organizational rhetoric or reality? the disparities between avowed commitment to diversity and...
TRANSCRIPT
Organizational Rhetoric or Reality?
The Disparities Between Avowed Commitment to Diversity and Formal Programs and
Initiatives in Higher Education Institutions
Larry L. Rowley, Sylvia Hurtado,Luis Ponjuan and Zachary Anderson
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Research Goals
To examine selective aspects of the approaches that colleges and universities utilize to emphasize or achieve diversity
To identify organizational characteristics that predict diversity
initiatives and outcomes in colleges and universities
To contribute to discussions of how closely institutional diversity at colleges and universities mirrors the institutional mission statements, administrative rhetoric, and formal policies
Theoretical Framework
Diversity as an Organizational Concept Diversity is a multi-level organizational concept that is impacted by
various institutional contexts (e.g., historical, structural, psychological) (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, & Allen, 1999)
Diversity has an impact or implications within and across various organizational dimensions (Cox, 1993; Smith, 1995)
Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis Prevailing institutionalized concepts can impact organizational forms
and behaviors (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991)
Formal structures constructed within organizations can function as “myth and ceremony” (Meyer & Rowan, 1991)
Institutionalized concepts are manifested in organizations partially based upon social actions and interactions (Jepperson, 1991)
Methods
Sample 1440 Four year Institutions surveyed 55% return rate (744 institutions)
Analyses Factor Analysis Bivariate Analysis Multiple Regression
2000 Carnegie Classifications
281314
149
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Doctoral Res Ext/Int Masters I/II Bachelors Gen / LA
Institutional Type
NUm
ber
of S
choo
ls
Percentage of Institutions with Mission
Statements that Address Diversity
85 8573
0
20
40
60
80
100
DoctoralExt/Int
Masters I/II BachelorsGen/LA
Institutional Type
Perc
enta
ge
Percentage of Minority Faculty (Presence)
Percentage of Tenured Minority Faculty (Commitment)
9
11
12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Bachelors Gen/LA
Masters I/II
Doctoral Ext/Int
Insti
tutio
nal T
ype
Percentage
Dependent Variables
Evaluation and Rewards for Diversity
Peer Comparisons to Create a Diverse Environment
Percentage of Minority Students Enrolled
Percentage of Tenured and Tenure Track Minority Faculty
Percentage of Tenured Minority faculty
Independent Variables
Institutional Background Characteristics Student Enrollment figures represent the demographics of the
local area Institution’s admission selectivity Association Affiliations (e.g. ACE, AACU, AAHE)
Institutional Categorization Variables Carnegie Classification (Doctoral, Masters, Bachelors) Institutional Control (e.g. Private or Public)
Institutional Rhetoric Variables Core Leadership supports diversity Institutional Priority on Diversity Institutional Priority on Prestige Does your Institution’s mission statement address: Diversity
Regression Results
Predictors of Evaluation and Rewards for DiversityDoctoral Institution **Private ***Core Leadership Support for Diversity ***Institutional Priority for Diversity ***
Predictors of Progress Relative to Peers: Creating a Diverse Environment Core Leadership Support for Diversity ***Institutional Priority on Prestige (-)*Institutional Priority on Diversity ***
Predictors of Institution’s Percentage of Minority StudentsInstitution’s admission selectivity (-)***Public Institution ***
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Regression Results
Predictors of Institution’s Percentage of Minority Faculty (Presence)Mission statement addresses diversity *Institutional Priority on Prestige **Percentage of Minority Students ***
Predictors of Percentage of Tenured Minority Faculty (Commitment)Student enrollment reflect demographics of local area *Institutional Priority on Prestige *Percentage of Minority Students ***p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Discussion and Conclusion
There are indeed some disparities between avowed institutional commitment to diversity activity and diversity outcomes
Institutional characteristics and rhetoric were strong predictors of self-reported outcome measures. (Institutions “walk the walk” and “talk the talk”)
Institutional characteristics and rhetoric were weak predictors of more objective outcome measures (Institutions “talk the talk” but don’t “walk the walk”)
To maximize diversity outcomes (tenured minority faculty) there must be an “interlocking” set of commitments including both structural and behavioral factors
There is a need to move beyond mission rhetoric to articulation of priorities, evaluation and rewards for diversity progress, and core leadership support, and development of a diverse student body
To access Presentation slides and paper Please visit our Website:
www.umich.edu/~divdemo