inclusion and diversity in the department of anthropology€¦ · may exist within the department...
TRANSCRIPT
DECEMBER 2017
Report Prepared by: Jacqueline Sivén, M.A.
Doctoral Candidate Department of Anthropology University of South Florida
Inclusion and Diversity in the Department of Anthropology
Technical Report of the 2017 Climate Evaluation
Executive Summary Inclusion and diversity is an area of concern for many universities across the United States.
This attention is the result of efforts to address historical inequalities in higher learning, where students from marginalized backgrounds have been under-represented, been the target of harassment and discrimination, and whose needs have often been poorly considered. In their attempts to identify and address issues of concern, many universities and academic departments have turned to climate surveys. The purpose of these surveys is to identify the amount of diversity or homogeneity on campus and to identify areas that need attention. This internal climate evaluation aims to reveal any disparities in inclusion and diversity that may exist within the department of anthropology at the University of South Florida, as well as reveal what current efforts are effectively addressing these issues.
The purpose of this evaluation is to not only assess perceptions of diversity in the department and potentially negative experiences, but to also involve participants in forming the trajectory of the department’s diversity goals, and the decision-making process, by allowing them to recommend the types of changes they would like to see.
A mixed methods climate evaluation was conducted with faculty, staff, and students. The survey was completed by 32 respondents in Spring 2017, and in-depth interviews were conducted with six volunteers Spring through Fall 2017. The evaluation revealed several major themes: recruitment and representation, retention, funding, the need for dialogue, and departmental complacency/action.
Based on the data I recommend the following: draft five or six main initiatives/concerns that the department would like to accomplish in the next two years and create an action plan for the top two to three. The selected initiatives must then be used to create Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound (S.M.A.R.T.) goals. I recommend the following initiatives:
Initiative 1: Transparency and Visibility –
Improve transparency of initiatives by widely publicizing them via internal “press releases” to update department members at key points of progress/accomplishments. These can be on a dedicated page of the department website, in the annual department newsletter, and/or in each semester’s AnthroScope newsletter. It is not recommended that these be disseminated via irregular listserve. Responsible graduate students should be recruited to assist on each initiative to facilitate transparency.
Recommended Initiative 1.2: Streamline Resources- Regularly gather information on diversity initiatives on campus and with off-campus partners and disseminate on same platform as
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
2
the department-run diversity initiatives. I recommend a department webpage include all of this information and the department newsletter only a truncated version; those interested can go to department webpage for more information.
Recommended Initiative 2: Dialogue - Facilitate critical conversations between graduate students, faculty, and staff regarding issues of diversity and inclusion. This should be done via workshops (not already conducted elsewhere on campus), guest lectures, and integration into course material. I recommend:
• A required workshop for all incoming faculty, staff, and graduate students.
• The inclusion of diverse scholars and discussion of issues of diversity and inclusion be included in all coursework on some level.
• Optional events centered on diversity and inclusion.
• Fostering of an inclusive and welcoming environment by including a workshop in the annual faculty retreat that advises faculty on how to address microagressions levied by students and colleagues, and by implementing measures to ensure that GSO represents the department’s goal of inclusion and diversity.
Recommended Initiative 3: Recruitment & Representation- Recruit diverse graduate students, faculty, and staff as positions open via specific and measurable programs. Use S.M.A.R.T. goals to identify exactly what areas of improvement are needed and create an action plan to meet those goals. Dartmouth’s initiative to increase faculty diversity (https://inclusive.dartmouth.edu/initiatives/increase-faculty-diversity) is a good example of specific and measureable goals. Representation can be addressed through recruitment, but also by including more work from diverse scholars (scholars of color, queer scholars, feminist scholars, disability status, etc.) in courses, as recommended in Initiative 2.
Recommended Initiative 4: Funding – Find innovative ways to locate funding to support recruitment and retention of diverse graduate students. For example, supplemental grants to recruit diverse scholars (e.g. NIH research supplement) to complement the limited department funding for incoming students. For faculty, a specific fund should be created to support recruitment and retention of diverse faculty. Funds can be requested from university-level diversity recruitment initiatives.
Recommended Initiative 5: Protocol to address discrimination, bias, macroaggressions, or other methods of exclusion - Create a specific and public protocol to outline how the department will directly address discrimination/bias/macroaggressions. Identify a process for anonymous complaints, and take into account that issues differ by academic track.
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
3
Recommendation 6: Conduct follow-up research on issues of diversity in anthropology as a whole- This research should address issues of diversity and inclusion in anthropology as a whole. This would not necessarily provide immediate solutions for the department but would elucidate how the issues the department faces are an extension of issues in anthropology. Doing so facilitates critical thinking about how to implement higher level change.
The findings of this survey can be linked to general annual and strategic planning administered by the department and progress towards goals must be measured regularly. Follow-up surveys will be necessary.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
Background .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Inclusion & Diversity in the Department of Anthropology ...................................................................................................... 1
Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................... 3
Sample & Recruitment .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Data Collection & Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 3 Survey .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Interviews ........................................................................................................................................................ 4
Privacy & Confidentiality ...................................................................................................................................... 4
RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Survey .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Section I. Suggestions for improving diversity and inclusion in the department ............................................. 11 Section II. Experiences within the department of anthropology ..................................................................... 20 Section III. Experiences at the University as a whole ...................................................................................... 28 Section IV. Perceptions of current department efforts and initiatives ............................................................ 33 Section V. Experiences of exclusion by identity .............................................................................................. 37 Section VI. Satisfaction with attending/working for this department or University......................................... 37
Interviews........................................................................................................................................................... 40
Conclusions & Recommendations.......................................................................................................................... 43
Limitations ............................................................................................................................................................. 49
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................... 50
References ............................................................................................................................................................... 1
Appendices .............................................................................................................................................................. 1
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
1
INTRODUCTION Background
Inclusion and diversity is an area of concern for many universities across the United States. This attention is the result of efforts to address historical inequalities in higher learning, where students from marginalized backgrounds have been under-represented, been the target of harassment and discrimination, and whose needs have often been poorly considered. In their attempts to identify and address issues of concern, many universities and academic departments have turned to climate surveys. The purpose of these surveys is to identify the amount of diversity or homogeneity on campus, to identify areas that need attention, but also areas where universities/departments have been successful in their efforts to improve inclusion and diversity.
The literature on campus climate surveys reveals several important issues on University campuses, including, but not limited to: that the relationship between academic achievement and sexual orientation is moderated by campus climate (Woodford & Kulick 2015), that there is a lack of effective mentoring for marginalized and underrepresented students (Parent et al. 2016), that non-religious students also experience marginalization (Rockenbach et al. 2015), and that bias/discrimination/harassment toward one group can serve as example to other marginalized groups of what to expect on campus, and as such can negatively affect them (Yeung & Johnston 2014). In regards to faculty it has been found that: there is a dearth in knowledge and need for “increased awareness of issues that affect women and diverse faculty” (Campbell-Whatley et al. 2015: 50), that increasing numbers of previously underrepresented groups alone is not enough to improve morale/climate (Zimmerman et al. 2017), that faculty intersectional identity has a major effect on their experiences of inclusion/exclusion which in turn has potential consequences for the “psychological health and retention of underrepresented groups” (Zimmerman et al. 2017: 8). In regards to both faculty and staff, it was found that hierarchical microagressions in the academic work environment have an effect on climate (Young et al. 2015).
This internal climate evaluation aims to reveal any disparities in inclusion and diversity that may exist within the department of anthropology, as well as reveal what current efforts are effectively addressing these issues.
Inclusion & Diversity in the Department of Anthropology In 2014, an SFAA panel was held by department graduate students to address important
issues facing graduate students of color in anthropology. This panel revealed several areas of needed growth, and department faculty and graduate students subsequently collaborated to publish an article in American Anthropologist addressing these issues as well as necessary steps for moving forward. It was approximately at this time that department faculty collaborated on crafting a department diversity policy. The 2014-2015 department Committee on Diversity and Inclusion (CDI) disseminated a brief survey to faculty, staff, and students in May 2015, eliciting their thoughts on what the vital aspects of this statement should be. The 17 survey responses were used
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
2
to guide the priorities of CDI for the next academic year. An important recommendation made in the survey was a need for statistical data on departmental diversity, this was echoed by faculty in their American Anthropologist article.
Based on the 2014 SFAA panel held by department students, 2015 short diversity survey, the department diversity article resulting from the aforementioned survey and panel, as well as other faculty and student feedback, the Department of Anthropology Committee on Diversity and Inclusion (CDI) determined that there is a clear need to issue a departmental climate survey. As a result, CDI, in collaboration with the Department Chair and Graduate Director, commissioned the inaugural integral Climate Survey. Though university-wide Climate Survey’s have been conducted at USF, they failed to capture the broader scope of issues at the department-level for several reasons: a) the last campus-wide survey was conducted in 2010 so the results are outdated, b) the 2010 survey did not capture the perspectives of students as it only recruited USF faculty and staff, c) perspectives on current department initiatives were not collected, and d) thoughts on potential future initiatives were not collected; in summary, it does not provide information on current issues within the department of anthropology.
The survey will assess potential experiences of exclusion based on “race, ethnicity, ancestry, nationality, citizenship, language, age, gender, sexuality, disability, family status, socioeconomic background, political beliefs, and religion” (USF Anthropology Statement on Diversity & Inclusion). This survey looks at compositional and psychological climate of the Department of Anthropology. Part I of the survey is compositional, Parts II-III are psychological, and Part IV is learner-centered and seeks feedback on current efforts. The hope is that this survey will be adapted for use as an annual or biennial department self-evaluation.
This survey differs from the 2015 survey in that it will only recruit current faculty and graduate students. Additionally, the 2015 survey only asked one question: “What would you like to see included in the USF Anthropology Department’s diversity policy?”. The survey is concerned with three main questions:
• What are graduate student, faculty, and staff experiences with discrimination and bias in the Department of Anthropology?
• What are graduate student, faculty, and staff perspectives on current department efforts to enhance inclusion and diversity?
• What do graduate student, faculty, and staff think should be done to enhance inclusion and diversity in the department? It is expected that this report will be used to address any issues of diversity and inclusion
that currently exist in the department, and serve as a template or guide for future climate surveys. It is expected that the internal evaluation will become a regular part of department self-evaluations and be used to improve department recruitment, retention, and representation of students from underrepresented groups.
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
3
Methodology Sample & Recruitment
Survey respondents included current faculty, staff, and graduate students in the Department of Anthropology. Respondents were recruited via the department listservs, as well as flyers in SOC with QR codes linking to the survey. Listserv recruitment e-mails (Appendix A) were distributed twice over a three week period. Flyers promoting the survey were also placed in central locations that are frequented by department faculty, staff, and graduate students (i.e. graduate student office suites, faculty office suites, and the departments front office) (Appendix B). Recruitment was incentivized with a raffle for five $20 Starbucks gift cards. The very last question on the Climate Survey asked respondents if they wanted to enter to win the raffle (Appendix C). Those who responded “Yes” were redirected to a separate survey where they could provide their e-mail address to enter the raffle (Appendix D). On May 6, 2017 raffle participants were notified via e-mail of whether or not they won one of the prizes (Appendix E), and on June 1st were notified via e-mail of how to claim their prizes (Administrative delays caused the lengthy time between notification of winning and distribution of award).
Interview recruitment consisted of a short message at the end of the survey, before the raffle information, which notified participants that if they were interested in providing an interview they could call or text the evaluation administrator (Appendix C).
Data Collection & Analysis As recommended in the literature, this evaluation: a) collected both negative and positive
experiences of marginalized groups, as this is important at expanding programs that have had a positive and welcoming affect on students from marginalized groups (Woodford & Kulick 2015), and b) allowed for accounting of the experiences of nonreligious students who may be experiencing marginalization (Rockenbach et al 2015). The study also utilized a mixed methods design, which have been argued to be very important in conducting climate surveys, as some marginalized groups may be inclined to one reporting method (survey or interview/focus group) over another which means that the use of one method is a limited measure of the issues (Cuellar 2016). Mixed methods were chosen as a means to circumvent some of these limitations and to gain the broadest understanding of issues of inclusion and diversity in the department. This mixed methods study included both Qualtrics surveys and semi-structured in-depth interviews.
Survey The survey was distributed April 11—May 3. Quantitative data was produced in the form
of a Qualtrics survey (Appendix C). The survey consisted of 48 questions. 1 question allowed
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
4
respondents to indicate consent and 1 question allowed respondents to choose whether or not they wanted to be redirected to the raffle survey. The rest of the questions collected data on inclusion and diversity in the department, and included close-ended (including dichotomous, likert, demographic) questions as well as qualitative free-response allowing respondents to provide more detailed information. Survey questions were based upon questions from the 2010 USF Campus Climate Survey, questions observed in the literature, and questions created by the evaluator based on concerns that were raised by CID members. Select questions were chosen from the 2010 USF Climate Survey so that the current data can be compared to results from that survey, and also to ascertain the potential of the 2010 campus-wide survey to be expanded to include students. The survey was pilot-tested with one graduate student and one faculty member before dissemination.
Interviews Additional qualitative data was produced in the form of semi-structured in-depth interviews
(Appendix F). This data was analyzed and coded for initial and emergent themes. The interview guide was pilot-tested with one graduate student before use. Five interviews were conducted with graduate students in the department who had completed the survey. One interview was completed with a graduate student who did not complete the survey. Privacy & Confidentiality
The Climate Survey was anonymous and no identifying information was collected. Those who wished to enter the raffle were redirected to a separate survey where they could provide their e-mail information. The Raffle Survey was completely independent of the Climate Survey and raffle entries cannot be traced back to Climate Survey responses.
All interviews were conducted in a location deemed safe and confidential by the participant. In such a close-knit environment, it is important to take extra measures to protect confidentiality, including ensuring that no persons collecting future climate surveys can potentially identify interviewees. For this reason, interview names and dates/locations of interviews were not included in project documents, and participants were allowed to choose their own pseudonyms. Additionally, audio-recording of interviews was not be completed. Any and all notes that were written are void of personal information. The only risk of loss of confidentiality is if the evaluation administrator’s USF e-mail account and calendar were hacked or accessed via Sunshine law. For this reason, the evaluation administrator’s cell phone number was included at the end of the survey to provide potential interviewees the opportunity to contact her via text/call.
Interview guides, and all other project material, were stored on a USB flashdrive and a back-up flashdrive. When not in use, the flashdrive and paper versions of project material were stored in the evaluation administrator’s office. At the end of data analysis, the flashdrive and paper versions of this anonymized project material will be stored in a locked file cabinet in the Department Chair’s lab.
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
5
RESULTS Survey
The survey had six distinct sections, each tailored to gather a specific type of information.
• The primary purpose of Section I of the survey was to elicit not only suggestions for improving diversity and inclusiveness in the department, but also current perceptions of departmental diversity.
• Section II centered exclusively on experiences within the department of anthropology, and contained question sets on: personal experiences of harassment and discrimination1, attitudes and experiences of diverse populations2, and inclusivity in the Department3.
• Section III centered exclusively on experiences at the University as a whole, and contained question sets on: personal experiences of harassment and discrimination4, and attitudes and experiences of diverse populations5.
• Section IV elicited perceptions of current department efforts and initiatives to maintain and improve internal diversity and inclusivity, and allowed respondents to recommend new initiatives and programs.
• Section V collected demographic data on respondents as a means to determine if negative experiences and exclusion vary significantly by identity within the department.
• Section VI only contained only two questions, which asked respondents to declare whether they would recommend attending/working for this department or University to others.6 The purpose of these questions was to target institutional satisfaction and to determine if there is any correlation between this and their experiences within the department or university. This allows respondents to also express satisfaction with the department and university, instead of just focusing on negative experiences.
Only 51.6% of people who began the survey completed it (32 of 62 people), with completion meaning that the respondent pressed “Submit” at the end of the survey. Respondents were not required to answer every question on the survey, with the exception of the demographics section; however, the demographics section offered a “Prefer not to answer” option. This technical report details the responses of only those who actually completed the survey (n=32).
1 Questions drawn/adapted from USF 2010 Climate Survey 2 Questions drawn/adapted from USF 2010 Climate Survey 3 Questions drawn/adapted from Campbell-Whatley et al. 2015, and Zimmerman et al 2016 4 Questions drawn/adapted from USF 2010 Climate Survey 5 Questions Drawn/Adapted from USF 2010 Climate Survey 6 Adapted from Woodford & Kulick 2015
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
6
78.1% (25) of respondents were Graduate Students, 15.6% (5) were Faculty Members, and 6.3% (2) were Staff Members (Figure 1). 37.5% (12) of respondents were M.A. students, 34.4% (11) were PhD students, and .6% (2) did not disclose their program level.
Graduate students were asked to disclose their GPA in order to determine how GPA may correlate with positive/negative experiences in the department; only 56% (14) of graduate students disclosed their GPA (Figure 2). Of those the GPAs disclosed, the median GPA was 3.91, and the mode 4 (Table 1). However, deeper analyses were not performed since only 56% disclosed their GPA (Figure 2).
Professional StatusStaff MemberFaculty MemberGraduate Student
% o
f Com
plet
ed S
urve
ys
100
80
60
40
20
06.3
15.6
78.1
Figure 1. Proportion of Completed Surveys by Professional Status, n=32
Figure 2. Graduate student provision of GPA, n=25
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
7
Over half of respondents were 18-30 years old (59.4%, 19), and very few were 60+ (3.1%, 1) (Figure 3). A substantial proportion of respondents did not disclose their age (12.5%, 4) (Figure 3).
GPA ProvisionPrefer not to answerMy GPA is:
% o
f Gra
duat
e St
uden
ts100
90
80
70
60
50
4044.0
56.0
N Min Max Mean Median Mode SDGPA 14 3.5 4 3.87 3.91 4 0.14
Table 1. GPA disclosed by graduate students
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
8
Most respondents who disclosed demographic data were women (68.8%), were heterosexual (65.6%), were U.S citizens (84.4%), were born in the U.S. (75%), and did not have a disability (81.3%) (Table 2). However, in order to maintain anonymity, respondents were able to pick and choose whether they would disclose certain data. This resulted in respondents frequently choosing “Prefer not to answer”. 9.4% of respondents chose not to disclose their gender identity, 15.6% chose not to disclose their sexual orientation, 9.4% chose not to disclose their citizenship status, 15.6% chose not to disclose whether they were born in the U.S., and 6.3% chose not to disclose their disability status (Table 2). This greatly limits the ability to compare experiences by demographic data. This is especially evident when considering racial/ethnic identity; 50% of respondents identified as White and almost 50% did not disclose their racial/ethnic identity (Table 3). Finally, as was expected, almost all responded who identified what languages they speak disclosed that they speak English (21 of 32 total respondents); Spanish was the second most commonly spoken language (37.5%) (Table 3).
Age
Prefer not to answer
60+41-5031-4018-30
% o
f Res
pond
ents
100
80
60
40
20
0
12.53.1
12.512.5
59.4
Figure 3. Age of Respondents, n=32
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
9
Graduate Student
Faculty Member
Staff Member Total
Man 3 (9.4%) 1 (3.1%) 1 (3.1%) 5 (15.6%)Woman 19 (59.4%) 2 (6.3%) 1 (3.1%) 22 (68.8%)Trans man 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)Trans woman 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)Genderqueer/Gender non-conforming
2 (6.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (6.3%)
Not listed: 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)Prefer not to answer 1 (3.1%) 2 (6.3%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (9.4%)Heterosexual 17 (53.1%) 2 (6.3%) 2 (6.3%) 21 (65.6%)Bisexual 2 (6.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (6.3%)Gay/Lesbian 1 (3.1%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (3.1%)Not listed: 3 (9.4%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (9.4%)Prefer not to answer 2 (6.3%) 3 (9.4%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (15.6%)U.S. Citizen 21 (65.6%) 4 (12.5%) 2 (6.3%) 27 (84.4%)
Not a U.S. Citizen 2 (6.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (6.3%)Prefer not to answer 2 (6.3%) 1 (3.1%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (9.4%)Yes 19 (59.4%) 3 (9.4%) 2 (6.3%) 24 (75%)No 3 (9.4%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (9.4%)Prefer not to answer 3 (9.4%) 2 (6.3%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (15.6%)Yes 4 (12.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (12.5%)No 20 (62.5%) 4 (12.5%) 2 (6.3%) 26 (81.3%)Prefer not to answer 1 (3.1%) 1 (3.1%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (6.3%)
Do you have a disability?
* The survey question regarding Family Status has not been included in this analysis. A free text response was provided to respondents for this question, which ultimately results in failure to demarcate important aspects of family status (i.e.some people identified whether they had children while others did not, and one person identified themselves as both single and in a committed relationship). Future climate surveys will need to provide an actual list of answer choices for this question.
Born in the U.S.?
Citizenship Status
Sexual orientation
Professional Status
Gender Identity
Table 2. Demographic 1: Data on gender identity, sexual orientation, citizenship status, born in the U.S., and disability status, n=32
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
10
TotalWhite/Caucasian/Northern European/WASP 16 (50%)Hispanic 1 (3.1%)Prefer not to answer 15 (46.9%)None/not religious/n/a 7 (21.9%)Atheist 6 (18.8%)Agnostic 3 (9.4%)Christian/Catholic 4 (12.5%)Jewish 1 (3.1%)Prefer not to answer 11 (34.4%)English 21 (65.6%)Spanish 12 (37.5%)French 1 (3.1%)German 1 (3.1%)Italian 1 (3.1%)Portugues 1 (3.1%)Chinese 1 (3.1%)Yoruba 1 (3.1%)
Prefer not to answer 10 (20.4%)¹Respondents were provided with text boxes to self-identify. The categories used here (exluding "Prefer not to answer") represent those that respondents used.
²In order to ensure that anonymity is maintained, only the total values for race/ethnicity, religious affiliation, and languages spoken have been shown³Many respondents speak multiple languages, so the proportions for this question will not add up to 100.
Race / ethnicity
The survey question regarding Family Status has not been included in this analysis. A free text response was provided to respondents for this question, which ultimately results in failure to demarcate important aspects of family status (i.e.some people identified whether they had children while others did not, and one person identified themselves as both single and in a committed relationship). Future climate surveys will need to provide an actual list of answer choices for this question.
Religious Affiliation
Languages Spoken³
Table 3. Demographic 2: Data on race/ethnicity, religious affiliation, and languages spoken, n=32*
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
11
Section I. Suggestions for improving diversity and inclusion in the department The first section of the survey centered on the department’s diversity statement and the
diversity of the student, faculty and staff body. Respondents were presented with the current department diversity statement, and 81.3% (26) would not recommend making changes to the diversity statement (Figure 4, Table 47).
7 The sample sizes for faculty and staff were very small (5 and 2 respectively) so were grouped together with graduate student responses for all subsequent analyses.
Would you make changes to the statement?NoYes
% o
f Res
pond
ents
100
80
60
40
20
0
81.3
18.8
Graduate Student
Faculty Member Staff Member Total
Yes 4 (12.5%) 1 (3.1%) 1 (3.1%) 6 (18.8%)
No 21 (65.6%) 4 (12.5%) 1 (3.1%) 26 (81.3%)
Would you make any changes to the statement?
Figure 4. Recommended changes to the department diversity statement, n=32
Table 4. Recommended changes to the department diversity statement, by professional status
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
12
5 of the 6 respondents who recommended changes stated the following8:
• A more direct focus on race and ethnicity, a stronger diversity statement, “as well as a statement that says that the department will support all of its students, despite their race”.
• Statement “that anthropology, more than any other discipline, has an ethical/moral obligation to support cultural diversity within our department, since that is what we study and what we promote to the world”
• “[S]tatement about how our department's goals are reflective of our understanding of applied anthropology and how our students, faculty, and staff work to maintain or push that understanding of what it means to be an applied anthropologist.”
• That “disability” should be change to ability level.
The sixth respondent stated that any changes to the statement wouldn’t matter.
When asked to provide a free response on what they thought of the statement9, 29/32 (90.6%) participants responded and most comments were either positive or neutral. However, many more respondents had critical feedback to this question than when asked if they would make changes to the statement. Much of the criticism was that there is no follow-through from diversity statement to action. Respondents stated that the statement need to be “better supported by action” (including addressing offensive acts and hosting inclusive events), that while it talks about diversity in general it fails to identify the current main area of concern for the department, and that “[h]ow it is put into practice varies, and that it should include how it relates to our goals of “holistic and change-driven approach of applied anthropology”.
Is the department fulfilling the commitments set forth in its diversity statement?
68.8% (22) of respondents thought that the department was fulfilling the commitments set forth by the diversity statement (Figure 5).
8 Appendix G 9 Appendix G
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
13
However, this is complicated by what was revealed in the follow-up free-response section.10 Here, it was found that though several respondents do feel positively about the department’s efforts, they still feel like there is room for growth.
• “I think they are trying, but there are some components I am not sure how they determine.”
• “I believe the department is striving to fulfill the commitments. However, the department could do more to engage both faculty and students not just in supporting diversity but challenging attitudes that are counter to those commitments. For example, facilitating conversations among students and faculty (together and separately) about microaggressions and everyday racism that disproportionately affect students of color.”
• “I think it's doing a better job than most departments.”
• “Yes, but it seems like only recently. There is still not a very diverse faculty or staff.”
• “I lean towards yes but I realize that change comes slowly and this is something that may take a while to see change.”
10 Appendix G
ResponsesNoYes
% o
f Res
pond
ents
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
3031.3
68.8
Figure 5. “Is the department fulfilling the commitments set forth in its diversity statement?”, n=32
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
14
• “The department is making an effort. I do believe there are some ways that we could make greater efforts however.”
• “Yes and no. Includes a diversity of research, doesn't necessarily include a diversity of staff. In terms of projects and events, definitely yes.”
Other respondents feel that the department has a very long way to go, with respondents feeling that the diversity statement is just “lip service” and that they have been tokenized for their identity. Respondents recommend that the department:
• Hire “new staff, accepting studies with different backgrounds”
• Hire more faculty of color
• “RECRUIT minority students and faculty and then HELP them improve their performance (if needed) with direct, active mentoring and training.”
• Directly address acts of discrimination. “There have been multiple cases of discrimination that I have heard and witnessed that have not been handled according to the statement.”
• Initiate “required seminars for ALL graduate students (if not faculty) in race/gender/ethnicity…It is taken for granted that anthropologists have somehow already realized these interpersonal and structural issues of inequality, when truly this is not so. There remains a climate of marginalization for students of color in our department”
• “The lack of longterm funding for our graduate students makes our program unappealing for those who would most rely on it (those of lower class background and the associated marginalized groups that encompass such a population), and untenable for our students already in it.”
• Take proactive measure beyond hiring diverse faculty and accepting diverse students by actively supporting them and “facilitating positive dialogue surrounding the diversity of the department.”
• Improve faculty understanding of SDS policies and procedures.
Do you think the department’s student/faculty/staff body is diverse? When asked about how they perceive the department’s diversity, it was found that many
perceived the faculty and staff body as less diverse than the student body. (Table 4, Figure 6). 75% of respondents felt that the faculty body was not diverse and 77.4% felt that the staff body was not diverse, comparatively 37.5% felt that the student body was not diverse. Though perceptions of the diversity of the student body is more optimistic than that of the faculty and staff body this does not necessarily mean that the student body is sufficiently diverse. The follow-up free-response sections for each of the three perceived diversity questions provided important information regarding this issue. For example, those who described the student body as lacking in diversity state several times
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
15
that the student body is “overwhelmingly white”, since the survey statistics also reveal that at least 50% of respondents are white and most were graduate students (78.1%) it is possible that this affected whether the respondent thought the student body was diverse (Figure 1 and Table 3). However, since 46.9% of respondents did not provide their race/ethnicity it is not possible to test this (Table 3).
N Yes No
Do you think the department’s student body is diverse?
32 20 (62.5%) 12 (37.5%)
Do you think the department’s faculty body is diverse?
32 8 (25%) 24 (75%)
Do you think the department’s staff body is diverse?
31 7 (22.6%) 24 (77.4%)
Do you think the department's ________ body is diverse?NoYes
% o
f Res
pons
es
80
60
40
20
0
77.42
22.58
75
25
37.5
62.5
staff?faculty?student?
Figure 6. Perceived diversity of the department
Table 5. Perceived diversity of department
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
16
Overall, the correlating free response questions11 revealed that though many had a very clear positive or negative view of department diversity, others did not feel that the issue could be so clearly demarcated.
When discussing diversity in the student body, responses indicating a positive perception included that students in the department come from various backgrounds, that the diversity of USF is reflected in the department, that it is diverse for a graduate program, and that the students in the classes they teach are diverse. Responses indicating a negative perception of diversity in the department’s student body included that the majority of students are, white/female/American/middle class, that “most of the classes are all white women talking about ‘diversity’”, that the undergraduate student body is much more diverse than the M.A./PhD, and that the lack of diversity may not be “the fault of the department, because our body may match the ratios of applications”. Responses indicating a more undecided perspective, where the respondent was on the fence about whether or not the department is diverse, included that the department was “somewhat”, “sort of”, and “to an extent” diverse, that the department has gotten more diverse over time, that its “not as diverse as the student body at the college in general”, and also that they’d like to see more minority students in archaeology.
When discussing diversity in the faculty body, responses indicating a positive perception were scant (as reflected in the yes/no responses), and included that the faculty “represents cross-culturally a variety of people….some people more than others”, and that “the faculty is more diverse than the student body”. Responses indicating a negative perception of diversity in the department’s faculty body included that we have very few faculty of color and no Muslim faculty, that women faculty alone is not diversity because “we have faculty who perpetuate terrible norms of sexism and gender discrimination, if not openly, often interpersonally, where female students and students of color are interrupted and spoken over”, that most faculty is “cis, straight, and basically abled”, that there is not an “an active attempt to recruit additional people of color”, that “I see all the emails through the anthropology listservs about activism outside of the academy, in the community, yet I do not see the same zeal in regards to the equal attention and value of minority scholars and their scholarship”, that and there is “discrimination against more senior faculty who did not have the perks junior ones now have and also have inverted/compressed salaries”. Responses indicating a more undecided perspective, or thought the department was doing well but needs work, included: that it could be more diverse but it is difficult to recruit “the best minority candidates” and for USF to match what other universities offer (especially in some subfields, like archaeology), who are in high demand everywhere, and USF often can't compete with places that
11 Appendix G
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
17
can pay more, offer better resources etc.”, that it lack of faculty diversity reflects lack of diversity in the field, and that “It is somewhat diverse, but could be better especially in terms of race”.
When discussing diversity in the staff body, all but two responses indicated that the staff body was not diverse citing that they are all white women. Despite this, some respondents did not think this was important, stating that “does not influence anything else as they are caring and compassionate workers who really make an effort to support students”, that “the diversity of the staff is not as important as the diversity of the student body and the faculty”, that “when you have Sue you don't need anything else”, and that “is the mission of the department to create diversity?”. Others disagreed, stating that “we must be cognizant to be more diverse in all areas.”, that “I have heard issues with how the staff have handled matters as well, such as not being confidential or discussing issues using the same racial biases we critique”, and that “This is an important questions, especially as the a couple staff members in the office do not understand and, at times, do not respect the experiences of people of color”.
The last three questions in this section asked respondents to identify the best way to achieve a diverse and inclusive department, how diversity and inclusion can be enhanced in the department, and the best way to maintain diversity and inclusiveness in the department.
What do you think is the best way to achieve a diverse and inclusive department?12
Responses to this question included: increase funding and financial aid, improve/ramp-up recruitment at universities, professional associations for marginalized groups, “accept more students who are ‘minorities’”, implement “department meetings and seminars” or workshops addressing issues of diversity and inclusion, maintain foreign student interest in the department, provide support through funding and mentorship, [m]aking sure diversity and inclusion are central in all decision making”, recruiting global experts with diverse research interests, [h]aving more diversity in positions of power”, include the local community, hire diverse faculty, and by taking more action. Additionally, a few respondents also noted that the department should also promote those within it taking acritical look at their “emic positionality”. These responses included that:
• “I think folks in the department need to first admit where they are lacking. It is too commonly a subject that puts people on the defensive. Second, in terms of inclusivity, anthropologists seem to do this thing where they think their training makes them immune from being problematic, or they self-righteously note that they have implicit biases, pat themselves on the back, and then move on. That absolutely needs to stop. There have been actual studies on this happening in anthropology departments and ours is no exception. Finally, I think that faculty need to be better trained and educated on the issues facing LGBT
12 Appendix G
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
18
students, as well as other marginalized groups so that conversations can be safe and productive.”
• “I would like the department to be more of a safe space for me to freely share my feelings and to feel comfortable. Having GSO and three students tell me that "You're welcomed" and post signs on doors saying "We love you" means nothing when it is not put to action. Love us, members of underrepresented groups, enough to read our anthropological works. Love us enough to demand more representation of minorities in teaching positions. Don't love me enough just to put it on your door to take a picture for Facebook to show you are an activist.”
• “Foster an approach to anthropology which emphasizes emic positionality and that it doesn't necessarily have to be about studying the "other".”
Finally, some respondents did feel that diversity and inclusion is an issue not specific to our department, but an issue with the U.S. educational system.
How do you feel that diversity and inclusion can be enhanced in the department of anthropology? Responses noting room for improvement included: improve recruitment, funding, and
support for students from marginalized communities to assist in improving representation, improve recruitment of diverse faculty, promote diverse events or co-host events with other departments, examine the demographics to determine what groups are underrepresented and create a strategic plan to recruit those groups, “increasing participation in the initiatives put forth by underrepresented faculty and students”, teach about diversity and inclusivity in classes, seminars, or talks to “show students and faculty alike that this is what is expected within our department”. Respondents provided detailed recommendations on potential ways that the classes/talks/seminars could be implemented:
• “I think bi-monthly seminars or talks on current issues in diversity and how we can address these in within an anthropological framework would be helpful. I think it would also be helpful to have these led by different faculty and students who would be able to speak to the challenges they face within our discipline due to their specific identities (LGBTQ+, Ability level, Cultural background, etc).”
• “I think that the department needs to teach diversity and inclusivity in their classes. Most professors do this at some level, but conversations have been had about a course designed specifically to discuss difficult topics such as race, gender, diversity and inclusivity. In doing this we not only prepare our students to deal with these topics, but also show students and faculty alike that this is what is expected within our department. I have personally seen some issues of people not respective diversity and, while a class will not completely
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
19
alleviate this issue, I do believe it will help. Perhaps we could incorporate a class (or even required lecture series) on these topics with a different professor speaking every week so that everyone in the department in included.”
What do you think is the best way to maintain diversity and inclusiveness in the department? Many responses to this question centered on the need to take action and maintain that
proactive stance, through funding, as well as maintaining a welcoming environment. For instance, one respondent stated:
“Do not just say the department is devoted to valuing diversity, but develop concrete ways for people to see these values on a regular basis, such as working with different communities within the university and outside the university that promote understanding and respecting diversity. Ensure that there are chances for members of the department to experience one another and get to know the diversity that we bring.”
Another stated that we must “[s]top being hypocritical and actually follow the statement rather than standing behind it as a shield.”
And yet another stated that “D&I is something that needs to be constantly monitored and worked on. It's not a box we can check off each year. I think constant conversation on this subject will help to keep it fresh in everyone's mind and keep morale high and issues low.
Other respondents were critical of the assumption that diversity and inclusiveness had been gained enough to even be maintained, stating:
• “Achieve diversity first then the question of maintaining comes.”
• “Maintain diversity and inclusiveness? Are we truly diverse and inclusive enough for me to answer this question?”
• “We need to have it before we maintain it.”
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
20
Section II. Experiences within the department of anthropology This section centered exclusively on experiences within the department of anthropology,
and contained question sets on: personal experiences of harassment and discrimination, attitudes and experiences of diverse populations, and inclusivity in the Department.
Respondents were asked if they had experienced harassment based on race/ethnicity, ancestry, nationality, citizenship, language, age, gender, sexuality, disability, family status, socioeconomic background, political beliefs, religion, or other during their time in the department, at department events or socializing with department faculty and graduate students (Table 6). For ancestry, nationality, citizenship, disability, and family status, over 80% of respondents in each category stated that they had “0=never” experienced harassment (Table 6). For language, age, and other, 70-80% of respondents in each category stated that they had “0=never” experienced harassment. For sexuality, socioeconomic background, political beliefs, and religion, 60-70% of respondents in each category stated that they had “0=never” experienced harassment (Table 6). The highest proportions of experiences of harassment occurred by race/ethnicity and gender, where only 53.3% and 43.8% in each category (respectively) stated that they had “0=never” experienced harassment (Table 6).The results of this question set is potentially confounded by the question “No harassment experienced”; see Table 6 and Limitations for further information.
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
21
Respondents were asked if they had experienced discrimination based on race/ethnicity, ancestry, nationality, citizenship, language, age, gender, sexuality, disability, family status, socioeconomic background, political beliefs, religion, or other during their time in the department, at department events or socializing with department faculty and graduate students (Table 7). For nationality, sexuality, and family status over 90% of respondents in each category stated that they had “0=never” experienced discrimination (Table 7). For ancestry, language, disability, socioeconomic background, political beliefs, and religion, 80-90% of respondents in each category stated that they had “0=never” experienced discrimination (Table 7). For race/ethnicity, age, and
n 0=never 1=rarely 2=sometimes 3=often
Race/Ethnicity 15 8 (53.3%) 2 (13.3%) 5 (33.3%) 0 (0%)
Ancestry 15 12 (80%) 1 (6.7%) 2 (13.3%) 0 (0%)
Nationality 15 12 (80%) 1 (6.7%) 2 (13.3%) 0 (0%)
Citizenship 15 13 (86.7%) 1 (6.7%) 1 (6.7%) 0 (0%)
Language 15 11 (73.3%) 1 (6.7%) 3 (20%) 0 (0%)
Age 15 11 (73.3%) 2 (13.3%) 2 (13.3%) 0 (0%)
Gender 16 7 (43.8%) 4 (25%) 4 (25%) 1 (6.3%)
Sexuality 15 10 (66.7%) 4 (26.7%) 0 (0%) 1 (6.7%)
Disability 15 13 (86.7%) 2 (13.33%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Family status 15 14 (93.3%) 0 (0%) 1 (6.7%) 0 (0%)
Socioeconomic background 15 10 (66.7%) 3 (20%) 2 (13.3%) 0 (0%)
Political beliefs 15 10 (66.7%) 3 (20%) 1 (6.67%) 1 (6.67%)
Religion 13 8 (61.5%) 4 (30.8%) 1 (7.7%) 0 (0%)
Other: 8 6 (75%) 1 (12.5%) 0 (0%) 1 (12.5%)
No harrassment experienced
18 16 (88.9%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (11.1%)
¹"No harassment experienced" potentially confounded the other questions in this set. As a result, the proportion of respondents who would have answered “0=never” to the other questions could actually be much higher than shown. See Limitations for additional information.
Table 6. “In your time with the department, attending department events, and socializing with department faculty and graduate students, have you ever experienced harassment based on:”¹
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
22
other, 70-80% of respondents in each category stated that they had “0=never” experienced harassment (Table 7). The highest proportions of experiences of harassment occurred by gender, where only 50% of respondents stated that they had “0=never” experienced harassment (Table 7). The results of this question set is potentially confounded by the question “No harassment experienced”; see Table 6 and Limitations for further information.
A 15-item question set explored other experiences of exclusion/inclusion in the department. Thirteen of these questions referred to other exclusion and two questions referred to inclusion (Table 8). The highest proportion of experience of other exclusion was that only 53.1% of respondents stated that they felt that they needed to minimize an aspect of their identity to be able
n 0=never 1=rarely 2=sometimes 3=often
Race/Ethnicity 13 10 (76.9%) 2 (15.4) 1 (7.7%) 0 (0%)
Ancestry 13 11 (84.6%) 1 (7.7%) 1 (7.7%) 0 (0%)
Nationality 13 12 (92.3%) 1 (7.7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Citizenship 13 13 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Language 14 12 (85.7%) 0 (0%) 2 (14.3%) 0 (0%)
Age 14 10 (71.4%) 2 (14.3%) 2 (14.3%) 0 (0%)
Gender 14 7 (50%) 4 (78.6%) 3 (21.4%) 0 (0%)
Sexuality 13 12 (92.3%) 1 (7.7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Disability 13 11 (84.6%) 1 (7.7%) 1 (7.7%) 0 (0%)
Family status 13 12 (92.3%) 1 (7.7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Socioeconomic background 14 12 (85.7%) 1 (7.1%) 1 (7.1%) 0 (0%)
Political beliefs 14 12 (85.7%) 1 (7.1%) 0 (0%) 1 (7.1%)
Religion 14 12 (85.1%) 1 (7.1%) 1 (7.1%) 0 (0%)
Other: 10 7 (70%) 1 (10%) 2 (20%) 0 (0%)
No discrimination experienced
20 17 (85%) 1 (5%) 0% 2 (10%)
¹"No discrimination experienced" potentially confounded the other questions in this set. As a result, the proportion of respondents who would have answered “0=never” to the other questions could actually be much higher than shown. See Limitations for additional information.
Table 7. “In your time with the department, attending department events, and socializing with department faculty and graduate students, have you ever been the target of discrimination based on:”
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
23
to fit in (Table 8). The lowest proportion of other exclusion was by “feared for your personal safety because of identity” and “experienced a lack of accommodation for disability”, both at 90.6% (Table 8). However it is important to note that 81.3% of respondents stated that they did not have a disability (Table 2), which may have an effect on low proportions for the latter question item.
Experiences of inclusion in this question set where only collected with two items. There was a clear difference between respondents’ experiences between the two items. Less than half of respondents (32.3%) felt that the department sometimes/often strengthened or affirmed their identity (Table 8). Comparatively, 67.8% of respondents felt sometimes/often comfortable discussing their identity on campus as a whole (Table 8).
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
24
n 0=never 1=rarely 2=sometimes 3=often
Exclusion
... had someone challenge or attempt to embarrass you because of your identity.
32 21 (65.6%) 9 (28.1%) 1 (3.1%) 1 (3.1%)
... felt isolated or left out when work was required in groups because of your identity.
32 26 (81.3%) 2 (6.3%) 4 (12.5%) 0 (0%)
... felt left out of a social event or activity because of your identity.
31 22 (71.0%) 5 (16.1%) 4 (12.9%) 0 (0%)
... feared for your personal safety because of your identity.
31 29 (93.5%) 2 (6.5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
... been put down intellectually because of identity
32 21 (65.6%) 6 (18.8%) 3 (9.4%) 2 (6.3%)
... had someone assume you were employed/ promoted because of your identity.
31 27 (87.1%) 3 (9.7%) 0 (0%) 1 (3.2%)
... felt you needed to minimize an aspect of your identity to be able to fit in.
31 17 (54.8%) 3 (9.7%) 9 (29%) 2 (6.5%)
... felt that you were expected to speak on behalf of all people in your identity group.
31 21 (67.7%) 4 (12.9%) 2 (6.5%) 4 (12.9%)
... avoided disclosing your identity due to fear of negative consequences.
31 27 (87.1%) 1 (3.2%) 1 (3.2%) 2 (6.5%)
... had to conceal your identity to avoid intimidation.
31 27 (87.1%) 2 (6.5%) 1 (3.2%) 1 (3.2%)
... felt that your ideas/comments weren't listened to as carefully as your male coworkers'.
30 20 (66.7%) 3 (10.0%) 2 (6.7%) 5 (16.7%)
... felt that your work wasn't valued as highly as your male coworkers' work.
30 20 (66.7%) 2 (6.7%) 3 (10.0%) 5 (16.7%)
... experienced a lack of accommodations for disability.
31 29 (93.5%) 1 (3.2%) 1 (3.2%) 0 (0%)
Inclusion
... felt the Department environment strengthened/affirmed your identity.
31 14 (45.2%) 7 (22.6%) 8 (25.8%) 2 (6.5%)
... felt comfortable discussing your identity on campus.
31 6 (19.4%) 4 (12.9%) 14 (45.2%) 7 (22.6%)
Table 8. Other Exclusion, “How often during the past year at the Department of Anthropology have you…”
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
25
Where did the incidents happen? When asked where these experiences occurred13, respondents expressed that had been
instigated by faculty and students, and had occurred in classes, meetings, in the front office, in the graduate lounges, when on ta duty, at GAU hosted activities, on social media, and among colleagues “in the workplace and socially”. Though one respondent stated that their experiences had “[m]ore to do with individuals and less to do with the department”, another stated that though what they witnessed did not occur at a department event “it can reflect somewhat poorly on the department that this person would express these types of views. (Hence the suggestion of the class/lecture series)”.
Additional questions regarding inclusion/exclusion in the department revealed that respondents largely feel welcome in the department, with 71.9% stating that they Agree/Strongly Agree that faculty recognize they have important ideas to contribute, and 78.1% similarly stating that faculty respect them as a professional. Feelings of social acceptance are lower with only 65.6% stating they Agree/Strongly Agree. Feelings of fairness were lowest, with only 45.2% stating that they Agree/Strongly Agree that if they work hard they are almost assured of being rewarded. Finally only 6.3% of respondents felt that they were excluded from information in the department.
13 Appendix G
n Strongly Disagree/Disagree
Neutral Agree/Strongly Agree
Faculty in the department recognize that I have important ideas to contribute.
32 2 (6.3) 7 (21.9%) 23 (71.9%)
Faculty in the department respect me as a professional.
32 2 (6.3%) 5 (15.6%) 25 (78.1%)
I feel socially accepted in my department. 32 2 (6.3%) 9 (28.1%) 21 (65.6%)
In my department, if I work hard, I am almost assured of being rewarded.
31 4 (12.9%) 13 (41.9%) 14 (45.2%)
Through no fault of my own, I seem to be one of the last in the department to find out about information at work.
32 18 (56.3%) 12 (37.5%) 2 (6.3%)
¹"Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:"²The order of "Strongly Disagree" and "Disagree" was mistakenly flipped in the survey. For this reason these two likert options have been merged. "Agree" and "Strongly Agree" have also been merged to create a balanced 3-point Likert.
Table 9. Inclusiveness of the Department¹˒²
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
26
When asked if they would like to provide any additional details regarding their responses to this section14, respondents stated: we need to consider how male perspectives are discounted, that there is not enough on diversity and inclusion issues in the department, that we need to account for the importance of cultural and social memory, that we need to respect the feedback of faculty and female students, and that there have been cases of stereotypes and assumptions being voiced by some in the department. One respondent’s commented that their experiences are not due to harassment or discrimination, but due to more nuanced concerns:
14 Appendix G
ResponsesAgree/Strongly AgreeNeutralStrongly Disagree/Disagree
% o
f Res
pond
ents
100
80
60
40
20
0
Through no fault of my own, I seem to be one of the last in the department to find out about information at work.
In my department, if I work hard, I am almost assured of being rewarded.
I feel socially accepted in my department.
Faculty in the department respect me as a professional.
Faculty in the department recognize that I have important ideas to contribute.
Figure 9. Inclusiveness of the Department¹˒²
¹“Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:”
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
27
“I feel that it was hard for me to really answer some of the questions, as the uncomfortability I feel is not really due to harassment or discrimination, but more so because of problematic tokenizing and the dismissal that others have experienced at the hands of the department. Also, "jokes" that are more harmful than humorous.”
Yet another respondent reported that the “white” sign needs to be removed from Dr. White’s door, and from the number of times this concern was voiced in the survey it could be assumed that this sign is offensive.
Finally, some two participants expressed that they had actually had pleasant interactions within the department.
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
28
Section III. Experiences at the University as a whole This section centered exclusively on experiences at the University as a whole, and contained question sets on: personal experiences of harassment and discrimination, and attitudes and experiences of diverse populations. For family status over 90% of respondents in each category stated that they had “0=never” experienced discrimination (Table 10). For ancestry, nationality, citizenship, language, sexuality, disability, socioeconomic background, and other, 80-90% of respondents in each category stated that they had “0=never” experienced discrimination (Table 10). For race/ethnicity, age, and political beliefs, 70-80% of respondents in each category stated that they had “0=never” experienced harassment (Table 10). The highest proportions of experiences of harassment occurred by gender and religion, where only 52.9% and 61.1% (respectively) of respondents stated that they had “0=never” experienced harassment (Table 10). The results of this question set is potentially confounded by the question “No harassment experienced”; see Table 10 and Limitations for further information.
n 0=never 1=rarely 2=sometimes 3=often
Race/Ethnicity 17 12 (70.6%) 2 (11.8%) 2 (11.8%) 1 (5.9%)
Ancestry 17 14 (82.4%) 1 (5.9%) 1 (5.9%) 1 (5.9%)
Nationality 17 14 (82.4%) 2 (11.8%) 0 (0%) 1 (5.9%)
Citizenship 17 15 (88.2%) 1 (5.9%) 0 (0%) 1 (5.9%)
Language 17 14 (82.4%) 1 (5.9%) 2 (11.8%) 0 (0%)
Age 17 12 (70.6%) 3 (17.6%) 2 (11.8%) 0 (0%)
Gender 17 9 (52.9%) 3 (17.6%) 4 (23.5%) 1 (5.9%)
Sexuality 17 14 (82.4%) 1 (5.9%) 1 (5.9%) 1 (5.9%)
Disability 17 15 (88.2%) 1 (5.9%) 1 (5.9%) 0 (0%)
Family status 17 16 (94.1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (5.9%)
Socioeconomic background 17 14 (82.4%) 2 (11.8%) 0 (0%) 1 (5.9%)
Political beliefs 17 12 (70.6%) 3 (17.6%) 1 (5.9%) 1 (5.9%)
Religion 18 11 (61.1%) 4 (22.2%) 2 (11.1%) 1 (5.6%)
Other: 8 7 (87.5%) 0 (0%) 1 (12.5%) 0 (0%
No harrassment experienced
15 13 (86.7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0% 2 (13.3%)
¹"No harassment experienced" potentially confounded the other questions in this set. As a result, the proportion of respondents who would have answered “0=never” to the other questions could actually be much higher than shown. See Limitations for additional information.
Table 10. “In your time at USF, attending USF events, and socializing with USF-wide faculty and graduate students, have you ever experienced harassment based on::”¹
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
29
When asked about experiences of discrimination at USF as a whole, for nationality, citizenship, disability, family status, socioeconomic background, and political beliefs over 90% of respondents in each category stated that they had “0=never” experienced discrimination (Table 11). For ancestry, language, sexuality, religion, and other, 80-90% of respondents in each category stated that they had “0=never” experienced discrimination (Table 11). For race/ethnicity, 70-80% of respondents in each category stated that they had “0=never” experienced harassment (Table 11). The highest proportions of experiences of discrimination at USF occurred by age and gender, where for both items only 63.6%% of respondents stated that they had “0=never” experienced discrimination (Table 11). The results of this question set is potentially confounded by the question “No harassment experienced”; see Table 11 and Limitations for further information.
n 0=never 1=rarely 2=sometimes 3=often
Race/Ethnicity 11 8 (72.7% 2 (18.2%) 0 (0%) 1 (9.1%)
Ancestry 11 9 (81.8%) 1 (9.1%) 0 (0%) 1 (9.1%)
Nationality 11 10 (90.9%) 1 (9.1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Citizenship 11 11 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Language 11 9 (81.8%) 2 (18.2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Age 11 7 (63.6%) 3 (27.3%) 1 (9.1%) 0 (0%)
Gender 11 7 (63.6%) 3 (21.3%) 1 (9.1%) 0 (0%)
Sexuality 11 9 (81.8%) 1 (9.1%) 1 (9.1%) 0 (0%)
Disability 11 10 (90.9%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (9.1%)
Family status 11 10 (90.9%) 1 (9.1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Socioeconomic background 11 10 (90.9%) 1 (9.1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Political beliefs 11 10 (90.9%) 0 (0%) 1 (9.1%) 0 (0%)
Religion 12 10 (83.3%) 1 (8.3%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%)
Other: 6 5 (83.3%) 1 (16.7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
No discrimination experienced
21 19 (90.5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (9.5%
¹"No discrimination experienced" potentially confounded the other questions in this set. As a result, the proportion of respondents who would have answered “0=never” to the other questions could actually be much higher than shown. See Limitations for additional information.
Table 11. “In your time at USF, attending USF events, and socializing with USF-wide faculty and graduate students, have you ever been the target of discrimination based on:”¹
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
30
A 15-item question set explored other experiences of exclusion/inclusion at the university as a whole. Thirteen of these questions referred to other exclusion and two questions referred to inclusion (Table 12). The highest proportion of other exclusion was that only 63.3% of respondents stated that they “0=never” felt that they needed to minimize an aspect of their identity to be able to fit in (Table 12). The lowest proportion of other exclusion was by “experienced a lack of accommodation for disability”, at 96.7% (Table 12). However it is important to note that 81.3% of respondents stated that they did not have a disability (Table 2), which may have an effect on low proportions for the latter question item.
Experiences of inclusion in this question set where only collected with two items. There was a clear difference between respondents’ experiences between the two items. 26.6% of respondents felt that the university sometimes/often strengthened or affirmed their identity (Table 12). Comparatively, 56.7% of respondents felt sometimes/often comfortable discussing their identity on campus as a whole (Table 12).
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
31
n 0=never 1=rarely 2=sometimes 3=often
Exclusion
... had someone challenge or attempt to embarrass you because of your identity.
31 21 (67.7%) 4 (12.9%) 6 (19.4%) 0 (0%)
... felt isolated or left out when work was required in groups because of your identity.
30 25 (83.3%) 4 (13.3%) 1 (3.3%) 0 (0%)
... felt left out of a social event or activity because of your identity.
30 23 (76.7%) 4 (13.3%) 2 (6.7%) 1 (3.3%)
... feared for your personal safety because of your identity.
30 25 (83.3%) 3 (10%) 1 (3.3%) 1 (3.3%)
... been put down intellectually because of identity
30 22 (73.3%) 4 (13.3%) 3 (10.0%) 1 (3.3%)
... had someone assume you were employed/ promoted because of your identity.
30 26 (86.7%) 3 (10.0%) 0 (0%) 1 (3.3%)
... felt you needed to minimize an aspect of your identity to be able to fit in.
30 19 (63.3%) 5 (16.7%) 5 (16.7%) 1 (3.3%)
... felt that you were expected to speak on behalf of all people in your identity group.
30 23 (76.7%) 4 (13.3%) 0 (0%) 3 (10.0%)
... avoided disclosing your identity due to fear of negative consequences.
30 23 (76.7%) 4 (13.3%) 2 (6.7%) 1 (3.3%)
... had to conceal your identity to avoid intimidation.
30 24 (80%) 4 (13.3%) 1 (3.3%) 1 (3.3%)
... felt that your ideas/comments weren't listened to as carefully as your male coworkers'.
30 22 (73.3%) 3 (10.0%) 3 (10.0%) 2 (6.7%)
... felt that your work wasn't valued as highly as your male coworkers' work.
29 21 (72.4%) 3 (10.3%) 3 (10.3%) 2 (6.9%
... experienced a lack of accommodations for disability.
30 29 (96.7%) 0 (0%) 1 (3.3%) 0 (0%)
Inclusion
... felt the USF environment strengthened/affirmed your identity.
30 17 (56.7%) 5 (16.7%) 7 (23.3%) 1 (3.3%)
... felt comfortable discussing your identity on campus.
30 10 (33.3%) 3 (10.0%) 11 (36.7%) 6 (20.0%)
Table 12. “How often during the past year at USF have you…”¹
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
32
Where did the incidents happen? When responding to the follow-up question “Where did the incidents happen?” most responded that they happened in the classroom or in assistantship situations, however a few mentioned specific campus-level settings, specifically: "USF general gatherings, committees" and "[w]ithin the dorms or student activities". One respondent referred to the event that they mentioned in their department-level response (discussed above).
Those who provided additional information on their experiences of exclusion stated that they had negative experiences in various campus spaces (general gatherings, committees, dorms, and student activities) and that their experiences centered on religious, socioeconomic, and family status:
• "usf general gatherings, committees" and "Within the dorms or student activities"
• "Many incidents were related to religious discrimination from organized religious groups. Some of these people lived in the same dorms as I did and would try to corner me to and from my room to challenge my beliefs"
• "I want to clarify that when I discuss my identify, this includes my socioeconomic and family status. I often feel that I need to hide or play down the financial situation of my household (as I a married and very well supported by my husband's job, as well as have numerous jobs) because I am usually experiencing a different lifestyle than my fellow graduate students. I sometimes feel left out because I am married and/or have things that others do not. People often assume that my home/family situation is privileged and "well-off", when we often struggle to pay all of our numerous bills."
• "USF is much worse as the administration has demonstrated repeatedly that it does not care about its students, particularly marginalized ones."
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
33
Section IV. Perceptions of current department efforts and initiatives This section elicited perceptions of current department efforts and initiatives to maintain and improve internal diversity and inclusivity, and allowed respondents to recommend new initiatives and programs. Overall, only 48.1% of respondents were aware of departmental diversity efforts and 51.9% were unaware (Figure 10, Table 13). Of the five initiatives mentioned, respondents knew the most about the Susan D. Greenbaum Diversity Leadership Award, and least about the recruitment efforts with historically Black colleges and Universities (HBCU’s) and Hispanic Serving institutions (18.8%).
Yes No… has recently begun conducting recruitment lectures at undergraduate historically Black colleges and Hispanic-serving institutions?
6 (18.8%) 26 (81.3%)
… has a committee on inclusion and diversity (CID) whose mission is to promote a diverse and inclusive environment?
21 (65.6%) 11 (34.4%)
…published an article in American Anthropologist on their plans for enhancing diversity and inclusion in the department?
15 (46.9%) 17 (53.1%)
…in 2015 conducted an online survey of faculty and students requesting input into priorities for a departmental policy on diversity, and that this survey led to the departments current diversity policy?
12 (37.5%) 20 (62.5%)
… recently created the annual Susan D. Greenbaum Diversity Leadership Award, which “recognizes an Anthropology major who demonstrates leadership skills that foster the value of diversity and inclusion, and advance justice and equality in our community and society” (http://anthropology.usf.edu/news/awards/)?
23 (71.9%) 9 (28.1%)
Total 77 (48.1%) 83 (51.9%)
¹"Did you know that the Department of Anthropology.."
Table 13. Knowledge of Current Department Initiatives¹
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
34
When prompted on what they thought of the initiatives, many thought these initiatives were a step in the right direction but felt that there were a few barriers to their success, such as: the discipline is not very diverse, more financial aid is needed for marginalized communities, that current initiatives don’t include recruitment at high schools or with Native American tribes, the initiatives are not well publicized (and may be better publicized with a dedicated page on the department website).
Others felt that the department still had a long way to go:
• "These initiatives have nothing to do with diversity. these are just face saving program, lip service. How many african american professors and graduate students we have in our department? How many hispanic? Government is banning muslims, do we recruit muslim students and professors? No, we are doing the same thing!"
• "Not yet. It's not enough."
• "If the department is trying this initiatives why do they keep hiring white males? Where is this inclusion committee, this is the first I have heard of it?"
• “I haven't heard about most, which is disappointing because these are the things we should read about on the listserv. I read the article, but I fear not much has changed since it's publication. Wasn't that based on a presentation by black women anthropologists from this department who spoke of the retention of black students in anthropology?”
Knowledge of department initiativesNoYes
Per
cent
of R
espo
nses
100
80
60
40
20
0
48.151.9
Figure 10. Knowledge of Current Department Initiatives
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
35
A few respondents were generally unsure and did not provide any other feedback.
Respondents were also asked if they have attended any programs or lectures, or used any resources targeting diversity at USF, and what they thought of them. About half of respondents, 53.1%, stated that they had attended such events outside of the department (Figure 11). Respondents expressed positive feedback on the campus-level events they’d attended, which included: talks on Black Lives matter, book signings, TEDxUSF, talks about racial issues post-Trump, solidarity gatherings, events for POC and queer students, Women’s Month activities, and other unnamed diversity related lectures.
• Respondents were also asked to identify any workshops, discussions, events, or guest lectures you would like to see in the department. Most respondents described specific initiatives they would like to see, largely in the form of workshops and events. Workshops for student instructors on how to engage with intersectional issues in the classroom, for graduate students to combat stereotyping among student anthropologists, on how to work with and become allies to marginalized communities, and workshops that allow us to engage with our personal identities and with each other. Other requests included
Use of diversity events/resources outside department at USFNoYes
Perc
ent o
f Res
pons
es
100
80
60
40
20
0
46.9
53.1
Figure 11. Outside of the Department of Anthropology, have you attended any programs and/or lectures addressing diversity or utilized any resources targeting diversity at USF?
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
36
workshops on the use of theory in anthropological research and a request that we reach out to the Florida National Diversity Council to conduct lectures/meetings/events.
• “Workshops for student instructors on how to teach undergrads (ANT 2410) about race/racism, and other intersectional issues. If it comes from the department, it will help to support students of color since many, including myself, are often asked about how to teach about these issues. I was even asked to "guest lecture" by another student instructor during the week they were teaching about race and racism. It can get exhausting sometimes.”
• “Workshops for graduate students on not thinking that the symbolic anthropologist hat is enough to get away with stereotyping. Something like this would be beneficial in orientation or as a mandatory thing because again lectures only go so far as those who can attend and actually engage.”
• “Actively engaging in advocacy related to our research Empowerment workshops”
• “Discrimination in the Classroom (on the job/in our department): Where it Exists and What to Do About It.”
• “It would be good to have workshops that demonstrate how to work with marginalized communities. We also need to host events about current social issues where we discuss how to get involved, how to be allies and advocates, and listen to talks from those directly affected.”
• “Workshop on Methodology (How to use theory in anthropological research)”
• “I would really recommend reaching out the National Diversity Council - specifically the Florida Diversity Council (state-level). They have a Tampa Chapter, and are currently partnered with USF credit union. They do great lectures, meetings, and events and their regional manager got her B.A. in Anthropology from Brown.”
• “I would like to see folks get down and dirty. Let's talk about what it's like to exist as anthropologists with various identities. Maybe we can understand each other better.”
A few only mentioned that they felt that guest lecturers, specifically would not sufficiently address diversity and inclusion in the department:
• “Guest lectures have no relation with diversity and inclusion.”
• “I think having random guest lecturers is probably the least useful solution to this issue”
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
37
Section V. Experiences of exclusion by identity This section collected demographic data on respondents as a means to determine if negative experiences and exclusion vary significantly by identity within the department. However, since responses regarding identity status were so limited this type of analysis was not possible. Therefore, the demographics are limited to the beginning of this report.
Section VI. Satisfaction with attending/working for this department or University
This section contained only two questions, which asked respondents to declare whether they would recommend attending/working for this department or University to others.15 The purpose of these questions was to target institutional satisfaction and to determine if there is any correlation between this and their experiences within the department or university. This allows respondents to also express satisfaction with the department and university, instead of just focusing on negative experiences. Approximately 84.5% of respondents stated that they Somewhat Agree/Agree/Strongly Agree that they would recommend attending and/or working for this department to others. Comparatively, 81.3% said this about the university.
15 Adapted from Woodford & Kulick 2015
Strongly disagree
Disagree Somewhat disagree
Undecided Somewhat agree
Agree Strongly agree
I would recommend attending and/or working for this department to others.
1 (3.1%) 2 (6.3%) 2 (6.3%) 0 (0%) 3 (9.4%) 10 (31.3%) 14 (43.8%)
I would recommend attending and/or working for this University to others.
1 (3.1%) 1 (3.1%) 2 (6.3%) 2 (6.3%) 11 (34.4%) 8 (25%) 7 (21.9%)
¹"Please rate the following statements:"
Table 14. Satisfaction with attending/working for this department or university¹
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
38
Finally, a chi-square test of association was conducted to determine if there is any association between knowledge of department initiatives and perception of department commitment to diversity and inclusion. This is important because if an association were found, it would mean that perceptions of department commitment could potentially be improved by improving visibility of
current diversity and inclusion initiatives. However, with α = .05, no statistically significant association was found between knowledge of current department initiatives and perception of department commitment (Table 15).
I would recommend working for _____ to others.
Strongly agree
AgreeSomewhat agree
UndecidedSomewhat disagree
DisagreeStrongly disagree
% o
f Res
pond
ents
100
80
60
40
20
0
...this University
...this department
Figure 12. Satisfaction with attending/working for this department or university¹
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
39
n Chi-square df p-value… has recently begun conducting recruitment lectures at undergraduate historically Black colleges and Hispanic-serving institutions?
32 0.73 1 0.39
Did you know that the Department of Anthropology…
… has a committee on inclusion and diversity (CID) whose mission is to promote a diverse and inclusive environment?
32 0.20 1 0.65
…published an article in American Anthropologist on their plans for enhancing diversity and inclusion in the department?
32 1.66 1 0.20
…in 2015 conducted an online survey of faculty and students requesting input into priorities for a departmental policy on diversity, and that this survey led to the departments current diversity policy?
32 0.35 1
0.56… recently created the annual Susan D. Greenbaum Diversity Leadership Award, which “recognizes an Anthropology major who demonstrates leadership skills that foster the value of diversity and inclusion,
32 2.36 1 0.12
Is the department fulfilling the commitments set forth in it's diversity
statement?
Table 15. Association between knowledge of department initiatives and perception of department commitment
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
40
Interviews Study methodology was to conduct in-depth interviews with department members who had
completed the survey and volunteered for an interview. Five such interviews were conducted, and revealed themes of representation, view of the department as complacent, a need for open and critical discussion, incidents of inclusion and exclusion in the department, issues with department curriculum, and other issues in the department. Representation
All informants asserted that lack of diverse representation was an issue in the department. They expressed a lack of representation among faculty, students, and scholarly authors of course material. They would like to see more faculty and students of color, more recruitment of students from disadvantaged economic backgrounds, for the gender ratio of faculty to be even across all disciplines, and improved representation across disability status. Need for critical and open discussion
Like the survey responses. Interviewees articulated a need for open and critical discussion of interpersonal and intersectional issues within the department. For example, Janet requested "open discussion about race, class, and gender…about the experiences…about the intersectional experiences” and stated that we need to move our discussion of these issues beyond the classroom: “We talk about race as “What is race’ but we don’t talk about the realities of what racism is. We don’t talk about it in our day-to-day life; we only talk about it in our textbooks…Let’s not even start talking about microagressions."
Erica also wanted open communication, but stated that an acrimonious atmosphere got in the way. Specifically, she wants “people to stop talking behind others back”.
Mary recommended that a way to address this need would be through a “bi-monthly talk that focuses on a specific struggle in anthropology…just barriers that people have come up against…and people can have an open discussion”. Addressing these issues with a direct program or plan at the departmental level would also help to relieve the burden of having to constantly educate from the shoulders to department members from marginalized communities. As Erika stated, she doesn't "spend time with certain people because I don’t feel like having to teach them everything that’s appropriate".
Inclusion and exclusion in the department When asked if they'd seen anything in the department that was especially inclusive or welcoming the reviews were mixed. One interviewee responded with a flat "no". Another said "not really": "Happy hours are okay but not good if you don’ want to drink...They do make
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
41
attempts…but I don’t know”. The three other interviewees did find some attempts welcoming, specifically:
• “John Jennings’ lecture…he was just a Black man speaking. That was enough. He talked about some of the issues I mentioned before....I would like to see more scholars being invited, and talking about their experiences. And, honestly, even at Town Hall’s it’s hard to be open and forthcoming about your experiences when you don’t see a lot of people around you who look like you, and who share those experiences.”
• "Orientation is nice, Heide was great. Think its good that they invite the GAU...When Ann Tezak was doing it she collected phrases from current PhD students as advice for incoming students; really liked that. Nothing other than this"
• “I feel like everything I’ve gone to everyone has been treated very well…and there are a variety of different people who are there”
These responses represent a desire for increased representation within the student body,
and increased lectures from scholars of color. It also appears that increased attention should be made to build an inclusive environment beginning at orientation.
Finally, when speaking of inclusiveness, one informant, Marisa, pointed out a need for GSO to be more inclusive. She stated:
“The whole point of GSO is not supposed to be a bunch of friends doing whatever they want…[They] should be responsive to department climate…the head shots and everything are great but more needs to be done. I don’t know what the department can do about that, maybe build it into the GSO charter...GSO feels non representative in the way they implement their initiatives...Don’t make all the decisions yourself and then just say ‘hey we’re doing this on behalf of the department” It was a clique which is why I think [unreadable] was turned off by it”
This suggests that attention must also be paid to how GSO represents inclusiveness in the
department. Other incidents of exclusion became evident when asking informants about harassment
discrimination and bias in the department, informant made several important examples of how exclusiveness appears in the department:
• Janet experience this “amongst the student body". "[I]ncluding making generalized – stereotypical – statements. Like saying stereotypes about Black people, and asking if I ascribe to those stereotypes…I’m tired of feeling this way”
• Marisa stated: “In socializing seen comments having to do with racial...friends have experienced clueless and racist comments”
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
42
• Erika stated that: “In a seminar there were particular situations where certain people were talked about I a stereotypical manner…like calling particular aspects of peoples culture “weird”…None of us felt particularly felt calling that faculty member out…people need to be more mindful”. Erika also stated that a faculty member questioned her minority status, and other faculty members who were there didn't say anything. Similarly, Marisa stated that “a lot of it is faculty are saying things they shouldn’t be saying" but stated that she's "not sure anything can be done besides being careful about hires”. Another informant, Dawn, had a different perspective on harassment, discrimination, and
bias in the department, chalking it up to "challenging" personalities: “Some personalities are challenging, but I feel like the department is very open…which I know is not the case in other departments. It’s so political you just keep your head down.”
These responses make clear that creating an inclusive environment in the department is not just about lecture series and workshops, but also about addressing how all members of the department can be complicit in drawing upon stereotypes and other marginalizing ideas to create an unwelcome environment. Also, there seems to be a need for faculty to be educated on ways to address microaggressions committed by students and colleagues. Curriculum Informants identified three major issues with the curriculum: a lack of representation of diverse scholars, a failure to regularly incorporate critical race theory into course work, and an overall failure to provide all students with the background necessary to engage in critical discussion of diversity. Other issues in the department Informants revealed other issues in the department as well, such as: that issues of diversity and inclusion differ by track so you "can’t blanketly address the issue" and that "opening up the space for things that are less official" would be beneficial.
A sixth interview was conducted with a graduate student who did not complete the survey so did not meet the recruitment criteria. However, his interview reflected many of the themes below, including lack of representation in scholarly literature discussed in the classroom (what he calls intellectual racism), microaggressions/hostility, and a view of the department as complacent. His interview was also especially enlightening because he revealed that the reason why he never completed the survey was because “I don’t have a lot of trust in those types of things to address the issues”. Trust was something he mentioned often in his interview, and the need to build it.
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
43
Conclusions & Recommendations Throughout the survey five major themes revealed themselves regarding diversity and inclusion in the department of anthropology across surveys and interviews: recruitment and representation, retention, funding, the need for dialogue, and departmental complacency/action. These were evident from the very beginning of the survey, where though most survey respondents were positive or neutral about the diversity statement, there were still several criticisms. These criticisms were summarized by an overall feeling that the department is complacent regarding diversity and inclusion. Overall, respondents ask that diversity and inclusion in the department be addressed with direct action and maintenance of that proactive stance, through funding, as well as maintaining a welcoming environment. They also ask that these efforts to be well-defined and linked to goals of inclusion, diversity, and of a change-driven applied anthropology, and that they see tangible evidence of these actions,
Based on the data, my overarching recommendation is to: Draft five or six main initiatives/concerns that the department would like to accomplish in the next two years and create an action plan for the top two to three. The selected initiatives must then be used to create clear and specific initiatives using S.M.A.R.T. goals. Based on what is seen in the literature, universities, and by extension our department, should first articulate clear goals for diversity and inclusion (Warikoo & Deckman 2014) There are cons and deficits to every approach to improving diversity and inclusion, so we must hone in on exactly what we hope to achieve. I would suggest S.M.A.R.T. goals/objectives, which are commonly used in public health, but which I have also seen used in business and human resources. It’s generally a useful acronym for writing any kind of goal. It means that goals should be for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound (CDC 2009). These objectives set the foundation for not only how the initiatives they discuss will be implemented, but also how/when they will be evaluated. For example, based on the survey responses and interviews, I recommend the following S.M.A.R.T. objective:
1. By the end of the 2017/2018 academic year, department climate evaluator(s) will have delivered a Diversity & Inclusion Workshop to 80% of faculty, staff, and graduate students in the department of anthropology. The workshop will cover major topics as well as address concerns raised in the 2017 Department Climate Evaluation. Basis: Many respondents recommended some type of mandatory educational exercise, workshop, or dialogue on diversity and inclusion. Additionally, research has shown that majority faculty tend to heave a more positive view of campus climate than non-majority faculty (Campbell-Whatley 2015). This indicates that those from majority groups sometimes may not be able to see the discrimination, bias, and exclusion that others experience. This workshop will include short seminars and role-playing exercises to assist participants in better understanding the experiences of others. Workshop
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
44
will end with a Feedback Focus Group, which will help determine its effectiveness and areas of needed growth.
Based on survey and interview responses I have six main initiatives to consider.
Recommended Initiative 1: Transparency and Visibility - Respondents were largely unaware of the current initiatives. So I recommend the department improve transparency of initiatives by widely publicizing them via internal “press releases” to update department members at key points of progress/accomplishment. These can be on a dedicated page of the department website, in the annual department newsletter, and/or in each semester’s AnthroScope newsletter. It is not recommended that these be disseminated on irregular listserve messages as students and faculty do not read many of such messages. Transparency can also be improved by recruiting a responsible graduate student to assist on each initiative.
• Recommended Initiative 1.2: Streamline Resources- Regularly gather information on diversity initiatives on campus and with off-campus partners and disseminate on same platform as the department-run diversity initiatives. Due to limitation in work-hours and funds to support diversity and inclusion initiatives it is important that avoid replication of programs/events. The programs events that are discovered can be posted to the same platform as the department initiatives, creating a comprehensive resource for students, faculty, and staff to utilize. Currently, non-departmental events are posted to the listserve but many do not read these e-mails as the listserve distributes a high volume of e-mails daily. I recommend a department webpage include all of this information and the department newsletter only a truncated version; those interested can go to department webpage for more information. 53.1% of respondents had attended an on-campus diversity event/lecture and/or utilized related resources outside the department and had generally positive feedback. It is important to facilitate use of these existing resources.
Recommended Initiative 2: Dialogue - Though 68.8% of respondents felt the department was fulfilling its commitments to the diversity statement, participants identified several ways in which the department needs to ramp up or follow through its commitment to diversity, including: engaging more with faculty and students and facilitating conversations within and between these groups. I recommend the department regularly facilitate critical conversations between graduate students, faculty, and staff regarding issues of diversity and inclusion. As shown in the data, department members want to talk about macroaggressions and reflect on our own biases. They ask that we face our own positionality and how it can be problematic, as well as focus on issues important to certain identities (such as issues facing LGBT students). Respondent recommendations useful to improving dialogue include: bi-monthly seminars/talks on diversity within an
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
45
anthropological framework, creating a course on diversity/inclusion, promote diverse events, and including people from outside academic in projects and lectures. When prompted, respondents requested several diversity-related workshops and events: workshops for student instructors on how to engage with intersectional issues in the classroom, for graduate students to combat stereotyping among student anthropologists, on how to work with and become allies to marginalized communities, and workshops that allow us to engage with our personal identities and with each other, as well as a request that we reach out to the Florida National Diversity Council to conduct lectures/meetings/events. A few respondents firmly stated that they believed guest lectures would not be useful.
In order to ensure that these initiatives reach the maximum proportion of department members, I recommend a required workshop incoming faculty, staff, and graduate students, as well as that perspectives of diverse scholars and discussion of issues of diversity and inclusion be included in all coursework on some level. Optional events are great but department members are often overwhelmed with work and home life so can’t always make these events. Also, those who need these workshops the most may not be likely to attend an optional event. It is best if optional events be complimented by integrating these conversations into coursework and events that are already required. This also increases the likelihood that these conversations reach current faculty members as well.
Part of creating this dialogue is also creating a space where department members have the familiarity with each other that will support a dialogue. Fun and creative ways of helping students and faculty get to know each other better may work best. First Fridays are an example of a casual event meant to help build community and networking, but it is often not well attended by faculty (and sometimes students). Further, interviewee mentioned that First Fridays may not be as welcome to those who don’t drink.
Additionally, these conversations need to target spaces where exclusion has been experienced. At the department level, according to the data this is: in classes, meetings, in the front office, in the graduate lounges, when on ta duty, at GAU hosted activities, on social media, and among colleagues “in the workplace and socially.
Finally, though many respondents felt that faculty respect their ideas and them as professionals (71.9% and 78.1, respectively), only 45.2% felt their hard work was rewarded and only 65.6% felt socially accepted. In the creation of inclusive and welcoming spaces and the building of trust we have to consider that overt and extreme harassment and discrimination isn’t the only barrier to an inclusive environment. For example, though outright harassment and discrimination appears low in the department for most categories, many other issues have been brought forth by respondents, including: “problematic tokening”, dismissal of experiences by the department, inappropriate jokes,
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
46
and back-biting. Further, a desire to see GSO better represent diversity and inclusion has also expressed.
Recommended Initiative 3: Recruitment & Representation- Recruit diverse graduate students, faculty, and staff as positions open via specific and measurable programs.
75% of respondents felt that the faculty body was not diverse and 77.4% felt that the staff body was not diverse, comparatively 37.5% felt that the student body was not diverse. Concerns about diversity in the department included that the student body is largely white/female/American/middle class, the faculty body “cis, straight, and basically abled”, and the staff body white women. Respondents also argued at that there is no active recruitment of people of color. Interviewees also requested recruitment of students of color, from disadvantaged economic backgrounds, by gender, and disability status. I recommend this be addressed using S.M.A.R.T. goals as described above.
Representation can be addressed through recruitment, but also by including more work from diverse scholars (scholars of color, queer scholars, feminist scholars, disability status, etc.). These works should not be limited to a single course every other semester but should also be integrated throughout department coursework.
Recommended Initiative 4: Funding – Find innovative ways to locate funding to support recruitment and retention of diverse graduate students. For example, faculty members can apply for funding specifically aimed at recruitment of underrepresented groups. “The NIH currently provides multiple opportunities to develop research careers and improve participation for individuals from groups demonstrated to have low representation in the biomedical, behavioral, clinical and social sciences” which can be applied for by the PI as a research supplement (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-15-322.html). These funds could be used to cover the year(s) not covered by general departmental funding, so in effect the student would be fully-funded. For faculty, a specific fund should be created to support recruitment and retention of diverse faculty. Darmouth has an endowment, the Diversity Recruitment Fund, with a goal of “[i]ncreasing the percentage of underrepresented tenure-track faculty to 25 percent” (https://inclusive.dartmouth.edu/initiatives/increase-faculty-diversity). Their program has clear goals, specific steps to reach those goals, and deadlines by which to complete goals/evaluate progress. Finally, many diversity recruitment/retention initiatives in universities happen at the college or graduate school level, so it is also recommended that we push for these initiatives with the College of Arts & Sciences and the Graduate School. This will also improve the availability of
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
47
finding to support these efforts at the departmental level. University of Michigan has several interesting programs (http://www.rackham.umich.edu/diversity-equity-inclusion).
Recommended Initiative 5: Protocol to address discrimination, bias, macroaggressions, or other methods of exclusion - Participants feel that occurrences of inappropriate behavior are dismissed and lay unaddressed. I recommend the creation a specific and public protocol to outline how the department will directly address discrimination/bias/macroaggression. This must include consideration of how issues will be brought to the attention of the department. For major issues, it may be best to provide a means of anonymous submission of a complaint (e.g. via a box in an open area where students can anonymously drop in their concern). Web-surveys are not recommended as graduate students have mentioned to me that they do not trust departmental surveys to be truly anonymous. Macroaggressions between graduate students in the classroom could be addressed by the faculty assigned to the course. Methods for intervening in cases of macroaggressions could be provided via workshops at faculty retreats. Additionally, it was expressed that issues differ by academic track, so track-level issues should also accounted for. For example, some tracks have much higher males than females so certain issues may arise more in that track than others.
Recommendation 6. Conduct follow-up research on issues of diversity in anthropology as a whole.
In Yelvington et al. 2015, it states that the department is considering: “an ethnographic survey of students and faculty, as suggested by the SfAA panelists, with the goal of understanding their views on diversity within anthropology, soliciting their ideas on how to achieve it, and determining ways to sustain an environment that encourages everyone to contribute and succeed by learning from and with each other.” (Yelvington et al. 2015)
The purpose of the surveys and interviews completed in Fall 2017 was to collect baseline information on inclusion and diversity in the department, specifically addressing current issues of exclusion, harassment, discrimination, as well as perspectives on current department initiatives and thoughts on potential future initiatives. However, I would like to point to Yelvington et al. 2015’s recommendation for future consideration. Such a project would focuses on anthropology as a whole, not the department in particular, but this exploration would reveal potential solution for how to address issues at the department level. By allowing graduate students, faculty, and staff to discuss issues within the discipline as a whole, this three-field department will inherently benefit from the issues revealed and potential solutions that will emerge. Thinking beyond the department will allow us to create innovative solutions for addressing inclusion and diversity at the local level. I
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
48
believe such a project would be best implemented using focus-groups, followed by individual interviews with interested participants.
In the eyes of many respondents the department has a long way to go before it properly addresses diversity and inclusion, but there is a ray of light. Approximately 84.5% of respondents stated that they Somewhat Agree/Agree/Strongly Agree that they would recommend attending and/or working for this department to others. Comparatively, 81.3% said this about the university. There is hope. Though the university has many more events and programs regarding diversity and inclusion that department members enjoy, and they feel the department can improve in several areas, they still would recommend the department at a rate close to the level at which they would recommend the university. With a push toward expanding diversity and inclusion department member’s ratings of the department can also be much improved.
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
49
Limitations
Recruitment: Despite the fact that the recruitment e-mail e-mails and flyers requested current faculty, staff, and students, one former graduate student also completed the survey, which was revealed when the individual contacted me with a question about the raffle. For this reason, a limitation in this survey is that it is possible that other former graduate students also completed the survey. In the next climate survey I recommend moving the question “I am a: -Graduate Student -Faculty Member -Staff Member” to the beginning of the survey (immediately after the consent). I would also recommend adding a fourth answer choice of: I am not a current graduate student, faculty member, or staff member”. Those who answer this fourth option would then be redirected to the end of the survey without the opportunity to answer survey questions.
Data Collection/Analysis: "No harassment experienced" and “No discrimination experienced” (Table 6, Table 7, Table 10, and Table 11) potentially confounded the other questions in these question sets. Answering “No harassment experienced” was supposed to auto-populate the other questions in the set with the selection of “0=never”. Unfortunately, an error in the question format was discovered post-survey distribution; Qualtrics allowed respondents to select "0=never" for "No harassment experienced" and to answer the other Likert questions. Sometimes respondents would answer the question set as it was intended, but at other times they would choose to answer “No harassment experienced” and other questions. This means that the proportion of respondents who would have answered “0=never” to the other questions could actually be much higher than shown. In the future I recommend excluding the "No harassment experienced" and “No discrimination experienced” options all-together as they are redundant.
Demographics: Since the survey statistics reveal that at least 50% of respondents are white and most were graduate students (78.1%) it is possible that this affected whether the respondents thought the student body was diverse (Figure 1 and Table 3). Also, most respondents who disclosed demographic data were women (68.8%), were heterosexual (65.6%), were U.S citizens (84.4%), were born in the U.S. (75%), and did not have a disability (81.3%) (Table 2). Statistical results could be skewed due to limited representation of diverse perspectives. However, it is not possible to test this; for example, 46.9% of respondents did not provide their race/ethnicity (Table 3).
Incl
usio
n an
d Di
vers
ity in
the
Depa
rtm
ent o
f Ant
hrop
olog
y |
50
Acknowledgements
Sincerest thanks to all the graduate students, faculty, and staff who completed a survey and those who completed an interview. Your perspectives and feedback are of the upmost importance and necessary to drive improvements in inclusion and diversity in the department of anthropology.
Thank you to the department of anthropology Committee on Diversity and Inclusion (CDI), the department chair, and graduate director(s) for initiating this project.
Finally, thank you to those who completed pilot-test versions of the survey and interview guide.
References Campbell-Whatley, G. D., Chuang, W., Toms, O., & Williams, N. (2015). Factors Affecting Campus Climate: Creating a Welcoming Environment. New Waves - Educational Research & Development, 18(2), 40-52. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). Evaluation Briefs: Writing SMART Objectives. No 3b. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/evaluation/pdf/brief3b.pdf Cuellar, M., & Johnson-Ahorlu, R. N. (2016). Examining the Complexity of the Campus Racial Climate at a Hispanic Serving Community College. Community College Review, 44(2), 135-152. Parent, R. A., Kansky, N., & Lehr, J. (2016). Creating Community through Faculty Development to Support Inclusive Undergraduate Research Mentorship. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal, 9(2), 1-20. Rockenbach, A. N., Mayhew, M. J., & Bowman, N. A. (2015). Perceptions of the Campus Climate for Nonreligious Students. Journal Of College Student Development, 56(2), 181-186. Warikoo, N. K., & Deckman, S. L. (2014). Beyond the Numbers: Institutional Influences on Experiences With Diversity on Elite College Campuses. Sociological Forum, 29(4), 959-981. Woodford, M. m., & Kulick, A. (2015). Academic and Social Integration on Campus Among Sexual Minority Students: The Impacts of Psychological and Experiential Campus Climate. American Journal Of Community Psychology, 55(1/2), 13-24. Yelvington, Kevin A., Alisha R. Winn, E. Christian Wells, Angela Stuesse, Nancy Romero-Daza, Lauren C. Johnson, Antoinette T. Jackson, Emelda Curry, and Heide Castañeda. 2015. "Diversity Dilemmas and Opportunities: Training the Next Generation of Anthropologists." American Anthropologist 117, no. 2: 387-392. Yeung, F. P., & Johnston, M. P. (2014). Investigating the role of a racially biased incident on changes in culture and climate indicators across targeted and non-targeted groups. Journal of Diversity In Higher Education, 7(4), 252-264. Young, K., Anderson, M., & Stewart, S. (2015). Hierarchical microaggressions in higher education. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 8(1), 61-71. Zimmerman, C. A., Carter-Sowell, A. R., & Xiaohong, X. (2016). Examining Workplace Ostracism Experiences in Academia: Understanding How Differences in the Faculty Ranks Influence Inclusive Climates on Campus. Frontiers in Psychology, 7:1-9.
Appendices
Appendix A:
Recruitment E-mails
Sent April 11, 2017 SUBJECT: Department of Anthropology Annual Climate Survey Calling all current anthropology faculty, staff, and graduate students! The USF Department of Anthropology is conducting an annual climate survey. We would like to know about issues of diversity and inclusion within the department. The survey is anonymous and takes about 20-30 minutes to complete. Complete the survey and you will be entered for a chance to win one of five $20 Starbucks gift cards. Complete the survey at https://usf.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0BqtsYA4OfKB7NP
Sent April 20, 2017
SUBJECT: Department of Anthropology Annual Diversity Survey Calling all current anthropology faculty, staff, and graduate students! The USF Department of Anthropology is conducting an annual diversity climate survey. We would like to know about issues of diversity and inclusion within the department. The survey is anonymous and takes about 20-30 minutes to complete. Complete the survey and you will be entered for a chance to win one of five $20 Starbucks gift cards. Complete the survey at https://usf.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0BqtsYA4OfKB7NP
Appendix B:
Recruitment Flyer
Appendix C: Climate Survey
Appendix D:
Interview Recruitment Raffle
Appendix E:
Notification of Raffle Winnings WINNERS - SUBJECT: Raffle for 2017 Dept of Anthropology Diversity Climate Survey Congratulations! You are one of the lucky raffle winners! You completed the 2017 Department of Anthropology Diversity Climate Survey and chose to enter the raffle…and you won! Each winner was eligible to receive a $20 Starbucks gift card, however, there was an issue processing the gift cards. So, instead you will receive $20 cash! You will be contacted within 11/2 – 2 weeks with details on how to redeem your cash reward. How were winners chosen? All entries were inserted into an Excel sheet and Excel’s RAND function was used to randomly select the five winners. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to e-mail me at [email protected]! Best, Jackie NON-WINNERS - SUBJECT: Raffle for 2017 Dept of Anthropology Diversity Climate Survey You completed the 2017 Department of Anthropology Diversity Climate Survey and chose to enter the raffle. The winners have been randomly selected and notified of their reward. Though you did not win the raffle, we are immensely grateful for your participation in the survey. The survey results are invaluable for assessing departmental diversity concerns. How were winners chosen? All entries were inserted into an Excel sheet and Excel’s RAND function was used to randomly select the five winners. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to e-mail me at [email protected]! Best, Jackie