Diversity and change in higher education: Examining the factors that foster or inhibit commitment to building institutional capacity for diversity

The purpose of this study was to analyze institutions that have previously shown evidence of commitment to diversity by exploring the factors that differentiate them from one another in building capacity in the area of diversity. In particular, the research sought to determine the factors that foster or inhibit commitment to building institutional capacity for diversity and to identify what institutions have done to maintain or build capacity in the area of diversity over time. A qualitative case study method was used to analyze how diversity is seen and understood across four private liberal arts institutions in California. Smith's (1995) Institutional Diversity model provided a theoretical framework, allowing the researcher to explore four distinct dimensions: Access and Success, Campus Climate, Education and Scholarship, and Institutional Vitality and Viability. The researcher collected and analyzed demographic data, as well as data related to faculty and student retention. Additionally, qualitative data was collected through semi-structured interviews and focus groups with key constituents at each institution, and the researcher engaged in extensive content analysis of institutional documents. Results indicated significant changes at each institution over time in the compositional diversity of students and faculty as well as increases in student graduation rates. Despite growth in a number of demographic categories, African Americans continue to be underrepresented, particularly in the faculty and administration. Additional indications of change were analyzed through the lens of five criteria: Goals, Resources, Capacity, Leadership, and Centrality. There is significant evidence that institutional capacity for diversity is fostered in the presence of a clearly-articulated mission that frames diversity as an institutional imperative. In addition, the study demonstrates the necessity of actionable goals, strategic and systemic monitoring of disaggregated data for students, faculty/staff, and administrators, and an emphasis on localized outcomes that advance institutional mission through shared accountability. Institutions are best poised for positive change when senior leaders partner with key stakeholders across multiple departments to demonstrate equitable distribution of task and responsibility.