September 4, 1997
Report: Conference on Researching Issues of Diversity in Higher Education
Rebecca Barr and Lisa R. Lattuca
The Spencer Foundation
On May 28th and 29th of 1997, the Spencer Foundation convened a broadly knowledgeable group of individuals to consider areas of needed research on diversity in higher education (the agenda and a list of participants is attached). This report is organized in two sections. The first represents some of the challenges inherent in thinking about issues of diversity in higher education. The second considers areas of needed research and researchable questions.
"Why does an educational institution need minority students?" and "Why can't it accomplish the same educational goal without affirmative action?" In the keynote address that opened the conference, Amy Gutmann, co-author of Color Conscious: The Political Morality of Race (with K. Anthony Appiah), mentioned three possible lines of argument: (1) educational benefits derive from having a diverse student body, (2) leadership is best when broadly distributed in a democracy, and (3) preparation for living in a racially or ethnically or culturally diverse democracy is enhanced by experiences with diversity. A moral position can be developed in these areas, but Gutmann also emphasized the need for empirical evidence. She also elaborated the idea that higher education serves as a screen for positions of leadership and for professional positions in the US.
Research Issues and Challenges
What should be the focus of research on diversity in higher education? Throughout the conference, discussions shifted back and forth between a focus on access and a focus on institutional support and programmatic responsiveness. Given the Hopwood decision and the challenge it poses to the racial diversity of student bodies, there is a need to "articulate an educational justification for diversity," and to go beyond issues of access to those of social, academic, and civic learning, pedagogy and curriculum. The complex relation between access as a goal and institutional responsiveness was also noted: arguments for access made on the basis of "sameness" may be in conflict with arguments for programmatic differentiation in response to "different needs."
Participants raised the issue, "What do we mean by diversity?" Although the quick answer was to include such characteristics as race, ethnicity, class, gender, age, language, sexual orientation, and disability, the harder answer required us to think about what these characteristics mean. What is the relation between different points of view and such characteristics as race, ethnicity, or gender? Given the heterogeneity of perspectives within groups, a simple isomorphism between an individual's perspective and identity and his or her group characteristics does not exist. Arguments were made for considering race in studies of diversity because our history of discrimination and its legal ramifications have made it the biggest, single social problem in our country today. Others asked, when do people feel they are diverse, and when does race become threatening? Each researcher needs to come to terms with what diversity means, and the consequences of that definition for research.
The Hopwood decision focused attention on access to professional schools and elite institutions. Research on diversity in higher education should, however, not be limited to elite institutions and professional schools, but should include other four-year institutions, HBCUs, and community colleges. Because insightful results may emerge, researchers need to distinguish among institutions that vary in educational mission and student populations. It is equally important that researchers examine assumptions about traditional higher education attendance patterns and expectations of success. For example, researchers shouldn't assume a four-year high school/four-year college sequence is the norm for all students. Some students may take different educational routes and define success in ways that contrast with traditional patterns. In terms of earning potential, participants disagreed over whether the earning differentials that have existed between those with four-year degrees and those with alternative forms of higher education still apply to young adults in the 1990s. But they agreed that "success" needs to be defined in a range of ways going beyond "earning potential" to include measures of student academic, social, and societal benefits.
Who benefits from a national commitment to diverse access to higher education? This issue was addressed on two levels: individual and societal. In terms of individuals, participants asked, "Who profits from, and what are the costs of, attending institutions with diverse student bodies?" Is the price paid by minority students who experience the sometimes destabilizing pressure of becoming representatives of "racial" or "ethnic" perspectives? What if diversity benefits mainly middle-class, white students going to private institutions? Consideration of societal consequences of limited diversity led to a consideration of curricular narrowness without broader ethnic representation, the long term effect of Hopwood on the representation of minorities as students and faculty and in the professions, and our inability to compete and cooperate internationally without the broader perspectives developed through experiencing ethnically diverse curricula and through interaction with various ethnic groups.
What forms of research are needed? Three answers evolved in response to this question. First, a variety of narrative, case study, ethnographic, and quantitative approaches are needed. These should include at the micro level, ethnographic and longitudinal studies of individuals and programs to explore what occurs, and at the macro level, surveys to discern national and regional trends and patterns. Second, questions pursued should cut across issues. Designs are needed that, for example, take access, policy, and teaching and learning seriously all in the same study. Such studies will need to be longitudinal and multi-level in design. Finally, studies of exemplary practices, whether in the areas of admissions, instruction, or other areas are needed. Because many programs work quite well, researchers should be concerned with identifying them and figuring out why they work, for whom, and under what conditions.
What are the roles of beliefs and values in research on diversity? On the one hand, while researchers want to do thoughtful and elegant research, they need to avoid the demand to support a single point of view or position. At the same time, there are value positions that in spite of contrary data would continue to hold. If, for example, there were irrefutable empirical evidence that physically abusing children regularly led to higher test scores, most persons would continue to oppose this practice, in spite of the evidence, because they consider it to be pernicious and evil and seek to avoid negative trade-offs. Research agendas inevitably incorporate moral imperatives; it will be important for researchers to make explicit their value positions and to recognize value influences on their research. Moreover, beliefs or values concerning diversity should not constrain the focus of research so that hard questions are avoided. It is important to examine whether and what kinds of diversity are a good thing. The goal of research should be to investigate both the strengths and weaknesses of alternative policies, approaches, or programs.
What audiences should researchers consider? Research to inform judges, policy makers and others working at the macro policy level will have different questions and methods than research aimed at informing higher education faculty about their teaching. Moreover, the region of the country makes a difference -- discourse on diversity in a state where stakeholders choose not to recognize a problem is quite different than discourse on diversity where problems are recognized and solutions formulated. Reporting the results of research in language that is accessible for broader publics also poses a challenge, but is also essential.
What are the challenges of conducting research in higher education settings? Relatively few studies have been conducted in higher education, in comparison with the number in elementary and secondary schools. A variety of factors may explain the limited number of studies. Most centrally, researchers are based in and/or professionally-socialized by higher education and this complicates their investigation of higher education settings. In addition, studies focused on classrooms, pedagogy, and student learning at the postsecondary level often are not viewed as respectable matters of intellectual inquiry, and faculty are typically not rewarded for such research. Because of these and other considerations, it may be important to address issues of how to establish an environment for responsive and responsible inquiry. Problems to be addressed include how to develop a safe space for research and hard "findings," how to locate collaborators in the same or similar institutions, and how to secure institutional support.
Areas of Needed Research and Researchable Questions
Suggestions for needed research ranged widely in terms of focus and approach. We have organized them into three main clusters: (1) studies of system and institutional policies and practices, (2) research on the social and civic learning of students, and (3) studies of teaching and learning in classrooms.
Studies of System and Institutional Policies and Practices
Recommendations for needed research on system and institutional policies and practices addressed three main issues: student access and retention, faculty hiring and retention, and programmatic support. Some of the suggested studies require the gathering of demographic information, for example, information on student diversity (race, ethnicity, gender, etc.) to study the effect of institutional demographics on retention and success. Others called for a case study focus on the policies and internal decision making of institutions concerning students, faculty, and programs. Case studies of policies and programs that work well would be particularly illuminating. How does the diversity of a faculty and administration influence its planning for the future? Participants recommended multi-site, ethnographic and quantitative comparisons of institutions and institutional systems that involve some self reflection on the part of the institutions and that speak to policy issues.
Student Access, Persistence and Retention
A variety of questions can be asked about student access. Some of these concern the perspectives of students; others focus on institutional decision making. Regarding the first, most student choice models are based on rational choice theories that assumes that race and gender are not relevant. However, longitudinal research on the kinds of cultural and emotional issues that frame students' aspirations and how students and their families view access to institutions is required. What are student perceptions of the implications of Hopwood for applicants to colleges and universities? Where are different kinds of people going to college and how? How and why has this changed over time? What are the patterns, the pushes and pulls? What paths do students follow? Why, for example, do most African American students choose to go to predominantly white institutions? What do they gain? Researchers should also ask whether student leave institutions for good reasons? Who graduates and who leaves? How might students use higher education institutions in different ways? Research should also focus on students' experiences while in college. Which students take what courses and what do they believe they have learned from those courses? How do students perceive their higher education experiences both in and outside of classrooms? Have they located mentors and support networks and who are they?
At the institutional level, there seems to be a great deal of confusion over what Hopwood does and doesn't allow or require. Studies are needed to determine actual admissions policies across the country, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Have admissions procedures changed from before Hopwood to after? What will they be like in the future as compared to what they are like at present? Will, and how will, the ambiance of the institution change? What are the perceptions of administrators of the implications of the Hopwood decision and/or Proposition 209 on college/university policy? How have these decisions affected institutional policy? What happens when there is a conflict between state and institutional policy on issues of diversity (e.g., the California system presidents who dissented)? Given the procedures followed, is access "fair?" Who is gaining entry to institutions that facilitate entry into graduate and professional schools, and thus gaining access to high status occupations and positions? Are admission patterns different in the public and in the private sector and who has access to student financial aid? Are there varying degrees of "need" for access: what difference does it make to go to the most selective colleges and universities? the next most selective? What happens to students who are refused admission to four-year institutions?
Faculty Hiring and Retention
Similar to student access, a variety of questions can be asked about faculty hiring. From an institutional perspective, how do institutions make hiring decisions? What kinds of faculty diversity are represented in institutions? What is the impact of having a diverse faculty on intellectual and curricular decisions? Why is the absence of a diverse faculty so pronounced in high status institutions (at all levels of education)? Why isn't a faculty career more attractive to students of color than it appears to be? What is the role of the "faculty champion" (not necessarily a mentor) in helping to create a diverse faculty? With regard to retention, what are the criteria for success and accomplishment for faculty? Who's not making it as a result? What might be the impact of the abolition of tenure on faculty, especially faculty of color doing unconventional research or teaching?
Programs and Policies
Research is needed that examines institutional thinking about and support for a diverse student body. Underlying this set of questions is the assumption that the presence of race minority students is necessary, but not sufficient, for institutional improvement; rather systematic institutional response to diversity improves institutions. To begin with, to what degree are institutions positioned to engage diversity issues? What might be the value of diversity to an institution? What goals can't be accomplished without race minority students? How do institutions define excellence and what are the programmatic implications of the definition for a diverse student body? How attractive (or unattractive) does an institution become if it is diverse? What, for example, are the consequences for an institution if it is historically and contemporaneously white? or historically and contemporaneously black, or Latina/o, or Native American?
Case studies are needed to examine the relationship between the stated purposes of institutions and their policies and practices. Are they consistent? What are the important outcomes for college? What is diversity's contribution? What do colleges and universities do to make good on the claim that by admitting new groups of students in larger numbers they have improved educational quality or have furthered the purposes of the institution? What institutional funding has been brought to bear? How do institutions respond to the challenge of teaching a diverse student body? How have practices changed over time? What do institutions need to do, both in the short term and the long term, for different groups of students who want to participate in higher education? Finally, how do administrators meet the challenges of diversity? How do leaders relate goals and purposes to policies and practices? How do they persuade their publics regarding policies and practices?
Research on the Personal, Social and Civic Learning of Students
Just as longitudinal studies on the kinds of cultural and emotional issues that frame students' aspirations were recommended to address issues of access, longitudinal studies of the civic learning of these same groups of students during their careers in higher education were also suggested. In addition to describing student perceptions, comparisons among groups of student who differ in institutional characteristics and programmatic characteristics may reveal interesting differences in perceived experiences and learning. Though the learning of students can't be neatly compartmentalized, researchers must focus specific attention on the impact of the extracurricular culture on the personal, social and civic learning of students, as well as the impact of academic programs and curricula on their learning.
Longitudinal and multi-site studies are needed to focus on the dynamics of identity development at particular stages of students' lives and in particular environments. How do students from different ethnic and gender groups construct their identities and how do post secondary institutions (different types) relate to these constructions? What identities do people come in with and how do these get reframed and reworked as they go through the institution? How do institutions enable or constrict opportunities to form cultural identities and cross-cultural relations? The policy decisions and institutional practices that create environments and subsequently impact the construction of identities need to be examined. Research also needs to focus on "whiteness": What does it mean for white students to have already established support groups? What does it mean to white students to have a diverse faculty? What does it mean to students of color? To what extent is one's original culture affirmed in a given institution? The research needs to examine issues of alienation, lack of fit, and inability to find community. It should also examine how identities established outside of schooling interact with school identities.
Research that looks at civic, social, and ethical development of students over time is also needed. What are the consensual elements of good citizenship? To what extent can institutions of higher education promote these elements? What is the consequence of community service for civic engagement and for intellectual growth? What kinds of outcomes are we looking for regarding civic participation after college? How do we know that it is happening? Do students who are in diverse environments or who study diversity topics have a better sense of truth? What kinds of conscious attention to diversity and issues of diversity promote good citizenship and to what extent can they undermine it? at what stages in students' lives? Does being in diverse classrooms make students less racist? better able to live in a democracy? We need research to test the claim that increased access to higher education for people of color has led to an increase in negative stereotyping. Does, or how does, higher education, particularly residential higher education, prepare students for living together in society; that is, how does it create networks of association, effective bonds and institutional allegiances and alliances?
Studies of Teaching and Learning in Classrooms
As discussed in the initial section of this report, one justification for diversity is its educational value. But how do you articulate an educational justification for diversity or justify exclusion? Are there circumstances where different types of diversity are helpful and others where they are harmful? Does diversity alone lead to changes in the curriculum or in teaching practices, or if not, who initiates the change and what institutional supports are required? And what is the role of faculty diversity? Can schools, colleges, and universities successfully educate students from diverse backgrounds in the absence of a diverse faculty? Do power relationships shift when faculty of color teach and how do they shift? This is an area in which case study research, particularly of exemplary classroom programs, is needed. We have organized the questions in this area into three groups: curricula and pedagogy, faculty perspectives and roles, and students characteristics and response. Although these questions are listed by category, they refer to facets of a unified process, all of which need to be studied to represent validly the complexity of the process.
Curricula and Pedagogy
For descriptive/analytic studies of exemplary college teaching, it is useful to describe what is happening in classrooms for very differently "positioned" students and to try to understand why it is happening. What are the effects of different participation structures in classrooms of varying composition? Do some configurations privilege some groups over others? Is there, for example, a difference in learning when students can choose their own study groups or when they are assigned to groups and therefore have to work with other people? How do different configurations of diversity affect classroom processes and learning of different groups of students? Even when curricula and teaching styles change, do we still tend to value some interactional styles over others? How do instructors learn to model the language to speak about diversity? How do students acquire, resist, or transform that language? If the goal is to create discomfort so that students learn, how can faculty create discomfort constructively and then manage the conflict that might arise and what are the institutional implications of student evaluations for promotion and tenure? How does the type of institution influence the pedagogy? For example, are different methods of pedagogy developing in community colleges that help different students succeed?
Given selected curricular tasks and modes of interaction, how does the culture of the classroom influence learning? Do faculty in different disciplines have different ways of introducing diversity? How, for example, does a diversity conversation look in a chemistry classroom versus an English classroom? Do courses that are designed to be more inclusive of previously suppressed voices lead students in new directions? Is the curriculum broad and rigorous enough to do justice to the educational needs of our time or does it exclude important areas of inquiry and important ways of thinking because it excludes certain people? What roles do departments and programs of women's and ethnic studies play in faculty and student lives? What kinds of intellectual and emotional support do they provide? What other disciplines have incorporated programs that represent a change in the direction of recognizing diversity? Who is doing the work and what is being said? What mistakes were made? What kinds of resistance emerge and why? Have any programs lead to the demonstrable success of groups that have been traditionally excluded from higher education and may not now be succeeding in great numbers?
Faculty Perspectives and Roles
From the perspective of faculty, why do faculty do what they do in a given classroom or situation? Do they build communities of inquiry in classrooms, and if so, how and why? How do they talk about their curricular and instructional decisions? How do they model the process of engagement? What have faculty learned from their own experiences in learning to deal with diversity? Do they believe their teaching is different because of greater diversity? Do faculty in different disciplines have different ways of introducing diversity? Is faculty teaching that incorporates issues of diversity better or worse than that which does not, and how would one judge? What interventions may improve faculty in this regard? What are faculty perceptions of their own learning process? What do implicit models of faculty development look like? Do answers to these questions differ for various race and gender defined faculty groups and individuals? Such documentation can contribute our understanding of how faculty development programs encourage responsive pedagogies and how they provide information for faculty learning to teach in diverse classrooms.
Student Characteristics and Engagement
From the perspective of students, how does the quality of the relationships between faculty and certain groups of students affect their feelings of trust, well-being, willingness to take risks, and success in the classroom? Do students of color bring experiences and understandings to the campus and classroom that would otherwise not be present in vivid form and are thus able to influence learning? What do students think they gain from being enrolled with different groups of students? And, what would it have been like if those students weren't there? With regard to faculty, how are different faculty perceived by various groups of students? What is the effect on students of being taught by individuals who are unfamiliar with curricula or research on diversity, who are uncomfortable talking about and dealing with issues of diversity, or who may have limited personal experience with diversity? Knowledge construction is one of our most cherished outcomes, but how to think about and assess it is unclear. What is the chain of relationships among of multiplicity of perspectives (diversity), classroom discourse, and knowledge construction? What assessment strategies are relevant in diverse classrooms or for diversity topics?
A Note from the Spencer Foundation
The Spencer Foundation sponsors occasional conferences to stimulate research on important issues in education. We thank Michelle Fine, Patricia J. Gumport, and Linda C. Powell who helped organize this Conference on Research on Issues of Diversity in Higher Education and the individuals who participated (see listing) for their good work and contributions. We hope that researchers interested in higher education and diversity issues will be stimulated by the questions raised during the conference. The Spencer Foundation welcomes well-designed research proposals on issues of diversity and higher education.