This paper presentation offers a dynamic model for determining the value of diverse faculty in higher education. It rests on the assumption that the administrations of predominantly white higher education institutions continuously grapple with the dilemma of achieving racial and ethnic diversity among their faculties. The model proffered is evaluative because it could be used to evaluate existing higher education diversity programs. The model is transformative because it creates a paradigm shift from a socio-economic view of diversity to an expanded view that incorporates cultural and ecological dimensions that are rarely considered or appropriately valued when faculty-of-color are hired to diversify higher education institutions.
Towards an Evaluative Model for Determining the Value of Faculty Diversity and Inclusion in Higher Education
1. Towards an Evaluative Model for Determining the Value of Faculty Diversity and Inclusion in Higher Education Ray K. Haynes, Indiana University-Bloomington, rkhaynes@indiana.edu Eric Abdullateef, Directed Study Services, eric.abdullateef@mac.com Evaluation 2009 Orlando
2. Abstract This paper presentation offers a dynamic model for determining the value of diverse faculty in higher education. It rests on the assumption that the administrations of predominantly white higher education institutions continuously grapple with the dilemma of achieving racial and ethnic diversity among their faculties. The model proffered is evaluative because it could be used to evaluate existing higher education diversity programs. The model is transformative because it creates a paradigm shift from a socio-economic view of diversity to an expanded view that incorporates cultural and ecological dimensions that are rarely considered or appropriately valued when faculty-of-color are hired to diversify higher education institutions. Evaluation 2009 Orlando
3. Why? We believe that this is a necessary and worthwhile endeavor especially since Barack Obama, was elected president of the United States and leader for the free world. For some, the first man of color to be elected to the U S presidency may signal the triumph of diversity and inclusion initiatives and for others, it is an inspirational milestone that may engender complacency and or summative decisions about the efficacy and even the continued need for diversity and inclusion programs. Evaluation 2009 Orlando
4. What is Diversity & Inclusion? Diversity in its broadest sense describes the composition of groups and workforces (Roberson, 2006). Furthermore, diversity could be viewed as traits or demographic characteristics that underscore differences within groups. Milliken and Martins, 1996 succinctly captures the complexity of the diversity construct by suggesting that diversity, in its essence, means the observable and non-observable characteristics of human beings. Inclusion is defined as racial and ethnic minorities (people of color) gaining access to organizational-related information, resources, specialized work groups along with the ability to influence decision making (Miller, 1998; Mor Barak & Cherin, 1998). Evaluation 2009 Orlando
5. Workforce Realities Past labor predictions and prevailing trends suggest that the workforce of the 21st century is and will continue to be characterized by diversity which includes more women, and people of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds and life styles (Langdon, McMenamin, & Krolik, 2002) The need for diversity and inclusion programs still exist! Evaluation 2009 Orlando
6. The Diversity-Inclusion Continuum Evaluation 2009 Orlando “Building an inclusive culture on a global scale is more than recruiting diverse talent. People tend to think about filling representation quotas, which is important, but you cant have great representation without an inclusive culture.” Gil Casellas, Vice President, Corporate Responsibility & Chief Diversity Officer- Dell The New York Times Magazine , September 13, 2009, p54. Diversity Inclusion
7. Five Step Diversity Framework Evaluation 2009 Orlando Institution has reflected on itself Institution has articulated its policy goals Institution has a diversity plan Institution has regularized interim reviews Institution has industry and national diversity linkages
8. Inspiration for the Model: Frederick Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory Evaluation 2009 Orlando Motivator Factors: These factors are also called satisfiers and are know to motivate individuals towards superior performance and effort. Hygiene or maintenance factors: These factors can also be called dissatisfiers. They describe the organizational environment and function mainly to prevent dissatisfaction but have little effect on positive job attitudes.
9. The Diversity Ecology Evaluation Model Evaluation 2009 Orlando DA Diversity Inclusion DD DS
10.
11. What is the current state of institutional diversity?
12. What is the desired future state of institutional diversity?
This framework, in our view, is open and flexible enough to accommodate and adapt diversity to an organization’s unique context, emphasis or strategies. It helps to illuminate indicators relevant to the evaluation process.
It is important to note some subtle environmental differences between academic and corporate organizations. There are also differences between public and private institutions to briefly consider. By comparison, private institutions wield more autonomous authority to set the direction for the institution and by association resist outside influence.
We advise that groups agree on or err toward institutional goals over program goals --least subunits’ work may not roll up cohesively or units may be working toward divergent/incoherent outcomes.
model requires key informants familiar with the organization to identify both a baseline and concluding point in terms of diversity efforts. The illustrative list of accelerators, derailers and sustainers is neither linear nor exhaustive.
