of students and their families. The
knowledge gained by getting to know the families in Moll’s project became powerful
tools for reconsideration and reflection on teachers’ educational approaches.
Similarly, faculty participants in the Mountainside Interview Project transformed
their perspectives about their relationships with students by learning that a sense of
belonging and connectedness were important for students.
Student interviewees benefited from developing connections and
relationships to faculty participants because these relationships became a form of
social capital for the students (Stanton-Salazar, 2001). By having their voices heard
and seriously considered by an institutional agent, students who were often placed at
the margins felt they had a resource and an advocate who could guide them to greater
educational opportunities
10
. Student interviewees simply felt as if they mattered
because someone as influential as a faculty member cared about them.

10
Though I do not include the experiences of the student interviewees in this study, data collected
when students met with faculty participants show evidence that students felt valued by being listened
to and by developing relationships with faculty members.

245
Matt, for example, learned about the extent to which his relationship with one
student interviewee made a difference for her. He broadened his perspective about
building relationships with students after emailing her over the summer to follow up
with her. This was a student who was at risk for dropping out of the college “didn’t
feel anyone listened to her” (M, 1, p. 2). After writing to her, the student responded
in an email to Matt saying, “It makes me happy to know that a Mountainside College
faculty member thinks about me and my summer adventures.” (B, 4, p. 13). Matt
suggested to the Provost at the end of the project that in some cases, “This was the
first time students felt they mattered” (M, 11, p. 2).
Grace and Barbara also shifted their perspectives about building relationships
with students of color. In the beginning of the project, faculty members’ viewed
advising as a one-way procedural and bureaucratic conversation in which the student
was given course information and a signature. As a consequence of the interviews,
the faculty members became more cognizant of the relational or engagement side of
advising. Students yearned for and benefited from more engaged advising sessions.
Grace and Barbara, as a result, put forth extra effort into getting to know students
and connecting with them as a way to become a supportive and caring resource.
Grace felt that her teaching and advising had changed. She made attempts to follow
up with her advisees via email and intentionally made eye contact with students of
color in her classroom to let them know they were visible and mattered as an integral
part of her classroom. John (2003) aptly depicts the impact that such nuanced
behaviors can have on under-served students. When faculty members adjust
246
“behavioral nuances, from eye contact to other forms of body language,… for the
astute student in search of fair and humane treatment, little goes unnoticed” (p. 380).
After becoming aware of the benefits students could gain from faculty-
student relationships, Jack attempted to have similar structured conversations with
two Latino males in his class as a way to learn from them and engage them in class
work. Unfortunately, his attempt to have a purposeful dialogue with them did not
pan out as he had hoped. The students did not respond in the same way student
interviewees had. In his attempt to connect to students, Jack realized that developing
relationships with them might take more time and patience than he imagined. To be
able to gain deeper and rich responses from students in everyday situations outside of
the interview project, faculty members had to build trusting relationships with
students through sustained efforts.
Taking initiative for student success
At times, there is an assumption that students know how to reach out to
faculty members; however, this project shows that for minority students, exerting the
effort to reach out is much more complicated than simply making an appointment.
The student risks rejection, being made to feel undervalued and insignificant. Once
faculty members understood this by listening to students, they reconsidered their
perceptions about who should take initiative in sparking the student-faculty
connection. It is important to note that before participating in the Mountainside
Interview Project, faculty members did take initiative with students in their
traditional roles as instructors and advisors. Their participation in the project alone
247
demonstrated initiative. However, through participation in the Mountainside
Interview Project, faculty members realized the significance of initiating bonds and
relationships with students from ethnic minority backgrounds. This renewed sense
of initiative and responsibility, then, was influenced by the critical consciousness
developed over the course of the project. Faculty participants’ attempts to enable
minority students’ success were anchored by a drive to achieve social justice by
redressing inequitable outcomes.
Without such initiative, Jack would not have tried to speak to the Latino
males in his class; Dafne would not have contacted the Education professor to learn
about her pedagogical strategies. Matt advised his students to more quickly grab
claim a major. He did this while keeping in mind that students of color needed a
major, professors, and perhaps a disciplinary community to latch on to. Matt’s new
understanding is quite interesting in that it reveals the unintended outcomes of liberal
education policy to explore general education courses in the first two years before
latching on to a major. These policies were conceived and implement as a result of
the experiences of white, middle class students in higher education. Matt found that
taking too much time to explore many areas of studies before grabbing hold of a
major was not always in the minority student’s best interest.
Barbara additionally made a critical transformation in perspective in regards
to taking initiative. “I’ve realized through this process that some of the barriers to
reaching students aren’t just on their side” (B, D, p. 2), said Barbara. Barbara’s lack
of awareness about the importance to reach minority students was itself a barrier.
248
She realized that she had to take her own risks to get to know students, find out what
she had in common with them, and work from there to build a relationship with
them.
The examples of changes in perspective about faculty members’ roles and
responsibilities detailed in this section demonstrate the kind of transformative
learning that Mezirow spoke of. This change in frame of reference developed out of
the collaborative inquiry process in which the faculty participants engaged. In sum,
faculty members who participated in the Mountainside Interview Project gained a
deeper and more accurate understanding of students—their feelings of being
scrutinized in the classroom, racism in the dorm rooms, and relationships with
faculty. Faculty reflected upon these understandings during student interviews,
collaborative inquiry meetings, and even when I interviewed them about their
experiences in the project individually. These instances allowed them to think about
how students’ educational lives were impacted by their own actions as professors.
At the end, this reflective pause allowed faculty participants in the project to
transform perspectives about how to approach students with the goal of redressing
unequal outcomes.
Implications for Practice
In a postsecondary era characterized by limited funding coupled with
expectations for efficiency, a faculty member or senior administrator might ask,
“Why should our institution support the implementation of a long-term collaborative
inquiry project similar to that of the Mountainside Interview Project? What
249
difference can it make?” When considering the findings of this study, my answer is,
“It can make a significant difference.”
The change that came out of this study was not programmatic; it was a deeper
change that shifted faculty members’ beliefs about and practices with students.
Simply put, students do not interact with institutions or programs. They interact with
individuals within those structures. Students spend a significant amount of time with
faculty members who shape the climate and culture of the classroom and
administrators whose services vary depending on the approach and care they take
with students. These interactions can make or break a student’s educational journey.
As such, institutional decision-makers should not solely be concerned about
changing programs (the favored mode of improving retention and academic
outcomes), but about changing people’s values and ways of perceiving students of
color. The kind of deep changes and perspective transformations that the
Mountainside Interview Project was able to facilitate requires sustained support and
effort. It is not easy because of the time and energy needed. Yet it is the kind of
institutional change necessary to improve the unequal outcomes experienced by
African American and Latino students across the United States.
This project has implications for postsecondary faculty development. The
findings of this study show that when faculty members inquire into students’ lives,
both faculty members and students benefit. The faculty member learns, for example,
the unique set of circumstances that affected their educational lives, the advising
relationships that engaged them, and the detrimental approaches of professors who
250
inevitably pulled them further into the academic cracks. The faculty member takes
students seriously, beginning to critically think about her perceptions of students and
about herself as an education practitioner who teaches and advises students of color
on a daily basis. The new understandings that emerge out of this kind of project
empower faculty to make changes to their practices. They do so out of care for the
student interviewees, for the students of color in their classrooms, and for improving
the experiences of all students at their college. This kind of faculty development is
remarkably different from the typical one-time workshop or retreat that takes place
during a brief moment in time. The learning that occurs in these kinds of activities is
not continuous and can be easily forgotten given that it is disengaged from faculty
practice, and does not encourage engaging processes such as experimentation,
inquiry, and dialogue about practice (Shulman, 2004). Through sustained powerful
inquiry and dialogue, conversely, faculty members become active agents in their
learning and behavioral development.
Meanwhile, a trusting and caring relationship begins to develop between
student and faculty. The student engages with an institutional actor, feeling as if she
is important and matters. This project, then, has equally powerful implications for
students who are in need of supportive and caring relationships. As such, this form
of faculty development has far-reaching benefits that can be seen campus-wide.
Should faculty members or administrative leaders decide to implement an
inquiry project similar to that of Mountainside Interview Project at their respective
campuses, they might want to bear in mind a number of contextual factors that
251
facilitated the project’s success at Mountainside College. The context of the
institution and the make up of the team do make a difference in guiding participants
to learn from students, adjust perspectives about students and about their role with
students, and change practical approaches when teaching and advising students.
The first factor that likely contributed to the success of the project pertained
to faculty members’ initiative to volunteer as participants. Volunteering to engage in
this work indicated that faculty members were not only open to the idea of equity,
but were willing to learn from students. In fact, Stassen’s (1995) research suggests
that faculty members, particularly white faculty members, typically have little
involvement in efforts to improve educational conditions for minority students. Not
all faculty members place emphasis on educating historically underserved students
equitably. In the Mountainside Interview Project, however, faculty members’
personal politics were aligned with the project’s goals. In addition, faculty members
willingly became ‘the student’ in this project. They were ready to relinquish their
power, even if momentarily, by sitting down and genuinely listening to students.
They regarded the student as the ‘expert’ and sought to learn more from the student
in order to fill their gaps in knowledge and understanding about educating students
of color. Faculty participants were remarkably different from educators who enter a
teaching or advising circumstance with a hardened and concretized interpretation of
minority students’ educational lives. Educators can easily find themselves coming in
with answers rather than questions about students. The faculty members in this
project, instead, took on what Schultz (2003) calls a listening stance, suggesting that
252
they entered “a classroom with questions as well as answers, knowledge as well as a
clear sense of the limitations of that knowledge” (p. 8).
Had all Mountainside College faculty members been required to participate
in the Mountainside Interview Project, I suspect that the findings in this study would
take a different shape. Especially when faculty members do not buy into the goals of
the project and are not willing to learn and reflect, change would be harder to come
by.
Second, all five faculty members on the Mountainside Interview Project team
saw their participation in the project as a way to further the mission of the institution.
With a strong connection and identification to Mountainside College, participants
believed in the college’s mission to serve a diverse student body equitably. Faculty
members perceived the project as advancing that agenda. This finding is consistent
with literature that speaks to the importance of aligning professional development
activities with larger institutional goals. For example, when K-12 teachers, who
perceived coherence between professional development activities with professional
goals as well as state and district standards, were more likely to experience enhanced
knowledge and changes in teaching practices (Knapp, 2003). Similarly, in higher
education, a well-formed faculty development plan should be united around the
institutional mission in order for professional change to occur (Murray, 1999).
Third, those individuals who felt especially compelled to make institutional
changes were the very individuals who had already been empowered in their
positions at Mountainside College. Dafne, Matt, and Barbara—all leaders at the
253
college—led the charge to scale up the collaborative inquiry process to program
review. Dafne was the Director of Interdisciplinary and Intercultural Studies and
toward the end of the project was appointed as the Special Assistant to the President
on Diversity. These two job responsibilities uniquely positioned and empowered her
to lead the team’s effort to institutionalize the Mountainside Interview Project. Matt
also utilized his position and rank to promote the team’s efforts when meeting with
the interim President. As the Deputy to the President at Mountainside College, Matt
was aware that his position gave him voice and influence over other campus leaders.
As the newly appointed chair of the biology department, Barbara used her leadership
role to persuade the biology faculty to engage in collaborative inquiry into the
experiences of biology students. Conversely, Grace did not have the same authority
to make changes on a broader scale because her role was circumscribed as an
Assistant Professor. While Jack was President of the Academic Senate, his ability to
make changes to the curriculum as he had desired were put on hold due to the timing
of this sabbatical.
Lastly, the success of the project was influenced by the cultural value at
Mountainside College that is placed on teaching. As a small, liberal arts college, the
institution prides itself on small classes and student-to-faculty ratios. When under
review for tenure, faculty members at Mountainside College are highly rewarded for
student evaluations of their teaching. The environment is a collegial and personal
one. Not all colleges showcase this kind of teaching environment. Faculty at
research-intensive institutions might have a harder time finding value in a project
254
like the Mountainside Interview Project because there is less incentive to become
better educators to students of color. At a community college, where part-time
faculty members are overrepresented and many students do not spend time on
campus with the exception of attending class, faculty members might feel
disconnected to such a project that requires deeper connections to students. As a
consequence, institutional culture can facilitate or impede the extent to which faculty
members engage in collaborative inquiry with the purpose of learning from students
and informing one’s practices.
Future Research
In this study, I examined a single implementation of the collaborative inquiry
project. Thus, the data I collected does not address the extent to which the project
could be as successful at any other postsecondary institution. Should a similar
collaborative inquiry project be implemented at another campus, an evaluation of the
project could provide more information about the processes and contexts that can
facilitate a successful faculty development experience among participants.
In addition, the driving force behind the Mountainside Interview Project was
to redress inequitable educational outcomes by providing a space for faculty
members to learn about students and, in turn, reconsider their practices. I did not
measure the extent to which minority students taught and advised by faculty
participants in the project actually improved their academic performance. A follow-
up study to this one investigating whether this project did in fact lead to
improvement of minority students’ educational outcomes would be valuable. In the
255
end, does a project like this actually have an impact on the academic performance of
African American and Latino students? Researchers can examine the extent to
which academic improvement occurs by tracking the educational progress of
students who come into direct contact, via teaching and advising, with faculty
members who participate in such a project.
On a more local level, researchers might also want to continue to study
Mountainside College’s progress in sustaining collaborative inquiry in the biology
and math departments. Were biology and math faculty members impacted similarly
to those in this study? How did the absence of outsiders (Center for Urban
Education researchers) change outcomes for faculty participants? A more in-depth
examination would require that researchers observe over time changes in faculty
members’ practices while they teach and advise students.
Conclusion
Inequitable educational outcomes affect all American postsecondary
institutions; African Americans and Latinos consistently do less well than other
student groups on almost every indicator of educational success. Even when
controlling for pre-college characteristics, students of color do not achieve the same
grade point averages and graduation rates as other students (Bowen & Bok, 1998).
The traditional approach to remedy the problem is to create programs that
compensate for perceived student deficiencies. Much of these programs stand on the
shoulders of decades of research that discuss student characteristics related to low
achievement. It is these characteristics and deficits that are the focus of attention.
256
In practice, Bok (2006) contends that, “On most campuses, no systematic
attempt is even made to determine which students are underperforming or how they
might be helped to do better” (p. 317). Faculty members are typically less involved
in such efforts. Additionally, approaches to change faculty members’ perceptions
and relationships with underperforming students (a category in which students of
color disproportionately fall) have rarely been practiced or researched. While
structures have been developed to facilitate student engagement, a hot topic in higher
education (for example, see Kuh, 2001), very little opportunities have been
developed to encourage faculty engagement with students, particularly those from
minority backgrounds. Missing in higher education are structures and processes that
promote faculty-student connection and collaborative inquiry to facilitate
transformative learning. Faculty must learn to listen to students with an intention to
learn about them and their needs. As a consequence, faculty members will begin to
understand the roles they play within the raced spaces of the classroom and campus
community.
This study shows that involving faculty members into collaborative inquiry
like the Mountainside Interview Project can make a difference in the ways they
understand, think about, and approach students of color. In sum, two concrete
outcomes resulted from the Mountainside Interview project. First, faculty members
learned information about students that became important enough to transform their
perceptions about students and about their role with students. Second, faculty
members made changes to their practices after learning, reflecting on, and
257
reconsidering old practices. They developed an increased sense of efficacy and
responsibility for redressing unequal outcomes. When they assume this kind of
responsibility, they imagine what it takes to create conditions to close the
achievement gap and, in the process, imagine new ways to teach and advise students
of color. Faculty members experience a significant transformation that may likely
impact hundreds of students of color they will come across in the future. They
become responsive academic practitioners.
Schultz (2003) suggests that, “A focus on how to create an environment that
supports listening allows us to imagine the possibility of changing the context of
schooling rather than grooming students to fit classroom expectations” (p. 13). By
listening and inquiring, higher education institutions and the faculty members within
them can take a hard look at their values and daily practices. For it is these values
and practices that could be contributing factors to the epidemic of unequal outcomes
plaguing students of color across the United States.
258
References

Adelman, C. (1997). Diversity: Walk the walk and drop the talk. Change
(July/August), 34-45.
American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and
code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611.
Anaya, G. & Cole, D. (2001). Latino/o student achievement: Exploring the influence
of student-faculty interactions on college grades. Journal of College Student
Development, 42, 3-14.
Angrosino, M.V. & Mays de Perez, K.A. (2000). Rethinking observation: From
method to context. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (Second ed, pp. 673-702). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Atkinson, P. & Hammersley, M. (1994). Ethnography and participant observation.
In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research
(pp. 236-247). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.
Bartolome, L.I. (1994). Beyond the methods fetish: Toward a humanizing
pedagogy. Harvard Education Review, 64 (2), 173-195.
Bean, J. P., & Eaton, S. B. (2000). A psychological model of college student
retention. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle.
Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Bensimon, E. M. (2003). Grant proposal to The James Irvine Foundation: Diversity
Scorecard Project, Phase II. Unpublished manuscript.
Bensimon, E. M. (2006). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge
in the scholarship on student success. Presented at the Association for the
Study of Higher Education (ASHE) Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA.
Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An
organizational learning perspective. In A.Kezar (Ed.),Organizational
Learning in Higher Education. New Directions for Higher Education (No.
131, 99-111).
Bensimon, E. M., Polkinghorne, D. P., Bauman, G. L., & Vallejo, E. (2004). Doing
research that makes a difference. Journal of Higher Education, (75) 1, 104-
126.
259
Berg, B. L. (1998). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (3
rd
edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Berkner, L., He, S., & Cataldi, E. F. (2002). Descriptive Summary of 1995–96
Beginning Postsecondary Students: Six Years Later. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Birmingham, C. (2004). Phronesis: A model for pedagogical reflection. Journal of
Teacher Education, 55 (4), 313-324.
Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students
lean and why they should be learning more. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Bowen, W.G. & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of
considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Braxton, J. M. (2000). Reworking the student departure puzzle. Nashville: Vanderbilt
University Press.
Bray, J.N., Lee, J., Smith, L.L., & Yorks, L. (2000). Collaborative inquiry in
practice: Action, reflection, and meaning making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Carey, K. (2005). One step from the finish line: Higher education graduation rates
are within our reach. Washington D.C: Education Trust.
Chan, J., Fortunato, M., Mandell, A., Oaks, S., Mann, D. (2001). Reconceptualizing
the faculty role: Alternative models. In B. L. Smith and J. McCann (Eds.),
Reinventing Ourselves: Interdisciplinary Education, Collaborative Learning
and Experimentation in Higher Education (pp. 328-340). Boston, Mass.
Anker Publishing Co.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S.L. (1993). Inside/Outside: Teacher research and
knowledge . New York: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice:
Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24(8),
249-305.
Collins, P. H. (2000). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the
Politics of Empowerment. 2nd Ed. New York: Routledge.
260
Connelly, F. M. & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative
inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 2-14.
Crossley, M. (2000) Introducing narrative psychology: Self, trauma and the
construction of meaning. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological
methods (2
nd
edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social sciences.
London: Routledge.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt.
Digest of Education Statistics (2005). U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics (Table 8).
Dreyfus, H. & Dreyfus, S. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human
intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Ltd.
Eisner, E. W. (2002). From episteme to phronesis to artistry in the study and
improvement of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 375-385.
Ely, M., Anzul, M., Friedman, T., Garner, D., & Steinmetz, A. M. (1991). Doing
qualitative research: Circles within circles. London: The Falmer Press.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and
how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fry, R. (2002). Latinos in Higher Education: Many Enroll, Too Few Graduate.
Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
Gadamer, H.G. (1991). Truth and method. New York: Seabury.
Gaventa, J. & Cornwall, A. (2001). Power and knowledge. In P. Reason and H.
Bradbury (Eds). Handbook of action research (pp. 70-80). London: Sage.
261
González, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing
Practices in households, communities and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Habley, W.R., & McClanahan, R. (2004). What works in student retention – All
survey colleges. Iowa City, Iowa: ACT, Inc.
Halverson, R. (2004). Accessing, documenting and communicating practical
wisdom: The phronesis of school leadership practice. American Journal of
Education, 111(1), 90-121.
Hernandez, J.C. (2000). Understanding the retention of Latino college students.
Journal of College Student Development, 41, 575-588.
Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez-Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection:
Teacher learning as praxis. Theory Into Practice, 42 (3), 248-254.
Huber, M.T., & Hutchings, P. (2005). The advancement of learning: Building the
teaching commons. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ibarra, R. A. (2001). Beyond affirmative action: Reframing the context of higher
education. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Janesick, V. J. (1994). The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor,
methodolatry, and meaning. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.).Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 236-247). Thousand Oak, CA:
Sage.
John, B. M. (2003). The politics of pedagogy. Teaching Sociology, 31 (4), 375-382.
Jun, A., & Tierney, W. G. (1999). At-risk urban students and college success: A
framework for effective preparation. Metropolitan Universities, 9(4), 49-59.
Katz, J. (2001). From how to why: On luminous description and causal inference in
ethnography (Parts 1). Ethnography, 2(4), 443-473.
Kessels, J.P.A.M. & Korthagen, F.A.J. (1996). The relationship between theory and
practice: Back to the classics, Educational Researcher, 25 (3), 17-22.
Knapp, M. S. (2003) ”Professional Development as a Policy Pathway” Review of
Research in Education, (27),109-158.
262
Korthagen, F. A. J. & Kessels, J. P. A. M. (1999). Linking theory and practice:
Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28
(4), 4-17.
Kraemer, B. A. (1997). The academic and social integration of Hispanic students
into college. The Review of Higher Education, 20(2), 163-179.
Kuh, G.D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the
National Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10-17, 66.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Ladson-Billings, G (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant
pedagogy. American Education Research Journal, 35, 465-491.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral
participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lundberg, C. A., & Schreiner, L. A. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty-student
interaction as predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity.
Journal of College Student Development, 45, 549-565.
Massey, D.S., Charles, C.Z., Lundy, G.F., & Fischer, M.J. (2003). The source of the
river: The social origins of freshmen at America’s selective colleges and
universities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mayo, J.R., Murguia, E., & Padilla, R.V. (1995). Social integration and academic
performance among minority university students. Journal of College Student
Development, 36 (6), 542-552.
McCall, G. J., & Simmons, J. L. (Eds.). (1969). Issues in participant observation: A
text and reader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc.
McLaughlin, M., & D. Mitra. (2001). Moving deeper and broader with theory-based
change Journal of Educational Change , 3 (1) , 301-323.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
263
Mezirow, J.(2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative
Education, 1, 58-63.
Minstrell, J. (1999). Expertise in teaching. In Sternberg, R.J. & Horvath, J.A.
(Eds.). Tacit Knowledge in Professional Practice: Research and Practitioner
Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Moll, L. C. (2000). Inspired by Vygotsky: Ethnographic experiments in education. In
C. D. Lee & P. Smagorisky (Eds.), Vygotskian Perspectives on Literacy
Research. (pp. 256-268). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Murray, J.P. (1999). Faculty development in a national sample of community
colleges. Community College Review, 27 (3), 47-64.
Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to
education (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Pascarella, E. T. (1985). College environmental influences on learning and
development: A critical review and synthesis. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher
education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 1.). New York: Agathon.
Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
edition).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2
nd
edition).
Newbury Park: Sage.
Peña, E.V., Colyar, J. & Bensimon, E.M. (2006). Contextual problem-defining:
Learning to think and act from the standpoint of equity. Liberal Education,
92 (2), 48-55.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1983). Methodology for the human sciences: Systems of
inquiry. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8 (1), 8-25.
Polkinghorne, D.E. (2004). Practice and the human sciences: The case for a
judgment based practice of care. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data Collection in Qualitative
Research. Journal of Counseling, 52(2), 137-145.
264
Polkinghorne, D. E. & Gribbons, B. C. (1998). Applications of qualitative research
strategies to school psychology research problems. In C. R. Reyonds & T. B.
Gutkin (Eds.). Handbook of school psychology (3
rd
ed.). New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Rendón, L. I., & Valadez, J. R. (1993). Qualitative indicators of Hispanic student
transfer. Community College Review, 20(4), 27-37
Riessman, C. (1993). Narrative analysis. London: Sage Publications.
Rose, M. (1990). Lives on the boundary. NY: Penguin Books.
Rubin, H.J. & Rubin, I.S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Schultz, K. (2003). Listening: A framework for teaching across differences. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Schwartz, M.S., & Schwartz, C.G. (1969). Problems in participant observation. In
G. J. McCall & J.L. Simmons (Eds.), Issues in Participant Observation: A
Text and Reader (pp. 89-104). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, Inc.
Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Shulman, L. S. (1993). Teaching as community property: Putting an end to
pedagogical solitude. Change, 25 (6), 6-7.
Shulman, L.S. (2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and
learning to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spence, S.J. (2003). Teaching and learning in grade one: Phronesis and early
literacy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Calgary.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc.
Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.).Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 236-247). Thousand Oak, CA:
Sage.
265
Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school and kin
support networks of U.S.-Mexican youth. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Stassen, M. L.A. (1995). White faculty members and racial diversity: A theory and
its implications. Review of Higher Education, 18 (4), 361-391.
Swail, W. S. (1995). A conceptual framework for student retention in science,
engineering, and mathematics. Graduate School of Education and Human
Development (GSEHD). Washington, DC, The George Washington
University.
Tierney, W. G. (1999). Models of minority college-going and retention: Cultural
integrity versus cultural suicide. The Journal of Negro Education, 68(1), 80-
91.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
Press.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of
caring. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Villegas, A.M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A
conceptually coherent and structurally integrated approach. Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.
Weinbaum, A., Allen, d, Blythe, T., Simon, K, Seidel, S., & Rubin, C. (2004).
Teaching as inquiry: Asking hard questions to improve practice and student
achievement. New York: Teachers College Press.
Weiss, R. (1994). Learning From strangers: The art and method of qualitative
interview studies. New York, The Free Press.
Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and
interpretation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Wolcott, H. F. (1999). Ethnography: A way of seeing. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira
Press.
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
266
Appendix A: First Student Interview Protocol
1. What classes are you taking this semester?
2. Where do you live on campus
a. Do you have roommates?
b. How do you like living in the residence halls?
3. What have you been thinking about in terms of a major?
a. What majors have you ruled out?
b. Why?
c. What do you think your strengths are?
4. So far, what do you like about [Mountainside College]?
5. Walk me through a typical day—how do you divide up your time?
a. What about your study habits?
b. Where/when/with whom do you study?
c. Do you work on campus (or off campus)?
6. What have you found hardest (or most challenging) about being at
[Mountainside College]?
a. Follow-up questions about academics:
i. What kinds of things do you do to get through difficult
classes?
ii. Have you avoided taking any particular classes? If so, why?
iii. Are you happy with your grades so far?
b. Follow-up questions about social/emotional challenges:
i. What do you do if you need help or advice?
ii. What support services are you aware of?
iii. Have you used them?
iv. Have they helped?
c. Follow-up questions about financial challenges:
i. What kind of financial aid are you receiving?
ii. Where do you go to get information or explanations about
financial aid, scholarships, or work study?
7. What does your family think of you being here at [Mountainside College]?
8. What kinds of social things do you do on campus?
a. What about off campus?
b. How much time per week do you spend doing social things?
9. When did you first visit the campus? What were your impressions?
a. How would you describe [Mountainside College] to a prospective
student?
b. What do you wish you had known?
10. What is it like being a student of color at [Mountainside College]?

267
Appendix B: Second Student Interview Protocol

1. Do you have plans for this summer?
o What are they?
o Will you be working, if so where?

2. I would like you to envision a classroom where you got involved or absorbed
in the subject matter, tell me a little bit about what that classroom was like for
you. Let’s start with you walking in the door, where do you sit?
o Tell me about the physical surroundings--where are the other students,
where is the instructor, what is the room like—how is it layed out?
o What goes on during class
o Who talks? What is conversation like? Who is treated with respect?
o Who makes decisions?

3. Now let’s talk about a classroom environment that did not engage you, what
was that like?

4. In general terms for me, what is the difference between these two classroom
environments?

5. What does being a successful student at [Mountainside College] mean to
you?
o Besides grades?

6. If you were giving advice to an incoming freshman, what advice would you
give them about being a success academically?
o Time management
o Interacting with professors
o Study skills
o Classroom behavior/etiquette

7. Now I would like you to think about on the advice you have just given.
o How much does this reflect what you do?

8. What role does your academic advisor play in your academic life at
[Mountainside College]?
o How often do you meet, what do you discuss?
How satisfied are you with that role?

268
Appendix C: Third Student Interview Protocol
As a result of the conversation this afternoon, we are moving away from strictly
following the protocol. Instead, we are going to organize our discussions with
students around their individual experiences and talk with them less formally
listening for 4 major themes. Those 4 themes are:

1) survival/success skills (previously Q2)
2) community/connectedness (esp to faculty) (previously Q's 3,5)
3) diversity and experienced diversity (previously Q's 4, 5, 6)
4) respect and experienced respect (previously Q's 5, 7)

This move was prompted by the notion that we have already established a connection
with these students, and could build on that, focusing on listening actively to what
students are saying and reacting to what you are hearing, rather than on getting
through the questions on our list. As we discussed in the meeting, I will send to
you your past transcripts so that you can look back on your interactions with from
last spring and remember what was said.

269
Appendix D: Verbal Recruitment of Subjects

My name is __________ and I am inviting you to participate in a small study
we are conducting of your professional interactions with students at [Mountainside
College]. I am specifically interested in learning about your understanding of first-
year college students’ academic and social experiences. Upon your permission, I
would like to interview you and observe you during your committee meetings here at
[Mountainside College]. These events will be audio-taped.
Of course, you are under no obligation to participate in this study. But if you
wouldn’t mind talking to me three or four times this year for about forty-five minutes
at a time, your participation will be greatly appreciated. I will hand out a sheet of
paper for you to sign up for interviews. If you decide to sign up, I will contact you
via email to set up an appointment for me to talk to you. Thank you!

270
Appendix E: First Faculty Participant Interview Protocol

1. How long have you been at Occidental College?

2. Describe what you do at Occidental College.
• What kinds of interactions do you have with students?

3. So how did you get involved in this interview project?
• What were your expectations of participating in the project?
• Did it meet your expectations?

4. What were your first interviews like?
• Did they go as you expected them to go?
• Was there anything you were apprehensive about in interviewing
students?

5. What kinds of things did you learn from the students that you did not know before
you interviewed them the first time around?

6. Why is what you learn in these interviews important for you? Why does it
matter?

7. What are your feelings about the process of discussing and analyzing student
interviews in Diversity Scorecard meetings?
• What are some things you’ve learned from discussions in these
meetings?

8. Tell me about instances in which you had a chance to think about what you’ve
learned in your interviews or Diversity Scorecard meetings outside of these
experiences?
• What did you think about?

9. In your second round of interviews with students, the focus is on classroom
experiences. What kinds of experiences do you expect to hear about from the
students you interview?
271

10. For faculty: In the second interview you are going to ask students some questions
about what a successful student looks like. What does a student have to do to do
well in your class?
• If not a faculty person, ask: In the second interview you are going to
ask students some questions about what a successful student looks
like. What do you think a student has to do to be successful at
[Mountainside College]?

11. You are going to be asking students in the next round of interviews about what
engages them in the classroom. What do you think gets a student engaged in a
classroom?

272
Appendix F: Second Faculty Participant Interview Protocol

1. Tell me about your second round of interviews. What were these interviews
like compared to the first ones?

2. Now that you’ve completed two rounds of interviews with students, was
there anything that stood out to you?

a. Is that something new for you?

3. When I last talked to you and other members of the team, many expressed
discomfort of power dynamics in their interviews with students. How did
you feel this time?

4. Last time you spoke about why these interviews were important to you. You
said ______________. Is there anything you want to add to that now that
you’ve interviewed the students a second time around?

5. In what ways did the interviews make you think about your relationships with
African American and Latino students?

6. Last time I interviewed you, you talked about changing the way in which you
_______ (e.g. made eye contact with students) as a result of what you learned
in the first round of interviews. How is what you’ve learned in the second
round of interviews feeding into what you do as a ________ at [Mountainside
College]?

7. In light of what you’ve learned from students in these interviews, have you
thought about different ways that individuals in your position (e.g. Math
department) can reach students of color?

8. Have you communicated to others in your department/program or on campus
about your experiences in conducting these interviews? What did you tell
them?

273
Appendix G: Third Faculty Participant Interview Protocol

1) Have you been or are you presently involved in other projects at [Mountainside
College] dedicated to diversity or equity? Tell me about them.
a) If yes, then what do you do as part of the project?
b) How is that project similar to or different from the interview project?

2) Have you ever participated in faculty development activities related to minority
group students?
a) Can you tell me about them, e.g., did they take place here on campus? What
were they about?
b) How would you compare those activities in relation to the interview project?
c) What were some personal outcomes you experienced as a result of your
involvement in faculty development of this nature?
i) Learned more about students?
ii) Understood students better after being involved?
iii) Learned how to address/approach students?
iv) Prompted your reflection on how to better meet the needs of students of
color?
d) How was what you have gained similar or different from the other
professional development?
i) (Refer to the above bullet points in terms of learning and reflecting)

3) The interview project resulted from the findings in the scorecard that showed
African American and Latino students were doing the least well in just about all
of the measures used in the scorecard and the purpose of the interview project
was to learn more about what could be contributing to the differences in
outcomes.
a) Now that you have been involved in the project for more than one year, what
do you think about this approach?

4) Has the interview project made any difference for you personally?
a) In your role as an instructor?
b) As an advisor?

5) Tell me about your last round of interviews.
a) What stood out to you in the students’ stories?
b) What about the students’ stories did you find interesting or surprising?
274

6) What makes these students experiences different from your own experiences
when you were an undergraduate?
a) How do these students view professors’ roles compared to the way you
viewed them as a students?
b) Did you realize before having done these interviews how differently/similarly
they viewed professors compared to your own perceptions?

7) After hearing from students of color about their experiences in these interviews,
what do you feel makes these students’ experiences different or similar from
other students in your classes?

8) We’ve talked about how the way desks were set up in the classroom made a
difference for students to get engaged in learning. Have the students you
interviewed alluded to any other structural barriers to their academic success?
Can you give me an example?
a) Had you thought about this issue the same way the student had?

9) Students in their interviews have also discussed how faculty attitudes toward
them affected their experiences in class. Have any of those issues come up
again?

10) There has been some debate among the team about asking students how it feels
to be a student of color at [Mountainside College]. Why do you think this
question should or should not be included in the interview protocol?

11) Has the process of interviewing allowed you to know students in different ways
than you’ve known them in the past?
a) If yes, how so?

12) In the last team meeting, Matt had become more aware that he says and thinks
things that are racist and sexist.
o Have you found this to be true for yourself?
o What about the interview project made you take more notice about
these things (racist or sexist) you are thinking or say?
o How are the things you think or say about students of color refuted by
the stories they have told you in their interviews?
o How do you think these thoughts or language directly or indirectly
impact students?

13) Did any of the students you interviewed say anything that made you think
differently about how professors should teach? About how professors should
advise?
275

14) The purpose of this project is to see what factors inhibit or facilitate success for
students of color.
a) Have you come up with answers or ideas about what these factors are through
your interviews?
b) Or by discussing the interviews in team meetings?

15) Can you give me any examples of instances in which you have used the
knowledge or reflections from this project and applied it to teaching or advising
students of color?

276
Appendix H: Fourth Faculty Participant Interview Protocol
Follow up questions from previous interview:

Grace: you told me last time that you feel like engaging in these interviews motivates
you a little bit more to follow up on students. For example, you said that after doing
the interviews you felt more of a need to follow through on referring students to the
ICC after hearing a presentation about their center. Is there anything that you felt
you followed up more on this past semester that you usually haven’t in the past?

Jack: were you ever able to interview the third student who didn’t get back to you
last time I spoke with you?

Jack: One thing you mentioned in your last interview was that the two students you
spoke to had changed quite a bit from their freshman to sophomore year and they
“saw themselves as masters of the process rather than as being mastered by it.”

Barbara: you mentioned last time I interviewed you that you were interested in
talking to your African American male interviewee who you happened to single out
in class by doing an activity. Did you ever get a chance to talk to him about it?

Student Pizza Meeting

1. What did you think about the student pizza meeting?
2. Did anything the students say stand out to you?
3. Were your students there? Did they say anything different from what you had
already heard from them in your interviews?
4. Have you emailed or talked to any of your interviewees since the student
pizza meeting?

Jack: At the student pizza meeting you noted interest in how personal experiences
can turn into political action. How did you become interested in this idea?

Grace: you mentioned at the student pizza meeting that you haven’t had a chance to
ask students why they aren’t going to the sciences. Have you gotten any answers to
that yet?

Grace: one other thing you said was that the student left said that what she learned
wasn’t practical. What did you mean by that? Do you think that is why she left? Is
this typical of most students or was she unique?

Dafne: one thing you mentioned at the student pizza meeting was that you were
concerned that students feel that faculty perceive them to be a problem instead of
277
contributing something positive to the [Mountainside College] community. How did
you become interested in this aspect of the students’ experiences?

Dafne: you mentioned last time I interviewed that you thought having a focus group
of students would encourage the students to discuss things that might be
uncomfortable to bring up to faculty. Did you think the student pizza party was
successful in doing that or do you think a more formal focus group would be helpful
in doing that?

Dafne: one thing you mentioned at the pizza party was that you noticed there was
conflict within race in terms of who belongs and who doesn’t in a particular group.
You’ve also mentioned this in our last interview. Was this something that you have
thought about before this came up in the interviews? How has this come up?

President Report:

Show quotes and ask to review for several minutes.

1. What three themes might you choose to include in the report?
2. What recommendations to you have for the report? How do you think the
institution should move forward?

Dafne: in your responses to the questions I sent you, you mentioned that “We need
also to work this into institutional planning around issues raised by the project
(specific issues students raised about campus climate and their experiences,
curriculum and pedagogy, and factors that shape their ability to excel here).” Do you
have any ideas on how to incorporate or address these issues through institutional
planning? This is good to put in the recommendations.

Dafne: you mentioned last time I talked to you that maybe faculty training or staff
training would be something worthwhile to pursue if we find areas that need change
from these student interviews. Do you think this would something to include in the
recommendations portion of the report to the president?

Student protest questions

1. I’m interested in the extent to which you were involved in the student
protests. Can you talk me through your involvement in this situation from
when it first started, including the first time the students protested, to faculty
council meeting, to the town hall meeting, until the end of the school year
(and anything in between).

278
2. What were your goals or hopes in getting involved in what was going on
campus?

3. did your responsibilities on campus change during the last month as a result
of these protests?

4. what were some lessons learned over the past month?
279
Appendix I: Questions for Faculty Participants at the End of the Project

1) In what ways did you find this project of value

2) How have you benefited from interacting with your student interviewees?

3) What needs to be done to facilitate the process of sustaining this at [Mountainside
College]?

4) How do we make this possible without outsiders?

5) Other reflections

280
Appendix J: Informed Consent Forms
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

******************************************************************

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

Faculty and Administrators' Understanding of First-Year College
Students' Experiences

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Estela Mara Bensimon
and Edlyn Marie Vallejo, from the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because
of your professional interaction with first-year college students. A total of twelve
subjects will be selected from [Mountainside College] faculty and administrators to
participate. Your participation is voluntary.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to examine your understanding of first-time students’
college academic and social college experiences.

PROCEDURES

If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following
things:

Participate in up to four audio taped forty-five minute interviews at
[Mountainside College]

Participate in audio taped observations of meetings at [Mountainside College]
in which you discuss your interactions with first-year college students.

281

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS

No foreseeable risks or discomforts will be involved as a result of your participation
in this study.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY

You will not directly benefit from this study.

Publications resulting from this study will benefit faculty and administrators in
informing their practices with first-year college students.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

You will not be paid for participating in this research study.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law.

Estela Bensimon and Edlyn Vallejo from the Center for Urban Education at
University of Southern California alone will have access to audiotapes. Tapes will
be stored in a locked filing cabinet. You have the right to review the tapes. These
audiotapes will be erased after three years.

You will be given a pseudonym as an identifier for the observations and interviews
to ensure your confidentiality. When the results of the research are published or
discussed in conferences, no information will be included that would reveal your
identity. If audio-tape recordings of you will be used for educational purposes, your
identity will be protected or disguised.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL

You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
282
study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise
which warrant doing so.

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:
Estela Mara Bensimon, Principal Investigator
213-740-5202
Waite Phillips Hall, Room 702
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4037

Or

Edlyn Vallejo, Co-Investigator
213-740-5202
Waite Phillips Hall, Room 702F
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4037

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS

You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Grace Ford Salvatori Building,
Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

283

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT, PARENT OR LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE.

I understand the procedures described above and I understand fully the rights of a
potential subject in a research study involving people as subjects. My questions have
been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.

I agree to be audio-taped during committee meetings at [Mountainside College]:
Yes No

I agree to be audio-taped during interviews at [Mountainside College]:
Yes No

Name of Subject

__________________________________________
Signature of Subject

________________________
Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the subject or his/her legal representative, and
answered all of his/her questions. I believe that he/she understands the information
described in this document and freely consents to participate.

Name of Investigator

Signature of Investigator Date (must be the same as
subject’s)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study details an investigation into the ways in which five faculty members who participated in a collaborative inquiry project at a small, liberal arts institution learned from conducting student interviews and reconceptualized their educational practices as a result of this learning. The purpose of the project was for faculty members to develop a deeper understanding of the educational experiences of African American and Latino students -- those who typically experienced inequitable educational outcomes. Using the method of content and narrative analyses, interview transcripts, observational field notes, and written responses were examined to study the extent to which the project achieved its goals. These goals required that faculty participants: (1) learned from students' educational lives

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Exploring faculty beliefs about remedial mathematics students: a collaborative inquiry approach

PDF

Reframing the role of transfer facilitators: using action research methods for new knowledge development

PDF

Changing the landscape of institutional assessment on transfer: the impact of action research methods on community college faculty and counselors

PDF

Practitioner reflections and agency in fostering African American and Latino student outcomes in STEM

PDF

Remediating artifacts: facilitating a culture of inquiry among community college faculty to address issues of student equity and access

PDF

Math faculty as institutional agents: role reflection through inquiry-based activities

PDF

Syllabus review equity-oriented tool as a means of self-change among STEM faculty

PDF

Training culturally responsive remedial math instructors

PDF

The growing gender gap among Latino students attaining a postsecondary education: a study of a minority male support program

PDF

Faculty learning in career and technical education: a case study of designing and implementing peer observation

PDF

An examination of collaboration amongst student affairs and academic affairs professionals in an action research project

PDF

Race in the class: exploring learning and the (re)production of racial meanings in doctoral coursework

PDF

Evaluating the impact of CUE's action research processes and tools on practitioners' beliefs and practices

PDF

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

PDF

Participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in school-level goveranance and decision making

PDF

The influence of organizational learning on inquiry group participants in promoting equity at a community college

PDF

Academic advisement practices and policies in support of Black community college students with the goal of transfer

PDF

Creating an equity state of mind: a learning process

PDF

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

PDF

Embedding and embodying a Hispanic-serving consciousness: a phenomenological case study of faculty hiring experiences

Asset Metadata

Creator Peña, Edlyn Vallejo (author)

Core Title The responsive academic practitioner: using inquiry methods for self-change

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education (Policy, Planning and Administration)

Degree Conferral Date 2007-05

Publication Date 04/24/2007

Defense Date 02/15/2007

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

Tag action research,collaborative inquiry,faculty development,faculty student interaction,Higher education,minority students,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Bensimon, Estela Mara (committee chair), Polkinghorne, Donald E. (committee chair), Frank, Gelya (committee member), Rueda, Robert S. (committee member)

Creator Email evallejo@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m462

Unique identifier UC1206116

Identifier etd-Pena-20070424 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-497337 (legacy record id),usctheses-m462 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Pena-20070424.pdf

Dmrecord 497337

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Peña, Edlyn Vallejo

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu