A personal note from the director of the National Campus Diversity Project--Dean Whitla
Several years ago, I left my bureaucratic responsibilities in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences as well as my teaching in assessment and evaluation. I decided to change the direction of my research in the Harvard Graduate School of Education from psychological assessment to diversity and prejudice.
At Derek Bok's (Harvard's President emeritus) suggestion, I initiated a study of law school students at Michigan and Harvard regarding the importance they placed on the racial and ethnic diversity of their peers. In fact, a large majority of law students recognized that the diversity of their peers was very important to the quality of their legal education.
Students recognized that teaching civil rights, criminal justice or even torts couldn't be as effective with only white faces in the classroom as it could with a diverse class of students. In addition to the classroom experiences, all students, even minority students, studied and socialized with others from different racial and ethnic groups more than they ever had before.
Clearly, such interaction changed their understanding of law, their educational process and of society in general. Sandra Day O'Connor cited two pieces of research in her Affirmative Action decision. One was the monumental Bowen-Bok book, The Shape of the River; and the second was our work (which I published with my colleague Gary Orfield).
After the law school study, I conducted a similar study on diversity at the Harvard Medical School and the University of California, San Francisco Medical School. Again the findings were impressive in terms of student support for diversity. The majority of all students surveyed clearly recognized that conducting a medical practice or research for a multicultural community requires experience with a diverse body of peers. The Association of American Medical Colleges cited this research in their Supreme Court case brief supporting Affirmative Action in higher education.
Our current efforts began a couple of years ago when we conducted some undergraduate focus groups around multicultural issues at several colleges. We discovered that students felt many of these programs were not as effective as they should have been; in fact, some were terrible. Students at some of these schools stated that a few of the programs uncovered much animosity and prejudice without giving them the proper tools to work through conflict and move toward understanding, if not, validation, of others.
The directors of unsatisfactory programs had good intentions, but less than satisfactory skill sets in the area of race relations. Thus, with support from Atlantic Philanthropies (and later from the Mellon and Hewlett Foundations) we began our search for model diversity programs in colleges and universities.
First, we established criteria with which to review colleges and universities drawing on the work of Daryl Smith, Sylvia Hurtado, Jeff Milem and Mitchell Chang. We gained insight and advice from of our National Board of Advisors, and arrived at a list of 32 items. Using National Center for Education Statistics IPED and NCAA data sources, which are surprisingly rich, some 300 colleges passed our first screening.
Our second level of screening was based on telephone interviews conducted with official members of the institutions. This information helped us reduce our numbers to 50 colleges and universities most likely to have model programs. We were able to procure agreements to visit and interview students, faculty and administrators at 32 schools. We then began our visits, conducting both individual and focus group interviews with students, multicultural program directors, deans, faculty members and presidents.
The interviews were conducted according to the Merton, et. al. protocol: essentially starting with a set of questions but following any lead that is useful. The interviews were recorded and transcribed (in all student groups), or notes were taken during the interview if those interviewed felt uncomfortable being recorded on tape. All transcriptions were coded using the Atlas system.
We have now adopted structural equation modeling (SEM) to continue our analysis. Having long been a fan of factor analysis, path analysis, regression analysis and cluster analysis, I believe that SEM pulls all of these approaches together, increasing the power of the separate analyses and making them more than the sum of the parts. Using our coded interviews and focus group materials along with our statistical indices we have findings which are more robust than qualitative analysis alone.
Many of our statistically oriented colleagues share the view that our results provide a better basis for generalization and are therefore more valid and thus applicable in the real world of higher education across the nation.
While we must admit that we found no "model" colleges, we did find a number of what we considered "model programs" and we identified the structural qualities that made these so. We have made great progress in turning tons of data into recommendations that we want to share with you. We have addressed some 14 national conferences, and our sessions have typically been among the most well-attended.
We are now developing practical applications for our work. As Ellen Lagemann's (who is now the Dean at HGSE) Spencer memorandum effectively states, this is "use-inspired" research and we feel we have usable knowledge. This web site is an example. From our visits and our presentations we have had many friends asking for ways to strengthen their multicultural programs and we hope that this site will be one effective method for making our information and recommendations available.
We have included a toolkit based on our research that will enable colleges and universities to assess the degree to which they have been effective in creating positive cultural climates and/or have been effective in enhancing the achievement of URM students. Using these data, colleges can contrast their progress with that of other similar institutions. The toolkit will help to create a diagnostic profile and provide examples drawn from our data suggesting methods of improvement when problems are identified.
From the receptions we have received at our presentations, we believe that our findings do speak to the problems that many schools have encountered and have the potential to create a marked improvement in the diversity climate in many schools. We also hope that our findings will encourage better programming to reduce the dropout rate of underrepresented minority students.
We welcome your comments on the hot button questions and the answers we suggest. We would like to learn of experiences you have had, both successes and failures. Sharing such information leads to some of our best improvements -- something that is especially true in this most difficult area of human endeavor.
Please drop us a note. |