The Relationship Between Experiences with Microaggression and the Leadership Practices of Mid-Level Student Affairs Professionals

Home , Microaggression

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXPERIENCES WITH MICROAGGRESSION AND THE LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF MID-LEVEL STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSIONALS

LaDonna R. Moore

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

May 2016

Committee:

Dafina-Lazarus Stewart, Advisor

Judith Jackson May Graduate Faculty Representative

Nicholas Bowman

Patrick Pauken

LaDonna R. Moore

Dafina-Lazarus Stewart, Advisor

Microaggressions reflect the active manifestation of oppressive worldviews that create, maintain, and perpetuate marginalization (Sue, 2010a). Individuals from marginalized backgrounds “describe their work climate as hostile, invalidating, and insulting because of microaggressions that assail their race, gender, or sexual-orientation identities” (Sue, 2010a, p.

213).

The results of this study confirm what the extant literature, focused on the experience of higher education professionals, has demonstrated. Prior studies have found that administrators within higher education encounter microaggression (Alabi, 2014; Garvey & Drezner, 2013).

Within this study, 78.3% of participants reported that they have experienced microaggression within the workplace. These individuals also revealed that the forms of microaggression they experience most frequently included microinvalidations, followed by microinsults. Although the populations were different in studies prior, the extant literature does reflect higher occurrences of microinvalidations and microinsults (Clark et al., 2014; Garvey & Drezner, 2013; Grier-Reed, iv 2010; Guzman et al., 2010; Harwood et al., 2012; Minikel-Lacocque, 2012; Poolokasingham et al., 2014; Yosso et al., 2009). The findings of this study offer compelling suggestions for the improvement of the student affairs profession.

This is for all of those individuals who feel voiceless. I pray that my words represent your stories

in a way that causes people to listen with their hearts. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To my wonderful parents, Daniel and Vanessa Hamilton, words cannot begin to express how grateful I am for the two of you. Mom, I am so thankful for the sacrifices that you have made for me. Your unconditional love and support inspire me to continue moving forward.

You have said that I was your miracle baby, but little do you know that you are my miracle mother. You are such a wonderful example of what it means to give endlessly and for that I truly appreciate you. Danny, I wholeheartedly appreciate you for embracing me as your daughter.

Your continuous support and affirmation means more to me than you’ll ever know. There have been many times throughout this process when I’ve felt like quitting and I picked up a greeting card from you or read a message that inspired me to press on. Your efforts to demonstrate your support and confidence in me have often served as the fuel to keep me going. Thank you so much for all that you do!

Clinton and Mary Ann Bailey, my grandparents, helped my parents reinforce the value and importance of education. Although my Nana never had the opportunity to see me pursue this degree, I know that she would be more than proud of me. Clinton or “Bubba”, you and I have always had a jokingly antagonistic relationship. But I truly thank you for challenging me to read numerous books, and allowing me to inquisitively follow you around while you were tinkering in the yard. I hope that this degree serves as validation that I was listening and paying close attention to your lessons.

I would also like to express my sincerest gratitude to my BGSU Pre-Major family. To

Clare, Mary Kay, Amy and Mary Lynn thank you for the positive words, listening ears, and the willingness to support me in this process whenever necessary. A special thank you to Derm

Forde, without your encouragement I would not have had the confidence to pursue this degree. vii Thank you for your support, sense of humor, encouragement, words of wisdom, and selflessness.

You are the true definition of servant leadership. Thank you for all that you have done!

I am forever grateful to my awesome committee for their support in the completion of this program and dissertation! Dr. Dafina-Lazarus Stewart, the standards you set have inspired me to grow in ways I never anticipated. From introducing me to the Socratic Method in Foundations, to using a box as a metaphor for the construction of knowledge in Qual, you are a phenomenal educator! You have offered the perfect amount of challenge and support in the very moments when I needed it most. Thank you for your encouragement, words of wisdom, and prayers. Dr.

Patrick Pauken, genius doesn’t even begin to describe the depth and breadth of your knowledge.

Your passion for law and education is truly inspiring; and your ability to communicate your knowledge with such humility is remarkable. Thank you for your support and wisdom. Dr.

Judith Jackson May, it was your Leadership Theories class that spurred my curiosity for Kouzes and Posner’s Leadership Practices. The positive energy that you brought to this process is appreciated. Thank you for your honesty, sincerity, and support. A special thank you to Dr.

Nicholas Bowman for your continued support, guidance, and commitment to my academic success. Your passion for statistics is infectious. I sincerely appreciate your decision to remain on my committee, even though you moved on to a new opportunity at the University of Iowa.

From one Wolverine to another, ‘For today, goodbye; for tomorrow, good luck; and forever, GO

BLUE.’ viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ...... ……………………… 1

Definition of Terms...... 1

Functional Area ...... 1

Institutional Racism ...... 2

Microaggressions ...... 2

Mid-level Professionals ...... 2

Statement of the Problem ...... 2

Purpose of the Study ...... 10

Research Questions ...... 11

Significance of the Study ...... 11

Scope of the Study ...... 13

Overview of Study ...... 13

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE……………………………………………… 14

Microaggression Defined ...... 14

Taxonomies of Microaggression ...... …………………………………………. 16

Taxonomy of Gender Microaggressions……………………………………. 21

Taxonomy of Sexual Orientation and Transgender Microaggressions……… 22

Taxonomies of Religious Microaggressions…………………………………. 24

University Members’ Experiences with Microaggression ...... 25

Student Experiences with Microaggression…………………………………. 26

Faculty Experiences with Microaggression ...... 31 ix

Administrator Experiences with Microaggression ...... 33

Impact of Microaggression ...... 34

Work Performance ...... 36

Mental and Physical Health ...... 37

Coping with Microaggression ...... 37

Microaggression Measurement ...... 39

Leadership ...... 41

Authentic Leadership ...... 42

Servant Leadership...... 43

Transformational Leadership ...... 43

Kouzes and Posner’s Framework for Leadership ...... 44

Model the way...... 44

Inspire a shared vision ...... 45

Challenge the process ...... 45

Enable others to act ...... 46

Encourage the heart...... 46

Leadership Practices within Higher Education ...... 47

Students and leadership practices ...... 48

International higher education and leadership practices ...... 49

Leadership Practices within Secondary Education ...... 50

Leadership Practices Beyond Education ...... 50

Gaps in the Literature...... 51

Summary ...... 53 x

CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY ...... ………………………. 55

Research Questions ..……………………………………………………………….. 56

Methodology……………………………………………………………………… .. 57

Population and Participants………………………………………………………… 58

Sample Characteristics………………………………………………………… ...... 60

Explanation of Variables………………………………………………………….... 60

Independent Variables ...... 61

Dependent Variables ...... 64

Data Cleaning and Transformation……………………………………………………. 64

Instrumentation ...... ……………………………………………………. 67

Procedures…………………………………………………...... 68

Recruitment Process...... 69

Data Analysis…………………………………………………...... 70

Limitations…………………………………………………...... 72

CHAPTER IV. FINDINGS……………………………...... 74

Participant Demographics ...... ………………………………………….. 74

Age ...... 74

Gender ...... 76

Disability ...... 80

Education Level ...... 80

Employment Status ...... 81

Functional Area ...... 81

Race ...... 84 xi

Religious/Worldview Identification...... 86

Sexual Orientation ...... 89

Microaggressive Experiences…………………………… ...... 91

Microassaults ...... 91

Microinsults ...... 92

Microinvalidations ...... 92

Sources of Microaggression ...... 94

Type of Microaggression ...... 96

Relationship between Microaggression and Leadership Practices ...... 99

Demographics, Institutional Characteristics, and Microaggression ...... 102

Summary…………………………………………………………...... 109

CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION ...…………………………………………………………… 112

Summary of Findings ...... ……………………………………………………. 112

Mid-Level Student Affairs Professionals and Microaggression………… ...... 113

Forms of Microaggression……………………………………………...... 117

Leadership Practices and Microaggression…………………………………… ...... 120

Forms of Microaggression and Demographic Characteristics……………………… 125

Implications for Professional Practice…………………………………………….. . 126

Implications for Future Research………………………………………………….. . 131

Summary…………………………………………………...... 133

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………… 134

APPENDIX A. SURVEY INSTRUMENT ...... 149

APPENDIX B. PARTICIPANT INVITATION…………………………………………… 162 xii

APPENDIX C. PARTICIPANT INVITATION REMINDER…………………………… . 163

APPENDIX D. HSRB APPROVAL LETTER …………………………… ...... 164

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Correlation Matrix for Independent Variables ...... 62

2 Dummy Coding for Participant Demographics ...... 66

3 Dummy Coding for Institutional Characteristics ...... 67

4 Research Questions & Corresponding Statistical Tests ...... 71

5 Age Demographics for Participants ...... 76

6 Gender Demographics for Participants ...... 79

7 Disability Demographics for Participants ...... 80

8 Education Level for Participants ...... 81

9 Employment Status of Participants ...... 81

10 Functional Area of Participants ...... 83

11 Racial/Ethnic Demographics for Participants ...... 85

12 Religious/Worldview Identification of Participants ...... 88

13 Sexual Orientation Demographics for Participants...... 91

14 Forms of Microaggression ...... 93

15 Sources of Microaggression ...... 95

16 Type of Microaggression ...... 98

17 Regression Model for Leadership Practices: Inspiring a Shared Vision ...... 101

18 Regression Model for Leadership Practices: Challenging the Process ...... 101

19 Regression Model for Leadership Practices: Enabling Others to Act ...... 101

20 Regression Model for Leadership Practices: Encouraging the Heart ...... 101

21 Regression Model for Leadership Practices: Modeling the Way ...... 101 xiv

22 Institutional Characteristics ...... 103

23 Regression Model for Microassaults & Participant Demographics ...... 105

24 Regression Model for Microinvalidations & Participant Demographics ...... 106

25 Regression Model for Microinsults & Participant Demographics ...... 108

26 Regression Model for Microassaults & Institutional Characteristics ...... 109

27 Regression Model for Microinsults & Institutional Characteristics ...... 109

28 Regression Model for Microinvalidations & Institutional Characteristics ...... 109

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

This study investigated the relationship between microaggression and the leadership practices for mid-level student affairs professionals. Microaggression is a subtle form of discrimination that permeates systems, organizations, and individual interactions (Sue, 2010a).

Specifically, the purpose of this study was to examine the connection between microaggressive confrontations, and how they relate to the work experiences as well as the leadership practices of those who encounter this type of discrimination. This investigation explored the types of microaggression that participants may encounter, such as microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations. The population selected for this study was mid-level student affairs professionals. This study utilized survey methodology to examine the relationship between microaggression and leadership practices, specifically for mid-level student affairs professionals within postsecondary education.

Definition of Terms

In order to understand the context of the research, it is necessary to define several key terms that will be used throughout this study. The terms below provide an explanation of the language that will be incorporated throughout this research.

Functional Area

Within the university environment, a functional area is defined as “a distinct grouping of activities, programs, and services within higher education that can be differentiated from other groups (e.g., departments) by its purpose, mission, focus, policies, practices, staff, budget, and the professional interests and background of its practitioners” (Council for the Advancement of

Standards in Higher Education, 2015, para. 22).

Institutional Racism

“Institutional racism can be understood as formal or informal structural mechanisms, such as policies and processes that systemically subordinate marginalize, and exclude non- dominant groups and mediates their experiences with racial microaggressions” (Huber &

Solorzano, 2014, p. 7).

Microaggressions

Microaggressions are “the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership” (Sue,

2010a, p. 3).

Mid-level Professionals

Middle level (mid-level) professionals, as characterized by The American College

Personnel Association (ACPA), are those individuals who have five years of experience within higher education, but do not hold senior leadership positions (ACPA, 2014c).

Statement of the Problem

Power, privilege and oppression are common features of everyday life for those from marginalized backgrounds. Oppression refers to “attitudes, behaviors, and pervasive systematic social arrangements by which members of one group are exploited and subordinated while members of another group are granted privileges” (Bohmer & Briggs, 1991, p. 155). The relationship between oppression and privilege demonstrates a power imbalance, in which one group possesses the ability to obtain and maintain advantages, relative to other groups (Glasberg

& Shannon, 2011). These scholars stated “the power imbalances of oppression also mean that 3 one group enjoys unearned privileges or undeserved enrichment and others unjust impoverishment and deprivation” (p. 2).

The privileges, enrichment, impoverishment and deprivation present within daily occurrences are often manifested at both the systemic and individual levels. The prejudices and biases that permeate institutions and systems socialize individuals to maintain oppressive worldviews (Sue, 2010a). Such worldviews influence institutional racism, which encompasses policies, practices, procedures, or structures that exist within an institution. These worldviews may unfairly subordinate persons of color while allowing other groups to benefit from the outcome (Sue, 2010a). Institutional racism reflects the materialization of microinvalidations, a form of microaggression. “When biases and prejudices become institutionalized and systemized into the norms, values, and beliefs of society, they are passed on to generations of its citizens via socialization and cultural conditioning” (Sue, 2010a, p. 112). The biases and prejudices that exemplify impoverishment and deprivation for certain groups are reflected in the institutionalized and systemized values that become norms at the individual level.

Internalized oppression, horizontal oppression and internalized dominance are phenomena that describe the experience of oppressive worldviews that occur at the individual level. Internalized oppression is the acceptance of the prejudices and biases against them by those individuals within oppressed groups (Tappan, 2006). Similarly, horizontal oppression is a concept in which members of an oppressed group engage in prejudices and oppressive behaviors against other members of their own group (Tappan, 2006). Conversely, internalized dominance pertains to the acceptance and incorporation, by those individuals within dominant groups, of biases against others (Tappan, 2006). Internalized domination perpetuates oppression against those who belong to marginalized groups, and coincides with microaggressive behaviors. 4

“Microaggressions reflect the active manifestation of oppressive worldviews that create, foster, and enforce marginalization” (Sue, 2010b, p. 6).

Microaggression is a construct that is both salient and relevant for individuals from marginalized backgrounds (Wong, Derthick, David, Saw & Okazaki, 2013). As society has deviated from overt, blatant, and conscious discrimination against minoritized individuals, it has resurfaced in the form of subtle, covert, and in some cases, unconscious biases, otherwise known as microaggressions (Sue, 2010b). In fact, incidents of microaggression occur frequently on college campuses throughout the nation. This type of subtle discrimination manifests itself in everyday interactions for minority populations (Sue, 2010a, 2010b), and has become particularly prevalent within higher education. There are three forms of microaggression, which include: microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations. An example of microaggression within the university context would include a faculty of color being mistaken as a member of the janitorial staff. Although seemingly innocent, this action speaks to the perception that people of color are limited to service positions. A second example of microaggression would involve a woman college student being asked, “How did you become so good in science?” The hidden message in this question is the assumption that women cannot be good at science. Both of these examples reflect two forms of microaggression: microinsults and microinvalidations.

In addition to these examples, there are other instances that demonstrate the presence of microaggression within the university context. For example, a student at Fordham University has created a digital photo project to represent racial microaggressions that other minority students have encountered at the institution (Vega, 2014). Similarly, students at Brown

University created a Facebook page entitled, “Brown University Micro/Aggressions” so that members of the campus community have a space to discuss incidents and thoughts on 5 microaggression. Lastly, Columbia University students created a blog entitled, The

Microaggression Project, where readers can read about microaggressive experiences that students have experienced.

These examples and news reports serve as indicators of how pervasive microaggressions are on college campuses (Flaherty, 2013; New, 2014, 2015; Svokos, 2015; Vega, 2014). This increase in awareness of covert discrimination on college campuses has brought about the impetus for the examination of microaggression. In addition to microaggression, there are other ways in which discrimination manifests within the university environment. Moon Johnson

(2015) stated that inclusive language, microaggressions, and cultural appropriation are all important issues within postsecondary education, and they have “direct effects on the lives of those marginalized” (p. 137).

Several specific accounts have illustrated how microaggressions exist inside the social atmosphere that college students participate in on their respective campuses (Byng, 2013; Gold,

2014; Ryman, 2014; Zucchino, 2013). Most recently, themed-campus parties have garnered attention, at which students mocked their peers from marginalized populations by wearing stereotypical clothing or blackface (Byng, 2013; Gold, 2014; Ryman, 2014; Zucchino, 2013).

Byng (2013) argued that these types of parties invoke cultural stereotypes and reflect racial insensitivity that is offensive toward minority students enrolled at predominantly White institutions. Consequently, the students planning and participating in these events encountered backlash from their peers, faculty, and administrators on their campuses (Ryman, 2014;

Zucchino, 2013). Additionally, Lee (2014) discussed the microaggressive experiences of

African American students at Harvard University. Lee reported that these experiences were represented by overt and covert discrimination, students feeling disconnected from the campus 6 community, and the scrutiny of race-conscious admission polices (e.g., Fisher vs. University of

Texas at Austin). Although these examples portray the narratives of college students, there are other segments of the campus community that experience microaggression as well. These other groups include both faculty and full-time university administrators or staff.

Although there are some studies that represent the faculty experience with microaggression (Boysen, 2012; Constantine, Smith, Redington, Owens, 2008; Frazier, 2011;

Pittman, 2012), a smaller number of studies exist concerning university administrators (Alabi,

2014; Garvey & Drezner, 2013; Young, Anderson, & Stewart, 2015). Studying this subset of the university population is important as they are charged with providing institutional leadership to a wide range of organizational members; and it will provide a comprehensive picture of the microaggressions that occur against marginalized populations within the university context.

For minoritized university administrators who encounter microaggression, these experiences may relate to their institution of employment. Hirt (2006) determined that the experience of student affairs administrators can vary based upon their institutional type of employment. Presumably, not only does the kind of institution influence the type of experience a student affairs professional has within their work environment, but the work experience of a professional could also be related to the functional area within which they are employed at their institution. For minoritized university administrators who encounter microaggression, these experiences may be related to their institution of employment.

Moreover, Mather, Bryan and Faulkner (2009) asserted that there is an absence of support mechanisms for university administrators in mid-level student affairs positions. Mid- level professionals (e.g., directors, associate directors, etc.) comprise the largest administrative group in most college and university systems, and they are integral to life at an institution. In 7 addition, mid-level college and university administrators serve the “formidable role of bridging the gap between university policy makers and front line staff” (Mather et al., 2009, p. 244). This bridge is not the only way in which mid-level professionals serve their institution; they also have increasingly important “supervisory, budgetary, and leadership responsibilities” (Mather et al.,

2009, p. 245). The placement of mid-level administrators and their organizational position provides “unique access to both the decision-making processes and the on-the-ground realities” that exists within their campus environment (Mather et al., 2009, p. 248). Additionally, mid- level student affairs professionals essentially lead from the middle, which may encompass the promotion of their organization’s vision. This vision is developed from another individual’s agenda (e.g., university president, vice president, etc.), and mid-level professionals are tasked with “leading and influencing others beyond the formal scope of their position” (Mather et al.,

2009, p. 249). It is for this reason that Mather et al. (2009) stated leadership skills are the most important competencies for successful mid-level student affairs professionals. In recognizing that leadership skills are particularly critical for mid-level student affairs administrators, the need for understanding how microaggressive experiences may relate to this population’s leadership practices is important. Therefore, gaining a holistic perspective of microaggression within the university context is paramount, especially examining microaggression from the perspective of those who work in higher education.

Individuals from marginalized backgrounds “describe their work climate as hostile, invalidating, and insulting because of microaggressions that assail their race, gender, or sexual- orientation identities” (Sue, 2010a, p. 213). It is for this reason that examining this relationship between microaggressions and marginalized individuals in the university work environment is critical, specifically for mid-level student affairs administrators. Based on my review of the 8 current literature on microaggression, little research examines the experience of mid-level student affairs professionals. In this study, I limited participation to those mid-level administrators in student affairs that were likely to encounter microaggressions. This included those with minoritized identities of race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, and/or ability.

Moreover, it has been noted that microaggression plays a pronounced role in the creation of disparities within the workplace (Sue, 2010a; Young, Anderson, & Stewart, 2014). These disparities in employment are readily apparent in the recruitment, retention, and promotion of individuals from marginalized groups. In order to confront these disparities, understanding the different forms of microaggression that occur within the workplace is important (Sue, 2010a).

The employment disparities and raced-themed parties reflect some of the oppressive biases, stereotypes and preconceived notions that people may consciously or unconsciously hold regarding marginalized populations. Sue (2010b) explained “the power of microaggressions lies in their invisibility to perpetrators and oftentimes the recipients” (p. 6). The deconstruction of microaggression is critical to improving equality and inclusivity for minoritized populations.

The lack of awareness and invisibility of microaggression are reasons why the deconstruction of this issue is important. Furthermore, the lack of acknowledgment for race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other microaggression related to an individual’s identity, is detrimental to the respective populations. Sue (2010a) expressed “it is the unconscious and unintentional forms of bias that create the overwhelming problems for marginalized group” (p. 23).

There are several ways in which microaggression affects those who do not belong to marginalized populations. Several scholars reported the disadvantages of exercising oppression for perpetrators (Bowser & Hunt, 1981; Freire, 1970; Goodman, 2001; Hanna et al., 2000; Sue, 9

2003; Sue, 2011a). Sue (2010a) highlighted these disadvantages by suggesting that oppression affects perpetrators cognitively (e.g., having a false sense of reality), emotionally (e.g., guilt or defensiveness), behaviorally (e.g., avoiding those from marginalized populations or creating inauthentic interactions), spiritually, and morally.

In relation to oppression, microaggressions reflect the active manifestation of oppressive worldviews that create, maintain, and perpetuate marginalization (Sue, 2010a). The impact of oppression upon society “moves through a progression of denigration, dehumanization, and demonization” (Sue, 2010a, p. 112), and negatively affects all populations who are involved.

Sue (2010b) stated that oppression “is the act of imposing on another or others an object, label, role experience, or set of living conditions that is unwanted, needlessly painful, and detracts from physical or psychological well-being” (p. 6). Thus, “the cycle of oppression is strengthened and continues to operate when microaggressions go unaddressed” (Rivera, Forquer, & Rangel, 2010, p. 59). If we begin to scrutinize and challenge some of these pervasive issues (e.g., racial insensitivity and cultural misappropriation) within the framework of higher education, then perhaps the deconstruction of microaggression will inspire change in this space and improve conditions for all those within society.

To reiterate, microaggression should not only be confronted for marginalized populations, but it must also be understood and addressed for the benefit of those outside these populations. Understanding microaggression is pertinent because it involves the way that people who are different from one another interact, encounter, and experience each other. Therefore, addressing microaggression is not only for the advantage of marginalized populations; but it is beneficial for all populations on campus.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between microaggression and the work experience of mid-level student affairs professionals within higher education, specifically those from marginalized populations that pertain to race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, or disability. In addition, this research examined the issue of microaggression and how it relates to leadership practices for mid-level student affairs professionals who are minoritized. Kouzes and Posner (2002) developed a model for understanding leadership by identifying five fundamental practices, which encompass: modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, and encouraging the heart. Through this exploration of the relationship between leadership practices and microaggression, I hope to expound on what is known about minoritized populations and their experiences with leadership. In addition, the insight gained from this study can be used as a means to counteract the behaviors, systems and structures that are oppressive towards marginalized populations. It is my intention that the findings of this research will be used to develop seminars or institutes, and initiate discourse that educates others about the experiences of student affairs practitioners with marginalized identities. The first objective was to investigate how frequently these professionals are exposed to microaggressions. Second, I ascertained if microaggressions were related to their leadership practices. Third, I determined if personal characteristics and institutional characteristics were predictors of participants’ experiences with microaggressions.

Participants completed a web-based survey that measured their interactions with microaggression and its relationship with their leadership practices. Descriptive statistics and multiple regression analyses were performed to analyze the data for this study. I hypothesized 11 that those mid-level student affairs professionals who indicated higher frequencies of experiences with microaggression were less likely to display Kouzes and Posner’s five practices of exemplary leadership.

Research Questions

The following research questions served as a guide for this study:

1. To what extent do mid-level student affairs professionals who hold supervisory

positions experience microaggression?

2. Which of the three forms of microaggression (i.e., microassaults, microinsults, and

microinvalidations) are most commonly reported among the respondents?

3. To what extent are mid-level student affairs professionals’ experiences with

microaggressions related to their leadership practices (i.e., modeling the way,

inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, and

encouraging the heart)?

4. To what degree do these mid-level professionals’ demographics (e.g., race/ethnicity,

gender, disability, sexual orientation, age, religious affiliation, educational level, and

years of experience in higher education) and institutional characteristics (e.g., control,

degree level and size) predict their experiences with microaggressions?

Significance of the Study

Exploring microaggression and its relationship to leadership practices for mid-level student affairs professionals will further help scholars and practitioners understand the landscape of postsecondary education. As previously mentioned, by examining the experience of marginalized student affairs professionals, we can gain a more comprehensive understanding of all populations in this environment. Additionally, this study could influence the way higher 12 education institutions develop and support professionals. If participants in the study indicate common key issues that are represented across institutions, then the case can be made for universities to have workshops, training sessions, and open forums that address the topics that are being discussed by respondents. Moreover, the information derived from this study may be used in trainings and workshops for those who belong to and work with this population, including supervisors of marginalized professionals.

Furthermore, this study is significant because it builds upon the quantitative research that is available on microaggression. At the time of their publication, Lau and Williams (2010) referenced only 20 published papers on the topic of microaggression; ten of those studies were quantitatively focused. Within the last five years, additional quantitative research has been published (Basford, Offermann, Behrend, 2014; Boysen, 2012; Comeaux, 2012; Mercer, Zeigler-

Hill, Wallace & Hayes, 2011; Nadal, Wong, Griffin, Davidoff, & Sriken, 2014; Offermann,

Basford, Graebner, DeGraaf, Jaffer, 2013; Smith, Hung & Franklin, 2011; Torres-Harding,

Andrade, Jr. & Romero Diaz, 2012); however, the number of quantitative studies should be increased, since much of the literature is based in qualitative research. Lau and Williams (2010) argued “future research could adopt quantitative methods as a way of validating existing qualitative findings” (p. 325). The majority of the quantitative studies specifically pertained to verifying the reliability and validity of microaggression scales that were created for measuring the experience of marginalized individuals. The findings of the current study have significant implications for the overall literature on microaggression, marginalized populations, and new practices within the field of student affairs.

Scope of the Study

The scope of this study focused on mid -level student affairs professionals who supervise other full-time professionals and report to a supervisor, have been employed within higher education for at least five years or more, but who are not in executive level positions. Although titles may vary depending on the structure of the institution, participants may hold positions such as: Assistant Director, Associate Director, Director, Assistant Dean of Students, or Dean of

Students. Again, this study does not include individuals who hold entry-level, executive, or cabinet level positions within higher education.

The other parameter that was set for this study is including only those who are likely to experience microaggression. These individuals have self-identified as belonging to a marginalized population, whether by race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, and/or disability.

Overview of Study

This study has five chapters. Chapter One discusses the problem as well as the importance of this study. Chapter Two explores the current literature on microaggression and leadership practices. Chapter Three discusses the methods that were used in order to conduct this study. Chapter Four reports the findings of this study after data was collected. Chapter Five discusses the findings of the study as it relates to the extant literature on microaggression. The final chapter also provides implications for future practice and research in higher education. 14

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The purpose of this study is to understand how mid-level student affairs professionals experience microaggression within their work environment. In order to guide this study, the current chapter begins with a review of the literature that examines how microaggression is defined. Next, an overview of the extant literature on the various forms of microaggression will be provided. Subsequently, a review of the literature on the populations that encounter microaggression, the apparent impact of microaggression upon these individuals, and coping mechanisms associated with microaggression will be explored. In order to narrow the focus of this study, only the literature applicable to the field of higher education will be thoroughly examined. Aside from microaggression, scholarship on Kouzes and Posner’s leadership practices within the context of education will also be presented. Lastly, the remainder of this chapter will address how this study fits within the landscape of current research and explores the contribution that this study has to what is currently known about microaggression and leadership practices.

Microaggression Defined

In my review of the literature, I noticed an evolution in the definition for microaggression over time. Chester Pierce initially presented the term, racial microaggression, in the 1970s in order to explain the subtle insults experienced by Black Americans (Pierce, Carew, Pierce-

Gonzalez, & Willis, 1978). Pierce and colleagues defined microaggression as automatic, stunning, subtle, and non-verbal exchanges that are ‘put downs’ of African Americans (Pierce et al., 1978). Almost ten years later, Davis (1989) introduced a modified definition of microaggression. Davis defined microaggression as stunning and automatic acts of disregard that emanate from subconscious attitudes of white superiority and verification of black inferiority 15

(Davis, 1989). Although the definition created by Davis focuses on race, similar to Pierce’s definition, Davis acknowledged that microaggression stems from attitudes or biases. Going beyond the experience of Black Americans, Sue and colleagues established a more expansive definition for microaggression. Sue et al. (2007) stated that microaggressions are “the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership” (p. 271).

Sue et al.’s (2007) definition has served as the foundation for expanded definitions included in more recent studies on microaggression (Guzman, Trevino, Lubuguin, & Aryan,

2010; Hill, Kim, & Williams, 2010; Johnston & Nadal, 2010; Keller & Galgay, 2010; Kim &

Kim, 2010; Lin, 2010; Nadal, Issa, Griffin, Hamit, & Lyons, 2010a; Smith & Redington, 2010).

Accordingly, Guzman et al. (2010) provided a revision of the definition constructed by Sue et al.

(2007). The definitions are similar, however the language used to describe microaggression by

Sue et al. (2007) and Guzman et al. (2010) is slightly different. Guzman et al. (2010) asserted

“microaggressions occur in everyday interactions between people who represent different groups and convey powerful yet subtle derogatory messages about the subordinate status of marginalized groups” (p. 147). Hill et al. (2010) maintained this inclusivity by defining microaggression as marginalized groups in the US withstanding daily slights and insults that either individually or systemically disparages these populations. This inclusivity of the definition for microaggression is in comparison to Pierce et al.’s (1978) original definition, which focused on race. Similarly, in a study that examined people with disabilities (PWD),

Keller and Galgay (2010) applied the experience of microaggressions to those individuals with disabilities. Keller and Galgay (2010) stated disability microaggressions are “distorted 16 assumptions and beliefs that fuel negative attitudes and behaviors toward PWDs…that operate in a much more subtle, secretive, and covert manner” (p. 244). Additionally, in applying Sue et al.’s (2007) definition of microaggression toward classism, Smith and Redington (2010) explained that classist microaggressions are “everyday life and ordinary language abound with class-based indignities and affronts” (p. 269). Smith and Redington (2010) also argued that classist microaggressions are comparable to racial microaggressions, but this type of subtle discrimination devalues the poor and working class. Likewise, Nadal et al. (2010a) applied the definition of microaggression to the experience of marginalized religious groups stating:

“Religious microaggressions can be defined as subtle behavioral and verbal exchanges (both conscious and unconscious) that send denigrating messages to individuals of various religious groups” (p. 297). The definition corresponds closely with Sue et al.’s (2007) definition for microaggression; however, Nadal et al. (2010a) concentrated on religious group affiliation. This definition as well as the others that have been mentioned exemplifies the broadening in the understanding of those who experience microaggression. This definitional progression represents a shift from the primary focus on racial microaggression to a more expansive and inclusive representation for all those who may belong to a marginalized group.

Taxonomies of Microaggression

In addition to expanding upon the original definition for microaggression, Sue (2010a,

2010b) presented a taxonomy for microaggression. The literature that discussed the taxonomy of microaggression is heavily based upon microaggressions concerning racism and directed against people of color; although people of color can experience different types of microaggression based upon other salient social identities (i.e., sexuality, gender, disability, etc.). However, many of the themes and examples used to describe this taxonomy are focused on race. Several 17 scholars have used this taxonomy of microaggression as a means to classify the behaviors encountered by their participants as well as to create new taxonomies related to the population being examined (Capodilupo et al., 2010; Nadal et al., 2010a; Nadal et al., 2010b). In order to gain a better understanding of the taxonomy that was developed by Sue (2010a, 2010b), the literature related to this classification system will be reviewed. The taxonomy for microaggression has been applied to specific forms of microaggression that exist, with each type pertaining to an ascribed set of behaviors (Sue, 2010a). These organized ascription of behaviors help delineate between the actions and attitudes associated with each type of microaggression.

Microassaults are a type of microaggression that include conscious behaviors, either subtle or explicit, and represent racially, gendered, or sexually oriented biased attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors (Sue, 2010a). Microassaults “are communicated to marginalized groups through environmental cues, verbalizations, or behaviors” (p. 28). For instance, an environmental microassault would be displaying a Klan hood, noose, or the hanging of Playboy playmate pictures on the office wall of a male manager (Sue, 2010a). The specific intent of microassaults is to attack or harm a person from a marginalized group. “They are meant to attack the group identity of the person or to hurt/harm the intended victim through name-calling, avoidant behavior, or purposeful discriminatory actions” (p. 28). Another example that reflects a microassault would consist of using a derogatory name when referring to someone from a specific race or ethnicity. Individuals who commit microassaults harbor conscious biases against socially devalued groups, which are based on strong beliefs of inferiority (Sue, 2010b).

Microassaults are comparable to “old fashioned” discrimination associated with racism, sexism, or discrimination based on sexual orientation (Sue, 2010a). 18

The way in which microassaults are different from “old fashioned” practices of discrimination is that they are more likely to be expressed in a way that provides the perpetrator with protection. Likewise, microassaults are committed when the perpetrator feels safe enough to express his or her beliefs, or has lost control (Sue, 2010b). First, individuals committing microassaults may feel a certain degree of anonymity and assurance when their actions are concealed (Sue, 2010a). An example of this action would include writing a racial epithet on the wall of a public restroom. Next, a perpetrator may feel safe when he or she is in the presence of others who share their perspective and beliefs. This environment would allow the perpetrators to get away with offensive words and actions. Lastly, individuals perform microassaults when they lose control and allow their, otherwise privately biased, attitudes to be revealed. As described by

Sue (2010a), these conditions allow perpetrators to remain unidentified when committing microassaults.

The second type of microaggressions are called microinsults, which consist of unconscious, demeaning and insulting messages that convey rudeness and insensitivity to someone from a marginalized background (Sue, 2010a). An example of a microinsult would include a white woman clutching her purse tightly in the presence of a Latino person; or when the term “gay” is used to describe the nonconformist behavior of someone. There are four thematic representations for microinsults. These tenets include: ascription of intelligence, second-class citizen, pathologizing cultural values, and assumption of criminal status. The ascription of intelligence describes messages that assign a degree of intellect to a person based upon an associated social identity. An example of this would involve an assumption such as all individuals from Asian backgrounds are good at math or science. This illustration is representative of the ascription of intelligence because the assumption is based upon race. Next, 19 the second-class citizen theme involves treating individuals from marginalized groups as a lesser person. This premise encompasses treating people as if they are unwelcome within a given space. The third point that falls under the microinsult category is pathologizing cultural values or communication styles. The underlying meaning of this notion is that the values or communication styles for marginalized groups are perceived to be abnormal. The difference in style is seen as not being normal or correct, and so it has a negative connotation attached.

Finally, the concept that is often attributed to people of color is the assumption of criminal status.

This theme supports the presumption of criminality, dangerousness, or deviant behaviors associated with an individual’s race. An example of this microinsult would be when people of color are followed while shopping because of the presumption that individuals with a certain racial group identity are going to commit a crime by stealing merchandise.

The literature defined microinvalidations as environmental or interpersonal cues that negate, nullify, or exclude the psychological thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and experiences of the group that is being targeted (Sue, 2010b). For instance, a microinvalidation would occur when an Asian American person is complimented for speaking good English. A second example of a microinvalidation would occur if a person of color is told, “When I look at you, I don’t see color” (Sue, 2010a). This form of microaggression can be understood through the identification of several themes. The first premise for microinvalidation includes being an alien in one’s own land. Being an alien in one’s own land occurs when visibly racial or ethnic minorities are treated like foreigners. This concept communicates that people with certain racial group identities do not belong, regardless of being born in the United States. Second, the idea of color-blindness is also a form of microinvalidation, which is represented when a perpetrator denies seeing color or race. There are several messages that coincide with this concept: the denial of the experience for 20 people of color; the assimilation or acculturation of the dominant culture; and the denial of the individual as a racial or cultural being. The third tenet associated with microinvalidations is the myth of meritocracy. This perspective emphasizes progress or accomplishments that are based completely on ability or talent and therefore underestimates the influence of social capital.

“Meritocracy is a pejorative term used to describe a social system that develops based on intelligence testing and educational testing” (Liu, 2011, p. 385). Sue (2010a) suggested that the myth of meritocracy is connected to microaggression because those committing this type of discrimination trivialize the experiences of individuals from marginalized backgrounds. These microaggressors fail to recognize how the group identification of marginalized individuals may influence his or her experiences. Essentially, the idea of meritocracy minimizes the impact of group identity. Although it is possible for individuals from marginalized backgrounds to accomplish goals and become successful, in many cases their group identification may influence their experiences. Statements that suggest race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation play a minor role in the lives of marginalized individuals represent the myth of meritocracy.

Finally, the last kind of microinvalidation is committed when a person denies behaviors as well as actions that represent biases against other individuals. The denial of individual biases is represented through statements that are made when an individual is denying a biased attitude.

An example of an associated statement would be, “I am not racist. I have three Black friends.”

Despite initially being provided as a justification for the lack of bias, these words illustrate a defense mechanism that is employed in order to rationalize a previous act or discriminatory comment. 21

The literature revealed several other taxonomies that have been developed to describe the following kinds of microaggressions: gender (Capodilupo et al., 2010), sexual orientation and transgender identification (Nadal, Rivera, & Corpus, 2010b) and religious affiliation (Nadal et al., 2010a). These taxonomies are explained below.

Taxonomy of Gender Microaggressions

Inspired by Sue and Capodilupo’s (2008) original taxonomy of microaggression,

Capodilupo et al. (2010) proposed the taxonomy of gender microaggressions. This taxonomy for gender microaggression focuses on the exploitation and objectification of women and does not include transgender people. It includes themes such as sexual objectification, second-class citizen, assumptions of inferiority, assumptions of traditional gender roles, use of sexist language, and environmental invalidations. Sexual objectification is concerned with a woman being treated as a sexual object, communicates that a woman’s value is her body, and her purpose is to entertain men. Next, the second-class citizen theme occurs when women are overlooked or when men are given preferential treatment over women. This idea sends the message that the contribution of women is not as valuable as what men have to contribute.

Third, assumptions of inferiority transpire when women are assumed to be less competent than men, and the meaning being shared is that women are incapable of performing at the same level or better than men. The next inference is the assumption of traditional gender roles. This theme materializes when it is assumed that a woman should maintain traditional gender roles such as femininity. With this assumption comes the expectation that women should exude stereotypical feminine characteristics. The fifth theme within the taxonomy of gender microaggressions is the use of sexist language. The terminology associated with sexist language is derogatory toward women and implies that they are inferior in some way or held to a different set of standards than 22 men. The final theme, environmental invalidations, includes “macrolevel aggressions that occur on systemic and environmental levels” (Capodilupo et al., 2010, p. 207). Environmental invalidations encompass gender-based pay inequalities for similar responsibilities in the workplace or low numbers of women in executive level positions within an organization. These environmental cues convey the message that women are inferior and do not belong.

The central message of gender microaggressions is that women provide limited value, are inferior, and possess fewer capabilities than men. The provided taxonomy on gender is different from the taxonomy on microaggression because the focal point is gender; and this taxonomy focuses specifically on women. However, the taxonomy of gender microaggression is comparable to Sue and Capodilupo’s (2008) taxonomy in several ways. The second-class citizen theme in the gender taxonomy system corresponds directly with the respective category in the original taxonomy. Both classification systems expressed that individuals are treated as a lesser person or group (Sue, 2010b). The second area in which the two taxonomies are analogous is that the assumptions are made based on the social identity of the individual or group. In the taxonomy developed by Sue and Capodilupo (2008), one of the themes is ascription of intelligence, and it coincides with the assumption of inferiority in Capodilupo et al.’s (2010) gender taxonomy. One taxonomy is concerned with assigning a degree of intelligence, and the other deals with assigning a level of competence according to gender. Although there are similarities that exist between the two taxonomies, the clear difference is the focus on one dimension of identity, gender.

Taxonomy of Sexual Orientation and Transgender Microaggressions

Another taxonomy was created with sexual orientation and transgender identity as the focal points, which was also influenced by Sue and Capodilupo (2008). This taxonomy was 23 developed by Nadal et al. (2010b), and the following themes were identified: use of heterosexist terminology, endorsement of heteronormative culture/behaviors, assumption of universal LGBT experience, exoticization, discomfort/disapproval of LGBT experience, denial of societal heterosexism/transphobia, assumption of sexual pathology/abnormality, denial of individual heterosexism, and environmental macroaggressions. The first category in the sexual orientation and transgender taxonomy, use of heterosexist or transphobic terminology, occurs when derogatory language is used towards a sexually and/or gender diverse person. This type of speech transmits the message that sexually and/or gender diverse individuals are bad or inferior.

Likewise, the endorsement of heteronormative or gender normative culture/behaviors theme communicates that heterosexuality and cisgender identities are moral, while everything else is not. This premise sends the message that those who do not identify as heterosexual or as cisgender should not display this aspect of their identity.

Next, Nadal et al. (2010b) described the third idea as the assumption of the universal

LGBT experience; this occurs when it is assumed that all sexually and/or gender diverse persons are the same. Aside from treating sexually and/or gender diverse individuals the same, the exoticization theme occurs when members of this marginalized group are dehumanized or treated like objects. The ideas behind this theme include: the presence of sexually and/or gender diverse individuals persons is for the entertainment of non-sexually and gender diverse individuals; and the perception that people who identify as sexually and/or gender diverse are sexual objects.

The fifth characterization within the taxonomy of sexual orientation and transgender microaggressions is the discomfort or disapproval of LGBT experiences. This concept manifests itself when sexually and/or gender diverse individuals are treated with condemnation or disrespect. The implication of this point is that sexually and/or gender diverse persons are 24 contagious, immoral, or evil. Additionally, two of the themes within this taxonomy are closely related, and they focus on the denial of heterosexism and transphobia. The denial of societal heterosexism or transphobia happens when non-marginalized populations deny to sexually and/or gender diverse persons that their heterosexist or homophobic experiences are present.

The denial of individual heterosexism or transphobia ensues when a heterosexual person denies their biases or prejudices. Both of these premises transmit messages that negate the thoughts and feelings of sexually and/or gender diverse persons. The final category within this taxonomy is the assumption of sexual pathology or abnormality. The belief aligned with this area is the presumption that sexually and/or gender diverse individuals are oversexualized and/or sexual deviants. Although this taxonomy focuses on sexual orientation and transgender identities, it overlaps with Sue and Capodilupo’s (2008) categorization of microaggressions.

Taxonomy of Religious Microaggressions

Besides constructing a taxonomy related to sexual orientation and transgender identity,

Nadal also created a second taxonomy. Nadal et al. (2010a) used Sue and Capodilupo’s (2008) taxonomy on microaggression to devise a taxonomy on religious microaggressions. This taxonomy includes the following categories: endorsing religious stereotypes, exoticization, pathology of different religious groups, assumption of one’s own religious identity as the norm, assumption of religious homogeneity, and denial of religious prejudice (Nadal et al., 2010a).

Several of the categories identified in this classification system for marginalized religious groups correspond with themes that were included in the taxonomies mentioned above.

The exoticization category applies to both the taxonomy on religious, and/or sexual orientation and transgender microaggressions. Additionally, the premise of pathology is included in each taxonomy; however, this notion is specific to the particular type of 25 microaggression being examined. Specifically, this category pertains to the pathology of a certain characteristic that is seen as abnormal, incorrect, or wrong. For instance, when examining the assumption of sexual pathology/abnormality theme within the taxonomy of sexual orientation and transgender, LGBT persons are assumed to be abnormal sexual deviants because they are not heterosexual (Nadal et al., 2010b).

Likewise, when reviewing the taxonomy of religious microaggressions, the pathologizing of different religious groups exemplifies the notion that individuals who do not practice

Christianity are abnormal (Nadal et al., 2010a). The last commonality among these taxonomies is the denial of individual prejudice or the perpetuation of this bias. In the original taxonomy for microaggression, the denial of individual racism theme was included (Sue, 2010b). Similarly, the taxonomy of sexual orientation and transgender microaggressions contains the denial of individual heterosexism/transphobia theme (Nadal et al., 2010b), whereas the taxonomy of religious microaggressions is concerned with the denial of religious prejudices. Although these themes may address different issues for each marginalized population, their cohesion rests upon the idea that in denying individual biases and societal inequities, non-marginalized populations are denying their power and privilege as well as their personal responsibility to take action (Sue,

2010b).

University Members’ Experiences with Microaggression

The forms of microaggression, as described above, are present in the experiences of marginalized groups within higher education. There are environmental as well as institutional policies and practices that communicate the message that these groups are not welcome members of their campus communities (Sue, 2010a; Watkins et al., 2010). Accordingly, it is important to review the manifestation of microaggressions inside the university context. The extant literature 26 revealed that microinsults and microinvalidations are common occurrences within the academic and social spaces at universities, with microassaults occurring less frequently (Grier-Reed,

2010). Additionally, the current literature on microaggression emphasized the experiences of the following populations in higher education: students, faculty and administration.

Student Experiences with Microaggression

Postsecondary students encounter microaggression in a variety of ways within higher education. Sue (2010a) stated that microaggressions affect “the student body composition through recruitment (which students are selected), retention (which students drop out), and promotion (graduation rates)” (p. 235). Moreover, the messages that microaggressions send may be integrated into the university curriculum as well as represented by low numbers of marginalized populations in administrative, faculty, and support staff positions (Sue, 2010a).

In regards to the presence of microaggression in higher education, scholars contend that students from marginalized backgrounds encounter this type of discrimination within the classroom (Morales, 2014; Solórzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000; Sue, 2010a). For example,

Solórzano et al. (2000) found that African American students felt invisible within the classroom setting. These students reported feeling like their experiences were “omitted, distorted, and stereotyped” when studying their course curriculum (Solórzano et al., 2000, p. 65). Additionally, college students who were victims of microaggression indicated feelings of isolation (Solórzano et al., 2000; Morales, 2014) as well as self-doubt and frustration (Solórzano et al., 2000). The study group formation of non-marginalized peers personified these feelings of isolation for minority students (Solórzano et al., 2000). In identifying study group formation as an issue related to their classroom experience, students disclosed a connection to the ascription of intelligence theme, a type of microinsult (Sue, 2010b). These students perceived that their non- 27 marginalized peers assumed a certain level of intelligence because of their identity as a marginalized person and failed to include them in the formation of study groups (Solórzano et al., 2000).

Additionally, postsecondary students who identified as “sexual minority individuals”

(Platt & Lenzen, 2013, p. 1015) reiterated these feelings of isolation and frustration related to their interactions with microaggressors. Platt and Lenzen (2013) found that the LGBTQ students in their study discussed themes specifically recognized by the literature on sexual orientation microaggressions. The areas that were discussed are as follows: endorsement of heteronormative culture, sinfulness, homophobia, heterosexist language/terminology, and oversexualization (Platt

& Lenzen, 2013). These categories that were identified by participants aligned with the classifications indicated in Nadal et al.’s (2010a) taxonomy of sexual orientation and transgender microaggressions.

The college classroom is not the only setting in which microaggressions occur within the university environment. The second setting in which microaggressions have materialized includes campus residence halls. Harwood et al. (2012) studied minority students enrolled at predominantly White institutions and their exposure to the various forms of microaggressions within the residence hall environment. These students indicated that the microassaults they experienced were reflected in the racial jokes and verbal comments made by their peers residing in their residence hall (Harwood et al., 2012). These jokes and comments sometimes originated as microinsults, but they developed into microassaults after becoming more overt (Harwood et al., 2012). In addition to jokes and comments, students reported witnessing racial slurs written in the common areas of their residence halls (Harwood et al., 2012). These areas included the doors of residents’ rooms, study lounges, or elevators (Harwood et al., 2012). By writing the 28 racial slurs in public spaces, the perpetrator intended to embarrass, harm, or offend those that the comments were directed toward. Additionally, by leaving the slur in a public space for the victims to discover, it allowed the perpetrator to maintain a sense of anonymity because the victims were harmed, but they did not know who the microaggressors were. Sue (2010a) alleged that the anonymity of a microassault permits microaggressors to feel comfortable expressing prejudice, or in this case, racial slurs. For the participants in this study, the racial slurs served as indicators that they were unwelcome and did not belong in that space (Harwood et al., 2012).

In the same manner that students pinpointed microassaults, the current literature also exposed microinsults as a reality for college students. This form of microaggression was disclosed when Latina/o students enrolled at predominantly White institutions were confronted with racial stereotyping (Minikel-Lacocque, 2012; Yosso, Smith, Ceja, & Solórzano, 2009).

This marginalized student population reiterated feelings of being unwelcomed by the campus community as well as feelings of isolation, similar to the participants in other studies (Minikel-

Lacocque, 2012; Morales, 2014; Platt & Lenzen, 2013; Solórzano et al., 2000). Additionally, the literature affirmed that microassaults and microinvalidations were present in the experience of

Latina/o students at these institutions (Minikel-Lacocque, 2012; Yosso et al., 2009).

Similarly, students experienced microinvalidations in their residence halls, as they encountered race-related issues, which were minimized by residential staff (Harwood et al.,

2012). When students reported racial slurs to residential staff, they subsequently encountered microinvalidations, as the residence hall staff minimized the microassault and thus attributed the experience to pranks (Harwood et al., 2012). The lack of acknowledgement by staff members denigrated the reality of students who felt that a microassault was committed, while indirectly sustaining the occurrence of a microinvalidation. Harwood et al. (2012) confirmed “students of 29 color also felt diminished when staff trivialized racial microaggressions” (p. 168). In other words, in their attempt to address the first form of microaggression, students experienced a second form of microaggression from the residence hall staff. Additionally, residence halls reflected microinvalidations in the placement of marginalized students within specific halls

(Harwood et al., 2012). The participants revealed “the residence halls on campus appeared to be segregated by race” and the facilities where the population predominantly consisted of minority students were perceived to be inferior to the other residence halls (Harwood et al., 2012, p. 167).

These two examples represent segregated spaces and unequal treatment in housing assignments.

The message that these factors communicate is that students of color do not belong in these spaces (Harwood et al., 2012). The perceived racial segregation and quality of facilities were environmental cues that broadcasted messages that these marginalized students did not belong.

The occurrence of microaggression is not only present at the undergraduate level, as the literature reflected that graduate students encounter microaggression as well. Specifically, the microinsults and microinvalidations described by undergraduate students were reflected in the experiences for students of color who were pursuing doctoral degrees. Guzman et al. (2010) illustrated that the doctoral students in their study encountered discouragement from faculty and advisors based upon assumptions about their level of intelligence and abilities; questioning from faculty and fellow students regarding the authenticity of their qualifications and accomplishments; requests to provide the student-of-color perspective for committees; and the denigration of academic work, especially if it focused on race or ethnicity.

In reaching beyond the experience of U.S. students, the extant literature reflected that international students within postsecondary education encounter microaggression as well (Clark,

Kleiman, Spanierman, Isaac, & Poolokasingham, 2014; Kim & Kim, 2010). Not only do these 30 students experience microaggressive behaviors on an individual level, but they also experience microaggression at the institutional level (Kim & Kim, 2010). International students are confronted with microaggression at the institutional level through “a lack of culturally relevant resources, an inhospitable campus climate, and little structural support” (Kim & Kim, 2010, p.

182). In examining the experience of international students, this study does not categorize their encounters into the three forms of microaggression: microinsults, microassaults, and microinvalidations. Kim and Kim (2010) related the participants’ experiences to themes that were identified by Sue et al. (2007); however, the authors did not explicitly categorize the participants’ experiences into the various forms of microaggression (i.e., microassaults, microinsults, or microinvalidations).

Likewise, Aboriginal students attending Canadian universities were confronted specifically with microinsults and microinvalidations when experiencing racial microaggression.

In a study by Clark et al. (2014), students reported being spontaneously mocked and culturally appropriated by non-Aboriginal students and faculty. One participant described an incident that occurred during class. Clark et al. (2014) reported:

Turquoise described a specific incident in lecture on a stormy day when a professor “was

making jokes about Natives doing rain dances.” Having felt insulted and demeaned by

this experience, she reported feeling uncomfortable with the idea of asking the professor

questions during class. (p. 117)

This type of behavior reflects both a microinsult and microinvalidation because the participant encountered a “hidden insulting message” (Sue, 2010a, p. 31) as well as the nullification of the experiential reality for the Aboriginal students in the classroom. Consistent with the findings of

Clark et al.’s (2014) study, Poolokasingham, Spanierman, Kleiman, and Houshmand (2014) 31 found that South Asian Canadian students also encountered microinsults and microinvalidations as a result of the racial microaggressions they experienced within their Canadian institution.

Moreover, a subset of the literature explores racial microaggression within the context of therapy (Gonzales, Davidoff, Nadal, & Yanos, 2014; Nadal, Wong, Sriken, Griffin, Fujii-Doe,

2014b ; Owen, Wampold, Tao, Imel, and Rodolfa, 2014). Since this study focuses on higher education, details regarding the therapy context will not be thoroughly reviewed. However, one such study examined the therapy environment through the lens of a university counseling center, so the clients or participants included graduate and undergraduate students. Owen et al. (2014) found that when clients perceived racial and ethnic microaggression, the quality of the working alliance with their therapists decreased. Specifically, the participants felt a decline in the agreement with their therapist on the goals set for their sessions and the methods through which the goals were to be attained (Owen et al., 2014). The authors of this study did not mention the forms of microaggression that were present in the therapy sessions. However, this research confirms that the microaggressions students face within the university environment occurs in spaces beyond residence halls and the classroom.

Faculty Experiences with Microaggression

Similar to the student perspective described above, faculty who belong to marginalized populations share comparable experiences as they encounter microaggression. Specifically,

Black faculty who work within counseling and counseling psychology programs experienced microinsults during their employment at predominantly White institutions (Constantine et al.,

2008). Constantine et al. (2008) maintained that as a result of the microinsults Black faculty encountered, the participants felt unwelcomed and invisible by their colleagues in their departments. Participants reported that White faculty and administrators did not notice or 32 acknowledge their presence on campus until it was necessary to use their expertise. Being asked to assist in the recruitment of new faculty only when the potential faculty member was a person of color was mentioned by one participant in the study. A second example mentioned by participants includes having their racial or ethnic-related research valued only during academic accreditation processes. These feelings were further personified when Black faculty encountered trouble with finding available mentors who were willing to support them as they navigated the environment of higher education (Constantine et al., 2008). Because it can be challenging for faculty to find mentors and peers with similar interests and goals, the need to seek mentorship outside of their work environment can increase feelings of isolation

(Constantine et al., 2008). These are commonalities between the microaggressive experiences of marginalized faculty and students in higher education.

In addition, the extant literature demonstrated that faculty members in higher education are confronted with microaggression in a variety of ways. Scholars provided multiple examples of faculty from marginalized backgrounds that endure microaggression. Constantine et al.

(2008) found that Black faculty participants felt their credentials were challenged by other faculty, staff members and students because of their racial group identification. Participants in this study also described experiencing a lack of respect for their scholarship and research.

Furthermore, participants described their experience of being assigned to teach all multicultural- related courses for their departments based on the assumption that being a person of color means that they inherently have expertise and competence in teaching these topics independent of their research agenda (Constantine et al., 2008; Guzman et al., 2010). Although these studies by

Constantine et al. (2008) and Guzman et al. (2010) explored faculty experiences with microaggression, the overall extant literature is lacking in scholarship that thoroughly captures 33 microaggression and how it impacts the experience of marginalized faculty. The current literature that explores the experience of faculty with microaggression fails to go beyond race.

Examining microaggression through the lens of those faculty members with salient social identities, outside of race or ethnicity, would lead to a more thorough understanding of microaggression.

Administrator Experiences with Microaggression

In the same way that the current literature inadequately addresses the experience of faculty with microaggression, this is also the case for administrators in postsecondary education.

There are few studies that offer the perspective of administrators within higher education environment. Of the studies that focus on this population, Garvey and Drezner (2013) examined university advancement staff that discussed the prevalence of discrimination and oppression at their institution. Although these participants did not explicitly label the forms of microaggression, the descriptions they provided indicate the presence of microinsults and microinvalidations. For example, one advancement staff member, who worked with the

LGBTQ-alumni-affinity group at his institution, did not receive approval for an order of t-shirts that contained the institution’s name plus the word “gay”, and subsequently the manufacturing of gay-themed t-shirts was prohibited by the president of the alumni association (Garvey &

Drezner, 2013). Although the president of the alumni association did not explicitly insult the advancement staff member, forbidding the employee from printing a t-shirt that aligned with one aspect of his social identity did serve as a microinvalidation. As previously mentioned, microinvalidations are environmental or interpersonal cues that negate, nullify, or exclude the psychological thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and experiences of the group that is being targeted

(Sue, 2010b). The participants reported that this experience was devastating and had a lasting 34 impression on him, other alumni, and fellow advancement staff members.

Similarly, in a study that examined the experience of university librarians, Alabi (2014) found that racially minoritized academic librarians encountered racial microaggression from their colleagues within the workplace and identified the specific forms of microaggression (i.e., microinsults, microassaults, and microinvalidations) that participants encountered. The reprisals provided by participants in this study included one librarian being told that they did not belong in higher education and he or she was only hired because of affirmative action. This comment assumes that the participants have been given an unfair advantage and negates this individual's education or professional experience. A second example from this study that illustrated a microinsult included another librarian witnessing her colleagues showing a lack of respect toward an African American dean (Alabi, 2014). This instance reflects a microinsult, because it consisted of a demeaning message that conveyed rudeness and insensitivity to someone from a marginalized background (Sue, 2010a). Examples such as the two provided above demonstrate the pervasiveness of microaggression within the university environment.

Impact of Microaggression

In exploring the literature on microaggression, it is apparent that this type of discrimination can impact victims in a variety of ways. Sue (2010b) indicated that despite being described as banal and trivial by people, “microaggressions have major consequences for marginalized groups” (p. 14). Numerous studies have identified the specific areas in which microaggression has effected marginalized individuals (Allen, Scott & Lewis, 2013;

Houshmand, Spanierman & Tafarodi, 2014; Nadal et al., 2012; Nadal, Wong, Griffin, Davidoff,

& Sriken, 2014b; Offermann et al., 2013; Owen et al., 2014; Sue, 2010a). Collectively, the participants were affected by microaggression in the following areas: emotions, mental capacity, 35 cognitive energy, psychological well-being, negative affect, counseling sessions, academic performance, retention, overall health, work performance, and work productivity (Allen et al.,

2013; Houshmand et al., 2014; Nadal, 2012; Nadal et al., 2014b; Offermann et al., 2013; Owen et al., 2014; Platt & Lenzen, 2013; Sue, 2010a).

The outcome that has appeared consistently throughout the literature is the impact of microaggression on targeted people’s psychological well-being. Specifically, findings indicate that microaggression has a cumulative negative affect on the psychological well-being of victims

(Platt & Lenzen, 2013). Research has revealed that the nature of covert daily microaggressive experiences can amass to become more harmful than overt, infrequent acts of discrimination

(Sue, 2010a). Similar to other studies on microaggression, Keller and Galgay (2010) confirmed the psychological wear upon victims who experience microaggression because of ableism.

These authors contend that the energy required for the processing of these negative experiences could cause prolonged psychological wear (Keller & Galgay, 2010). Furthermore, Nadal et al.

(2010a) speculated that physical and psychological effects are areas of concern for victims of religious microaggression as well.

Moreover, “racial microaggressions can negatively impact students in academia by interfering with their cognitive processes, thereby hindering their learning and academic performance” (Lin, 2010, p. 96). Microaggressions also impact students’ learning and performance because a large amount of their cognitive energy is focused on coping with these encounters rather than their studies (Lin, 2010). Particularly important for college students after graduation, microaggression could inhibit targets’ education and career development, which is attributable to the internalization of these negative messages (Rivera et al., 2010).

Additionally, Watkins et al. (2010) identified the emotional and cognitive ways in which 36 microaggression impacts Black undergraduate students attending predominantly White institutions. These researchers reported that individuals who experience microaggression expend a large amount of cognitive energy as a result of their encounters with aggressors (Watkins et al.,

2010). Cognitive energy is depleted in the attempt to determine the intention behind a microaggression, contemplating how to respond, and determining the cost of the response, all while trying not to align with negative stereotypes about Black people (Watkins et al., 2010).

Furthermore, Harwood et al. (2012) discussed the impact of racial microaggressions on students residing in on-campus residence halls. Participants encountered significant negative effects on their residential life experience and sense of belonging to the university. In addition, racial microaggressions caused Latina/o college students a great amount of stress (Yosso et al., 2009).

Ultimately, microaggressions can have negative implications for students’ academic performance, retention, and health (Morales, 2014).

Work Performance

Particularly important for university faculty and administrators, Lin (2010) argued that experiencing microaggression in the workplace can lead to weakened performance and diminished productivity. Other scholars who examined subtle prejudices reiterated the findings of Lin’s (2010) research within the work environment (Franklin, 2004; Hinton, 2004; Rowe,

1990). Another study, focused on microaggression, examined the specific ways in which gender microaggressions impacted employees. These areas include: psychological health, subjective well-being, self-esteem, and job performance (Sue, 2010a).

Further, in one study that examined the dynamic between supervisors and supervisees, researchers found that participants’ perception of discrimination was based upon their preconceived perception of leader equity. In other words, if a participant considered a leader as 37 equitable beforehand, then he or she was less likely to identify an act of discrimination committed by a leader (Constantine & Sue, 2007).

Mental and Physical Health

In their discussion on the impact of microaggression for LGBT individuals, Nadal et al.

(2010b) maintained that these groups experience mental health disparities and physical health problems as a result of this discrimination. Examples of mental health problems include: depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and internalized homophobia among members of the

LGBT community; whereas physical health issues involve a weakened immune system and increased blood pressure.

One area of concern is the internalization of negative attitudes associated with homophobic microaggression. Platt and Lenzen (2013) pointed out “the impact of microaggression involving homophobia is very negative. Repeated exposure to these types of attitudes is thought to result in internalized homophobia, unconsciously adopting negative attitudes and assumptions regarding one’s sexual orientation” (p. 1022). In recognizing the substantive impact that sexual orientation and transgender microaggressions have upon those who identify as LGBT, determining appropriate ways of coping with microaggression is significant.

Coping with Microaggression

Not only does the current literature address the impact that microaggression can have on individuals from marginalized populations, it also examines the ways in which individuals cope with microaggression. The literature demonstrates that those who encounter microaggression use a variety of mechanisms to manage their experiences. Several studies have explored the coping mechanisms that victims of microaggression employ as a way to handle the subtle 38 discrimination they face (Grier-Reed, 2010; Johnston & Nadal, 2010; Keller & Galgay, 2010;

Lewis et al., 2013; Solórzano et al., 2000; Sue, 2010a; Watkins et al., 2010).

One way in which marginalized populations cope with microaggressions in higher education is through the creation of counterspaces and sanctuaries (Grier-Reed, 2010; Solórzano et al., 2000). Grier-Reed (2010) provided an example of a counterspace by describing a network for Black students at a predominantly White institution. The African American Student Network

“is a humanistic intervention because it emphasizes addressing the socioemotional needs of students and the development of healthy supportive relationships to provide a people-responsive and growth-promoting college environment” (Grier-Reed, 2010, pp. 181-182). These safe spaces may be present on and off campus (Solórzano et al., 2000), and they provide victims of microaggression with safety by allowing them to make sense of their experiences, determine whether microaggression has occurred, find support or validation for their experience as well as receive advice on how to respond to microaggressive incidents (Grier-Reed, 2010). The collective wisdom provided within the context of counterspaces offers marginalized populations support in responding to microinsults, microassaults, and microinvalidations. Through the facilitated dialogue, support and connections that intentional spaces deliver, counterspaces serve as a means for coping with microaggressions.

Those that encounter microaggression use a variety of other mechanisms to manage their experiences. Watkins et al. (2010) discussed the ways in which Black college students at predominantly White institutions cope with microaggression. Participants in this study revealed that they rely on religious and spiritual beliefs, social support from friends and family, and involvement in academic support programs to handle the microaggression they confront.

Participants also explained that they felt their peers of color were better prepared to discuss and 39 relate to them because of their shared experiences with microaggression. Additionally, the Black college students in this study identified White allies as sources of support and friends. The authors described that the Black college students reflected an orientation towards future success, which was seen as a mechanism of resilience.

Another means of coping with microaggression is the use of humor and sarcasm. Keller and Galgay (2010) purported that the incorporation of humor may serve “to diminish or reduce the negative psychological and emotional impact of the microaggression on targets” (p. 258).

These scholars suggested that group affinity for people with disabilities help mitigate the impact of microaggressions. In identifying with the experiences of other persons with disabilities, participants seemingly became less isolated.

Although coping mechanisms are used as a means to tolerate microaggressive behaviors, gaining a comprehensive understanding of microaggression with the purpose to educate and diminish the prevalence of this issue is more advantageous for marginalized populations.

Consequently, examining the literature for methods that have been employed to measure and explore this construct is pertinent to increased understanding.

Microaggression Measurement

Since the construct of microaggression has emerged, researchers have developed tools to help measure the occurrence and effects of microaggression. As stated by Nadal (2011), “it is imperative for researchers to produce quantitative studies to empirically support the presence of microaggressions and their influences on mental health, physical health and other variables like self-esteem, self-efficacy, and performance” (p. 471). In order to accomplish this goal of empirically studying microaggression, researchers have created instruments that measure racial and ethnic microaggression (Balsam et al., 2011; Mercer et al., 2011; Nadal, 2011; Torres- 40

Harding et al., 2012). These instruments also include: the Index of Race-Related Stress (Utsey,

1999), the Racism and Life Experiences scale (Harrell, 2000), and the Perceived Ethnic

Discrimination Questionnaire (Brondolo et al., 2005). Although these instruments measure microinsults, they do not assess microinvalidations specifically against Blacks (Mercer et al.,

2011). One particular instrument, the Inventory of Microaggressions Against Black Individuals

(IMABI), was created for the purpose of assessing microinsults and microinvalidations against

African Americans. Mercer et al. (2011) conducted an exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and item response theory analysis to test the reliability and validity of 45 items on the IMABI.

Similarly, Nadal (2011) used exploratory principal component and confirmatory factor analyses for the creation of the Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS). The researcher tested the reliability and validity of the instrument and subsequently categorized the

45 items from the instrument into six areas: assumptions of inferiority, second-class citizen and assumption of criminality, microinvalidations, exoticization/assumptions of similarity, environmental microaggressions, and workplace and school microaggressions (Nadal, 2011).

In addition, Torres-Harding et al. (2012) used exploratory principal component and confirmatory factor analyses to create as well as test the validity and reliability of the Racial

Microaggression Scale (RMAS). Somewhat different from the previously mentioned scales, the

RMAS seeks to evaluate how often a person experiences microaggression and the distress that results from the incident. The analyses for this study resulted in a 32-item scale, which was categorized into the following six factors: invisibility, criminality, low achieving/undesirable culture, sexualization, foreigner/not belonging, and environmental invalidations. 41

Likewise, the remaining scale that has been developed to measure racial microaggression also includes the identification of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) individuals

(Balsam et al., 2011). Balsam et al. (2011) developed this scale to measure the experience of microaggression for people of color who are also members of the LGBT community. The researchers used a mixed-methods approach, which consisted of focus groups, interviews, survey dissemination, and subsequent exploratory factor analysis. From these analyses, the researchers developed an 18-item scale that can be used with the previously mentioned population. The scales that have been developed seek to measure and ascertain the microaggressive experiences of the respective populations. Based on the extant literature that focuses on scales created to capture information on microaggression, none of the scales address microaggressive experiences for mid-level student affairs professionals. Additionally, the literature does not discuss scales that can be used to assess the leadership experiences of mid-level student affairs professionals.

This factor is significant because Mather et al. (2009) stated that mid-level professionals have increasingly important leadership responsibilities. As such, it is beneficial to examine the phenomenon of leadership.

Leadership

There are many ways in which leadership has been conceptualized, which includes a focus on group processes, personality attributes, and actions or behaviors (Northouse, 2013).

Furthermore, leadership has been described as a process, involving influence that occurs in groups, and focuses on common goals. These components are essential to the phenomenon of leadership. Northouse (2013) defined leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 5). Leaders negotiate with their followers 42 on the interpretations of their power (Cohen & March, 2000). These interpretations can also be understood through different schematic representations of leadership.

The current literature on leadership describes various types of theories and frameworks for understanding the phenomenon. There are multiple theories on leadership, which include contingency theory, path-goal theory, and leader-member exchange theory. Additionally, there are several frameworks that can be used to understand leadership that involve authentic leadership, servant leadership, and transformational leadership.

Authentic Leadership

Authentic leadership represents a newly developed framework that focuses on whether a leader is genuine (Northouse, 2013). This type of leadership “is about the authenticity of leaders and their leadership” (Northouse, 2013, p. 253). Authentic leadership is effective when real concerns are defined, and both leaders and followers determine the correct solution (Northouse,

2013). Since this framework is fairly new, there are multiple definitions for this type of leadership, each providing a unique viewpoint and emphasis.

The intrapersonal perspective of authentic leadership is concerned with the self- knowledge, self-regulation, and self-concept of a leader. Within this perspective “a leader’s life experiences and the meaning that he or she attaches to those experiences” are significant to the authenticity of a leader (Northouse, 2013, p. 254). The second viewpoint for authentic leadership is the interpersonal perspective. This approach emphasizes authentic leadership as relational and co-created by both leaders and followers (Northouse, 2013). The interpersonal perspective describes authentic leadership as being a reciprocal process that occurs between followers and leaders. The remaining viewpoint for authentic leadership is the developmental 43 perspective. According to this approach, authentic leadership can be developed and nurtured within a leader (Northouse, 2013).

Servant Leadership

Servant leadership is reflected when leaders focus on the concerns of followers, and seek to empathize with and nurture them (Northouse, 2013). Within this type of leadership, leaders

“put followers first, empower them, and help them develop their full personal capacities”

(Northouse, 2013, p. 219). There are 10 characteristics that relate to servant leadership, which consist of the following: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community. These criterions are influenced by culture and organizational context. There are three outcomes associated with servant leadership: follower performance and growth, organizational performance, and societal impact. As the focal point of servant leadership is the empowerment of followers, transformational leadership makes an impact on both the leader and the follower.

Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership is a process in which a leader engages others to create a connection that improves their level of motivation and morality for both parties (Northouse,

2013). This type of leadership emphasizes intrinsic motivation, follower development, and motivating followers to accomplish more than what is expected of them. In order to further understand transformational leadership, Kouzes and Posner (2002) conducted content analysis for their research that outlined the specific behaviors associated with their model of leadership.

This research resulted in the identification of five behaviors that can be practiced in order to be an effective leader.

Kouzes and Posner’s Framework for Leadership

Kouzes and Posner (1994) created a five-dimensional leadership framework that operationalizes how effective leaders behave. This leadership model was developed from conducting interviews with over 1,300 middle and senior level leaders from a variety of industries (Northouse, 2013). Based on the participants’ descriptions of their experiences as leaders, Kouzes and Posner constructed a model for leadership (Northouse, 2013). The researchers expounded on their framework for leadership in their book, The Leadership

Challenge (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). In this book, Kouzes and Posner (2002) stated that leadership practices can be used to assist any leader in mobilizing followers for the purpose of accomplishing extraordinary things within their organization. The five practices of exemplary leadership can serve any leader who wishes to encourage group members. These practices of exemplary leadership encompass the following: modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, and encouraging the heart (Kouzes & Posner,

2002).

Model the way. When leaders are modeling the way, they are effectively demonstrating the behaviors that they expect of followers (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). “Leaders’ deeds are far more important than their words when determining how serious they really are about what they say. Words and deeds must be consistent” (Kouzes & Posner, 2002, p. 14). In order to model the way for followers, leaders must first find their voice through the clarification of their values and being self-expressive (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Furthermore, “exemplary leaders know that if they want to gain commitment and achieve the highest standards, they must be models of the behavior they expect of others. Leaders model the way” (Kouzes & Posner, 2002, p. 14).

Leaders display behaviors associated with modeling the way when they “follow through on their 45 promises and commitments and affirm the common values they share with others” (Northouse,

2013, p. 198).

Inspire a shared vision. The process of inspiring a shared vision begins with leaders imagining opportunities, possessing the desire to make these things happen, and then sharing this vision with others. Kouzes and Posner (2002) stated “to enlist people in a vision, leaders must know their constituents and speak their language” (p. 15). The two critical components of inspiring a shared vision are having the capacity to envision the future and enlisting others by developing a shared sense of destiny (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Communicating this vision to followers is important, because it provides followers with an opportunity to understand which direction the department or organization is headed. Leaders must create and communicate a vision that inspires followers. “Leaders cannot command commitment, only inspire it” (Kouzes

& Posner, 2002, p. 15). Kouzes and Posner (2002) described the process of inspiring a shared vision as a means through which the following occurs:

Leaders breathe life into the hopes and dreams of others and enable them to see the

exciting possibilities that the future holds. Leaders forge a unity of purpose by showing

constituents how the dream is for the common good. Leaders ignite the flame of passion

in others by expressing enthusiasm for the compelling vision of their group. Leaders

communicate their passion through vivid language and an expressive style. (p. 16)

Challenge the process. Despite having a clear vision in mind, and being able to communicate this vision, leaders must also possess a willingness to challenge the process. This exemplary practice of leadership refers to a leader’s ability to object to the way in which existing systems prevent growth and change (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Challenging the process means leaders must search for opportunities, experiment, and take risks (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). This 46 openness for creativity welcomes the freedom for followers to participate and contribute ideas that may challenge existing processes, but also lays the foundation for an improved and innovative way of doing things. Additionally, this openness allows others to be proactive in working towards the shared vision.

Enable others to act. By enabling others to act, a leader demonstrates the capacity to engage everyone that is necessary in order to work toward the vision (Kouzes & Posner, 2002).

In exercising this exemplary leadership practice, leaders make others feel capable, and do not hoard the power they have (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). The two ideals behind this practice are fostering collaboration and strengthening others (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). With this practice, the leader’s focus is on others and the ability to enable others to act.

Encourage the heart. The last exemplary practice of leadership is encouraging the heart.

Kouzes and Posner (2002) described this practice as being critical to helping followers move forward; it involves actions that reflect care, encouragement, and the uplifting of followers’ spirits. In order to exhibit this practice, it is important for leaders to recognize contributions that followers make to the organization as well as celebrate values and victories (Kouzes & Posner,

2002). By showing appreciation to followers, leaders are able to further motivate them to continue working toward the shared vision that has been communicated.

These five exemplary leadership practices represent the behaviors, skills, and abilities associated with mobilizing and motivating followers (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). As previously stated, leadership skills are highly important to those in mid-level student affairs positions

(Mather et al., 2009). Presumably, the leadership practices outlined by Kouzes and Posner

(2002) are the type of behaviors that are critical for the effectiveness of mid-level student affairs professionals within higher education. Furthermore, Kouzes and Posner (2002) identified 47 specific behaviors for leaders to practice in order to get things done within an organization.

These scholars proposed ten commitments that guide leaders on how to accomplish goals within an organization. As indicated by Kouzes and Posner (2002), the ten commitments of leadership are:

1. Find your voice by clarifying your personal values.

2. Set the example by aligning actions with shared values.

3. Envision the future by imaging exciting and ennobling possibilities.

4. Enlist others in a common vision by appealing to shared aspiration.

5. Search for opportunities by seeking innovative ways to change, grow, and improve.

6. Experiment and take risks by constantly generating small wins and learning from

mistakes.

7. Foster collaboration by promoting cooperative goals and building trust.

8. Strengthen others by sharing power and discretion.

9. Recognize contribution by showing appreciation for individual excellence.

10. Celebrate the values and victories by creating a spirit of community. (p. 22)

These ten commitments represent behaviors that are embedded within the five practices of exemplary leaders (i.e., model the way, inspire a shared vision, challenge the process, encourage the heart, and enable others to act) and coincide with how leaders may employ these practices within higher education.

Leadership Practices within Higher Education

Several research studies have examined Kouzes and Posner’s leadership practices framework within the context of higher education. These studies mainly focus on the student 48 population within the higher education context (DiChiara, 2009; Grandzol, Perlis, & Draina,

2010; Kelley, 2008; Tingle, Cooney, Asbury, & Tate, 2013).

Students and leadership practices. Among the extant literature that has analyzed leadership practices within the postsecondary environment, there are several studies that explored how this model of leadership applies to students in higher education (DiChiara, 2009;

Grandzol et al., 2010; Kelley, 2008; Tingle et al., 2013). The Leadership Practices Inventory

(LPI) has been assessed to determine whether the instrument is an appropriate fit for students

(Posner, 2012). The Student Leadership Practices Inventory helps identify the specific behaviors that students report when discussing their roles as leaders (Posner, 2012).

Grandzol et al. (2010) studied Division III student athletes and the presence of the five exemplary leadership practices. These researchers concluded that each of the five practices were more likely to be demonstrated by team captains of athletic teams than other members of the team. Additionally, when examining the results for all student athletes, Encouraging the Heart and Enabling Others to Act occurred more frequently, and Challenge the Process was displayed the least by student athletes.

A second study concerning students focused on the process of leadership development, and the relationship to Kouzes and Posner’s leadership practices. Kelley’s (2008) study revealed slightly different results than the study conducted by Grandzol et al. (2010). Kelley (2008) examined former fraternity presidents and their leadership practices in their post-graduation careers. This study reported that the length of service as a fraternity president and Inspiring a

Shared Vision were positively correlated (Kelley, 2008). Likewise, DiChiara (2009) studied students who were members of the governing councils for undergraduate fraternities and sororities. Although the study determined that they were no significant differences between the 49 leadership practices for the various councils (DiChiara, 2009), it is important to note that the extant literature has repeatedly explored the experiences of fraternity and sorority members and the relationship with leadership practices.

The research focused on students and leadership practices extends beyond the undergraduate college student population. Hillman, Jr. (2008) described the experiences of non- traditional students enrolled in seminary school. In this research study the only factors that indicated a significant difference was age. Hillman, Jr. (2008) found that seminary students, who were age 40 years or older scored significantly higher for Challenging the Process, Enabling

Others, Modeling the Way, and Encouraging the Heart than younger seminary students. The results of this study demonstrate that Kouzes and Posner’s model of leadership can be applied to students in educational settings outside of traditional higher education.

International higher education and leadership practices. Kouzes and Posner’s leadership practices framework has been explored in higher education contexts outside of the

United States. Gebremariam (2014) compared the leadership practices of leaders within three

Ethiopian public institutions. The findings revealed that the five leadership practices were present within each institutional environment. The presence of these practices exemplifies the cross-cultural applicability of the leadership practices framework.

Similarly, in a study that compared American and Argentinean MBA students, Aimar and

Stough (2007) found that statistically significant differences existed for the following leadership practices: challenging the process, inspiring a shared vision, enabling others to act, and modeling the way. This research reiterated the transferability of leadership practices to cultures outside of the United States.

Leadership Practices in Secondary Education

There are multiple research studies that explore the leadership practices within secondary education and specifically for principals (Mason, 2010; Pugh, Fillingim, Blackbourn, & Thomas,

2011; Taylor, Martin, Hutchinson, & Jinks, 2007). Pugh et al. (2011) conducted research in which the Leadership Practices Inventory was validated for use with secondary school principals.

Studies such as Pugh et al.’s (2011) strengthen the application of the LPI in the secondary education setting.

Another study examined the relationship between servant leadership and Kouzes and

Posner’s leadership practices for public school principals. Taylor et al. (2007) found that principals who were labeled as servant leaders were rated as more effective in their use of the five exemplary leadership practices by the teachers they supervised. The principals who practiced servant leadership displayed higher scores for all five leadership practices than those principals who did not employ servant leadership (Taylor et al., 2007).

Moreover, Mason (2010) expressed the connection between leadership practices and school counseling in a large-scale study. The researcher found that in order to align with school improvement goals, it is necessary for school counselors to display effective leadership practices

(Mason, 2010). This study also determined that a positive relationship was associated with leadership practices and school counseling program implementation (Mason, 2010).

Leadership Practices Beyond Education

Other studies have explored the presence of leadership practices for various populations outside of higher education. Tourangeau and McGilton (2004) investigated the reliability of the five exemplary leadership practices for a population of nurses. This study resulted in the identification of a three-factor solution that was better suited to fit the sample being examined. 51

The researchers devised three new labels for the practices that can be used with the nursing population: cognitive (i.e., challenging the process, inspiring a shared vision), behavioral (i.e., enabling others to act, modeling the way), and supportive (i.e., encouraging the heart).

Tourangeau and McGilton (2004) stated that this three-factor solution is more conceptually aligned with the sample being for the study.

Kouzes and Posner’s leadership practices have been widely used as a means of identifying leadership effectiveness for leaders. This model of leadership helps specify the behaviors and actions that are exercised by effective leaders across different types of environments.

Gaps in the Literature

After reviewing the extant literature on microaggression and leadership practices, there are several areas in which the scholarship is lacking. Overall, the research on microaggression is heavily concentrated on race. Although race is an important aspect of social identity, more research on other types of microaggression (e.g., gender, disability, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) must be conducted (Platt & Lenzen, 2013). This research would be beneficial for understanding all marginalized populations and the complexity of their experiences with microaggression. Related to the idea of expanding research on the types of microaggression minoritized populations face is the need for a more thorough analysis on the taxonomies of microaggression that have been identified within the literature. For example Capodilupo et al.

(2010) introduced the taxonomy of gender microaggression. If the researchers intend to focus on sex-based microaggressions, then they should revise the name of the taxonomy they created.

However, assuming that Capodilupo et al. (2010) are using the term gender broadly, then it is important for the themes that are discussed within this taxonomy to be more inclusive. The way 52 in which their research details this taxonomy implies that there are only two “categories” for gender (i.e., man and woman). Further study is needed on gender microaggression in order to go beyond the binary gender roles of man and woman that are presented by Capodilupo et al.

(2010). In describing gender through this binary perspective, the researchers practice microinvalidation by failing to incorporate the experiences of individuals who identify as genders other than man and woman (i.e., transgender, genderqueer, etc.). A similar argument can be made for the taxonomy of sexual orientation and transgender microaggressions by Nadal et al. (2010b). Perhaps further research on sexual orientation and gender identity microaggression would lead to the development of separate taxonomies that better describe the experiences of minoritized individuals who fall within these populations.

Furthermore, the current research on microaggression revealed a disparity among the literature for both faculty and administrators who work in postsecondary education. As indicated by the literature review in this chapter, several studies have been conducted on students (Boysen,

2012; Grier-Reed, 2010; Lewis et. al., 2013) and faculty members (Pittman, 2012; Rollock,

2012) who have encountered microaggression. Many of the studies on microaggression focus on students, both undergraduate and graduate alike. This was also the case when examining the literature on five exemplary leadership practices within the context of higher education. Many of the studies focused specifically on the experiences of students. Additional research is needed to capture the faculty and mid-level professional experience with the five practices of exemplary leadership. Moreover, university administrators and staff members make up the remaining population within the university structure, when considering the overall population of individuals present on a college campus. Most relevant to this study is the need for research on mid-level student affairs professional and their experience with microaggression. The literature fails to 53 adequately acknowledge this group of individuals and it does not provide an in-depth understanding of their experiences. Capturing these individuals’ experiences will further provide the full picture of all populations present on college campuses. This missing gap in the literature is why the current study examined the experience of mid-level student affairs professionals within higher education and how they encountered various types of microaggression, including the specific forms of microaggression.

In addition, as presented by the literature, microaggression has an impact upon those who experience it in a variety of ways. These areas of impact include: emotional, mental, cognitive, psychological well-being, negative affect, counseling sessions, academic performance, college retention, overall health, work performance and work productivity. When examining these areas of impact, the research does not articulate how experiencing microaggression may impact leadership behaviors or practices for those who may be serving in such capacities.

Specifically, the extant literature fails to make a connection between the five exemplary leadership practices and microaggression. Therefore, the aim of this study was to establish a connection between leadership practices and microaggression.

Summary

Microaggressions are every day, brief interpersonal “exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership” (Sue, 2010a, p. 24).

Multiple news outlets have demonstrated that microaggression is present within postsecondary education (Flaherty, 2013; New, 2014, 2015; Svokos, 2015; Vega, 2014). Those who encounter microaggressions may be impacted in the following ways: emotionally, mentally, expending cognitive energy, psychological well-being, negative affect, counseling sessions, academic performance, retention, overall health, work performance, and work productivity (Allen, Scott & 54

Lewis, 2013; Houshmand, Spanierman & Tafarodi, 2014; Nadal et al., 2012; Nadal, Wong,

Griffin, Davidoff, & Sriken, 2014; Offermann et al., 2013; Owen et al., 2014; Platt & Lenzen,

2013; Sue, 2010a). In order to counteract the ways in which microaggression impacts victims, coping mechanisms have been employed by some populations who experience microaggression.

However, a more thorough understanding of the relationship between microaggression and university administrators has yet to be uncovered, specifically mid-level students affairs professionals. Further research is needed to examine this population and the relationship with microaggression.

The following chapter details the methodology for examining the relationship between the leadership practices and the microaggression that mid-level student affairs practitioners encounter. Chapter Three contains the research questions, research design, information about the population and sample, an explanation of the variables, instrumentation, procedures and steps for data analysis that was used for this study. 55

CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY

As demonstrated by the extant literature, there has been little research produced specifically on mid-level student affairs professionals, their encounters with microaggression, and how these experiences relate to their leadership practices. This topic is relevant to understanding campus climate, because it provides insight into the environment for a subset of the university population that remains understudied. Rosser (2004) stated “midlevel leaders lack the visibility throughout the academy and have been of little concern to educational researchers”

(p. 318). Current research does not adequately address the experiences of mid-level student affairs professionals. Furthermore, mid-level positions appear to be complex, despite a lack of support mechanisms for professionals in these roles (Mather et al., 2009). To begin understanding the type of support mechanisms that can be implemented for mid-level student affairs professionals, three objectives were identified for this study: (1) to determine if microaggression is present within higher education; (2) to understand the relationship between microaggression and the leadership practices of mid-level student affairs professionals; (3) to examine the types and forms of microaggression that may be present within an institutional environment. Particularly, this study focused on the experience of mid-level student affairs professionals with microaggression in their work environment and whether or not their leadership practices were related. The specific sample that was used for this study included mid- level student affairs professionals who are members of the professional organization, ACPA-

College Student Educators International, and who have identified as mid-level professionals.

Quantitative methods were used to understand the experiences for the sample of mid-level student affairs professionals who elected to participate in this study. This chapter includes a review of the research questions, research design, population and participants, survey 56 instrumentation, procedures, steps for statistical analysis, and an explanation of variables.

Additionally, this chapter provides descriptive information for the sample used in this study.

The target population of 1,273 mid-level student affairs professionals received an invitation to participate in this study. I received a total of 212 respondents, resulting in an overall response rate of 17%. I used the survey method to capture information regarding the experiences with microaggression and leadership practices for the sample. In addition to the question items that asked participants to select the most appropriate response choice that aligned with their experience, respondents were also asked to complete open-ended questions. These questions asked participants to describe their experiences with microaggression, and how has microaggression impacted their work experience. Participants’ responses to these questions are interspersed throughout Chapter four and five. Although my focus was on the relationship between microaggression and leadership practices for this group of individuals, I did perform analyses to determine the relationship between individual characteristics, institutional factors, and microaggression as well.

Research Questions

The literature review in the previous chapter identified the gaps within the literature on microaggression and leadership practices. Based on these gaps the following research questions have been determined for this study:

1. To what extent do mid-level student affairs professionals who hold supervisory

positions experience microaggression?

2. Which of the three forms of microaggression (i.e., microassaults, microinsults, and

microinvalidations) are most commonly reported among the respondents? 57

3. To what extent are mid-level student affairs professionals’ experiences with

microaggressions related to their leadership practices (i.e., modeling the way,

inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, and

encouraging the heart)?

4. To what degree do these mid-level professionals’ demographics (i.e., race/ethnicity,

disability, gender, sexual orientation, age, religious affiliation, educational level, and

years of experience in higher education) and institutional characteristics (i.e., control,

degree level and student body size) predict their experiences with microaggressions?

Methodology

A nonexperimental research design was used for this study. This study is considered a nonexperimental design because I did not manipulate the independent variables; however, the relationship between the independent and dependent variables was examined. For nonexperimental designs, a presumed cause and effect is identified and measured, but random assignment of the participants is not carried out (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002).

Additionally, pretest or control groups were not included as design elements for this study.

Survey methodology is appropriate for this study because it captured mid-level student affairs professionals’ experiences with microaggression. Additionally, the survey assisted in exploring whether or not microaggression was related to the leadership practices of the participants.

Moreover, the survey was disseminated through the internet. The decision to create a web-based survey, using Qualtrics online survey software, met my objective of remaining cost effective as well as efficient for the data collection process. In addition, using Qualtrics software for the survey questions provided a more efficient process when coding the data for statistical analysis. Additionally, the web-based survey method was appropriate for this type of population 58 because it aimed to collect information from mid-level student affairs professionals, through the use of technology, who are located all over the world. Essentially, professionals who were thousands of miles apart had the ability to complete the survey.

Population and Participants

Purposive sampling was used in the identification of participants for the current study.

This type of sampling required me to define characteristics that were applicable to the population in order to select a sample that aligned with the target population. It is important to note that the results of this study cannot be generalized to the entire population of mid-level student affairs professionals within all of higher education, only those within the target population. As previously mentioned, the target population studied was mid-level student affairs professionals with minoritized identities who work within postsecondary education and belong to ACPA. The individuals in this target population are employed at a variety of higher education institutions throughout the world. For example, the mid-level student affairs professionals included in this study work at public or private institutions, and the institutions had student enrollments that ranged from somewhere in between fewer than 1,000 to at least 40,000 students. The differences in institutional control may be related to the experiences of the sample, making institutional characteristics influential to the way in which participants experienced microaggression.

Hurtado (1992) asserted “institutional contexts are largely responsible for setting the stage for conflict” (p. 542). The conflict that mid-level student affairs professionals experience through microaggressions could be related to the context at their institution. Consequently, it is necessary to analyze this relationship by asking this group of professionals about their institution of employment. 59

This professional population was selected, because these individuals are often working to find the balance between the direction of superiors, the employees they supervise, and the students that receive support from the functional areas they oversee (Rosser, 2004). Therefore, the work experience of mid-level student affairs professionals may encompass a dynamic level of interaction with a variety of constituents at an institution. Consequently, this population was selected for the exploration of their encounters with microaggression because of their multi- directional interactions at a variety of institutional types.

The specific sampling frame for this study was identified through the selection of a professional organization, specifically for professionals that work within higher education. The

ACPA-College Student Educators International is an organization that “advances student affairs and engages students for a lifetime of learning and discovery” (ACPA, 2014a, para. 1). This organization has a membership of approximately 7,500 professionals (ACPA, 2014a).

Additionally, “ACPA members include graduate and undergraduate students enrolled in student affairs/higher education administration programs, faculty, and student affairs educators, from entry level to senior student affairs officers, and organizations and companies that are engaged in the campus marketplace” (ACPA, 2014a, para. 2).

Furthermore, ACPA allows members to categorize themselves based on their years of professional experience in the field. “Recognizing that many definitions or conceptualizations exist, we define mid-level as more than five years of fulltime experience and not senior professionals” (ACPA, 2014c, para. 1). Despite the importance of this study, only a fraction of those within the sampling frame actually responded to the survey.

Sample Characteristics

Although the overall sample included 212 total participants, the results of some variables do not equal 212 because of missing values. The survey was distributed to a target population of

1,273 ACPA members who indicated that they were mid-level professionals. There were a total of 212 respondents for the survey, resulting in 17% response rate. It is important to note that the initial question on the survey described microaggression, and asked participants if they had ever experienced microaggressive behaviors. Out of the 212 respondents, 166 participants (78%) indicated yes, and 46 individuals (22%) indicated no. Only those individuals who indicated that they had encountered microaggression completed the remainder of the survey.

When examining the racial/ethnic composition for the participants, only 143 (86%) out of

166 provided some indication of their race or ethnicity. Based on this information the distribution of race/ethnicity for the 166 participants is as follows: 1.4% American Indian/Pacific

Indian (3), 1.8% Asian American/Pacific Islander (4), 12.2% Black/African American (27), 2.7%

Latino/Hispanic (6), 0.5% Middle Eastern/Arab (1), 45.2% White/Caucasian (100), and .9%

Other (2).

Explanation of Variables

The variables that were identified for this study represent the objectives stated in the beginning of Chapter Three. The intention of this research was to examine the experience of mid-level student affairs professionals with microaggression and to understand how their experiences predicted their leadership practices. In order to meet this goal, the study included variables that were pertinent for understanding the respondents. 61

Independent Variables

The current study incorporated several independent, or predictor, variables related to demographic information for the sample. These variables included: race/ethnicity (i.e.,

American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian American/Pacific Islander, Black/African American,

Latino/Hispanic, Middle Eastern/Arab, or White/Caucasian), gender (i.e., man, transgender, woman, or not listed), disability (i.e., yes or no), sexual orientation (i.e., asexual, bisexual, gay, heterosexual, lesbian, questioning/unsure, or not listed), age, religious/worldview identification

(i.e., Baptist, Buddhist, Church of Christ, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopalian, Hindu, Jewish, LDS

(Mormon), Lutheran, Methodist, Muslim, Presbyterian, Quaker, Roman Catholic, Seventh Day

Adventist, Unitarian/Universalist, United Church of Christ/Congregational, Other Christian,

Other Religion, or None), years of experience in higher education, and educational level (i.e., high school diploma or GED, some college but less than a bachelor’s degree, Bachelor’s degree,

Master’s degree, and Doctoral or Professional degree).

Other independent variables focused on the institutions that employ the sample and included the following: institutional type (i.e., four-year or two-year and private or public) and number of students. The remaining independent variables examined the phenomenon of microaggression, including: experience with microaggression, frequency of microaggression, type of microaggression (i.e., race, religious/worldview identification, sex, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other), form of microaggression (i.e., microassaults, microinsults, microinvalidations), and main source of microaggression (i.e., co-worker, supervisor, students, or people external to the institution). A correlation matrix for the independent variables in this study has been provided. 7DEOH &RUUHODWLRQ0DWUL[IRU,QGHSHQGHQW9DULDEOHV $PHULFDQ,QGLDQB $VLDQ$PHULFDQB %ODFNB$IULFDQ /DWLQRB+LVSDQL 0LGGOH(DVWHUQB 5DFLDOB(WKQLF2 5HOLJLRXVB:RUOG

$PHULFDQ,QGLDQB $VLDQ$PHULFDQB %ODFNB$IULFDQ /DWLQRB+LVSDQL 0LGGOH(DVWHUQB 5DFLDOB(WKQLF2 5HOLJLRXVB:RUOG

Dependent Variables

Moreover, the dependent variables for this study were leadership practices (i.e., modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, and encouraging the heart) (Kouzes & Posner, 2002) and the various forms of microaggression (i.e., microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations).

Data Cleaning and Transformation

During the process of analysis, I reviewed the data for errors, missing cases and violations of assumptions for regression. Although there were a number of missing cases, these cases can be attributed to the respondent’s failure to answer certain question items. I did not determine any patterns that would have contributed to biases with missing data.

With multiple regression, many of the assumptions concerning this type of analysis are robust to violation (Mertler & Vannatta, 2010); however analyses were run to determine if the assumptions for regression were being met. The data was reviewed to ensure that the following assumptions were being met: the presence of no significant outliers, the linear relationship between the predictor and dependent variables, normality among the residual errors, little to no multicollinearity, homoscedasticity, and independence of observations.

Moreover, dummy coding was used for several of the predictor variables included in research question four. The purpose of question four was to examine the relationship between microaggression and participant demographics, and the relationship between microaggression and institutional characteristics. The variables that pertain to participant demographics include: race/ethnic, gender, disability, sexual orientation, age, religious affiliation, educational level, and years of experience. Both the age and years of experience variables were not dummy coded.

The variables related to institutional characteristics that were dummy coded include: degree level 65 and institutional control. Dummy coding involves the process of assigning the value of 1 to those responses that align with the variable, and the value of 0 to all other responses. For example, for those individuals who indicated that they possess a disability, they were dummy coded as 1, and all respondents who indicated that they did not have a disability were given a 0.

In addition, for categorical variables with more than one response level, it is necessary to select a referent group. For instance, when recoding the racial/ethnicity category, White/Caucasian was selected as the referent group, meaning it was assigned a value of 0. All other categories for race were recoded as a new variable (i.e., Black_AfricanAmerican or Asian American_Pacific

Islander), assigning a value of 1 for each respective race, and 0 for those individuals who did not identify with that specific race. When examining the education level for the participants, only one individual earned a Bachelor’s degree within the sample, therefore that person was removed.

Likewise, when examining the participants’ genders, there was one person who identified as transgender. This person was removed from the sample as well. Tables 2 and 3 list the variables that were dummy coded and indicate the group for the corresponding variables that served as the referent group.

Table 2 Dummy Coding for Participant Demographics Demographics Referent Group Educational Level Master’s degree Master’s degree

Doctoral/Professional degree

Disability Non-disabled Disabled Non-Disabled

Gender Man Man Woman

Race/Ethnicity White/Caucasian American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian American/Pacific Islander Black/African American Latino/Hispanic Middle Eastern/Arab White/Caucasian Other

Religious Affiliation Christian Christian Other Religion None

Sexual Orientation Heterosexual Heterosexual Non-Heterosexual

Table 3 Dummy Coding for Institutional Characteristics Characteristics Referent Group Degree Level 4-year Degree 2-year Degree 4-year Degree

Institutional Control Public Private Public

Instrumentation

The survey instrument that respondents completed was the Mid-level Student Affairs

Leadership Practices survey (see Appendix A). Dillman et al. (2009) stated “visual design features can help guide respondents to self-administered surveys” (p. 90). As a result, the visual design elements were taken into strong consideration during the construction of the survey instrument. The font of the main question for each item was bolded to make sure that respondents read this area clearly. The font size was also increased to bring the readers’ attention to the main question area, ensuring that participants were cognizant of what the researcher was asking. Aside from increasing the font size and bolding the main questions, the background that displayed behind each question was orange. This magnified the white box, which contained the survey questions, making it less likely for a respondent to unintentionally overlook individual question items, and decreasing item nonresponse.

Likewise, many of the questions for the survey were displayed in a matrix format. This format added to the visual design of the survey because it made the survey appear to have fewer questions than it actually did by grouping related items. This decreased the chance that the length of the survey deterred respondents from completing it. It is important to note that the use of matrixes is not wholly supported for surveys. Dillman et al. (2009) expressed “we propose 68 reducing rather than eliminating the use of matrixes because in some surveys the complexity of information asked for can be best communicated in simple matrixes” (p. 180). Accordingly, I felt that using matrixes was the best way to present related question items and response choices throughout the survey instrument.

The response choices for matrix questions included a 7-point Likert-type scale (e.g., never, less than once a month, once a month, 2-3 times per month, once a week, 2-3 times per week, daily). I decided to use the Likert-type scale for the corresponding response choices, because it is likely that the sample is familiar with this scale due to its level of popularity.

Bradburn, Sudman, and Wansink (2004) determined, in reference to response scales, that “the most popular is the Likert scale” (p. 126). Furthermore, the decision to use a 7-point scale for the response options is supported by Bradburn et al. (2004). In addition, the 7-point scale was used for this study because I felt it was important to provide respondents with appropriate response choices that may reflect how often they encounter microaggression. In the case of the response choices that have a 7-point scale, I did not find a persuasive reason not to offer participants this number of options. Lastly, pre-testing was conducted with a convenience sample of 7 education professionals. This initial review of the survey instrument resulted in the revision of several question items. Definitions were added to the question stem of survey items four through twelve to provide participants with clarification on what was being asked.

Procedures

The first step for this study was to submit an application to BGSU’s Human Subjects

Review Board (HSRB) for approval to conduct the research. After approval was received from

HSRB (see Appendix D), a subsequent request was submitted to ACPA to disseminate an email for the recruitment of participants who have self-identified as mid-level student affairs 69 professionals. The initial invitation to participate in this study was sent through an email listserv maintained by ACPA (see Appendix B). Two reminders were sent through ACPA to solicit additional participants (see Appendix C). After being available for a period of three weeks, the survey data were downloaded from Qualtrics for data analysis.

Recruitment Process

As previously stated, the email invitation to complete the survey instrument was disseminated to mid-level student affairs professionals (see Appendix B) through ACPA. The role of sending the survey invitation through the email listserv for mid-level student affairs professionals was critical for the recruitment process. Disseminating this survey through

ACPA’s email listserv helped create buy-in from the participants, because of the connection to the professional organization of which participants are members. Presumably, the members of the email listserv were more likely to respond to a survey request through the professional organization as opposed to a sole individual affiliated with the organization.

Seven days after the first email was sent, an email reminder was sent again to the members of the email listserv (see Appendix C). The timeframe between the invitation email and reminder email provided participants with adequate time to respond to the survey. I believe that this timeline was an appropriate amount of time for the duration of data collection. No optimal timeframe has been established for sending follow-up emails and reminders for web- based surveys; the best approach is dependent upon the population. Dillman et al. (2009) reported “the optimal timing sequence for the web survey has not, we believe, been determined yet. Moreover, the timing will depend on the nature of the survey and the population being surveyed” (p. 279). Since the population that was surveyed consisted of working mid-level student affairs professionals, nonrespondents were given seven days before receiving an 70 additional reminder e-mail. The purpose of sending the reminder several days apart was to ensure that the web survey was fresh in the memory of recipients, without overwhelming or frustrating them with the receipt of multiple email messages regarding the survey.

Data Analysis

After the data collection period closed, the data were imported into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 23.0 (SPSS) for data analysis. The first step after importing the data was to clean the data. Frequencies and descriptive statistics were conducted to better understand the sample for the study. The type of analyses included descriptive statistics and multiple regressions. The results of these analyses are provided in chapter four. However, a description for the type of analyses that correspond to each research question is described in Table 4.

Research questions 1 and 2 were answered using descriptive statistics. Questions 3 and 4 were answered utilizing multiple regression.

Table 4 Research Questions & Corresponding Statistical Tests Research Questions Statistical Test 1.To what extent do mid-level student affairs professionals who hold supervisory positions Descriptive Statistics encounter microaggression? 2.Which of the 3 forms of microaggression (i.e. microassaults, microinsults, and Descriptive Statistics microinvalidations) are most common among the respondents? 3. To what extent are mid-level student affairs professionals’ experiences with microaggressions related to their leadership practices (i.e. modeling the way, inspiring a Multiple Regression shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, and encouraging the heart)? 4. To what degree do these mid-level professionals’ demographics (e.g. race/ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, age, religious affiliation, educational level, and years of experience in Multiple Regression higher education) and institutional characteristics (e.g. control, degree level or student body size) predict their experiences with microaggressions?

Limitations

One of the limitations of this study is coverage error. Coverage error can be attributed to the “frame and target population for a specific statistic” (Groves et al., 2009, p. 55). In order to minimize coverage error, it was necessary for the target population to be congruent with the sample. By making sure that the target population of mid-level student affairs professionals at higher education institutions matched the sampling frame, the coverage error was minimized.

An attempt to minimize coverage error for this web-based survey included ensuring that all respondents have been employed with higher education for at least five years, but do not hold senior-level positions, as defined by ACPA. Therefore participants were asked to report their position title, the number of years they have been employed in higher education, and the number of full-time professionals they supervise. This helped make sure that the target population and sampling frame were both analyzing the same group of professionals.

Sampling error (more specifically, sampling bias) posed to be problematic for this web survey. Groves et al. (2009) indicated:

There are two types of sampling error: sampling bias and sampling variance. Sampling

bias arises when some members of the sampling frame are given no chance of

selection…Sampling variance arises because, given the design for the sample, by chance

many different sets of frame elements could be drawn. (Groves et al., 2009)

Selecting a larger sampling frame, and potentially increasing the sample that completes the survey, could have minimized sampling error. However, this would have required contacting mid-level student affairs practitioners outside of ACPA, which was not feasible for me.

Likewise, selecting the sampling frame through the use of a random sampling procedure can minimize sampling error as well. Nevertheless, attempting to conduct random samples at 73 numerous institutions for individuals who have experienced microaggression would have been difficult. Therefore, the decision to obtain a sample from ACPA was made.

The costs and benefits of this web survey design were weighed for this study. In hopes of presenting an appropriate balance between realistic parameters, cost effectiveness, and time constraints, the necessary decisions were made to carry out the objectives of this study.

As with any survey used for the collection of data, the web-based approach also presented limitations. One of the known limitations for web surveys is the decrease in response rates. This decrease could be attributed to the additional effort it requires for the respondents to navigate to the questionnaire (Dillman et al., 2009). Furthermore, Dillman et al., (2009) suggested that in cases where researchers disseminate a web survey using email as the only method, the limitation of achieving high response rates becomes a reality. As a result, a well- developed web survey implementation plan that encompassed multiple attempts of contacting the sampling frame was extremely critical to the success of data collection for this study. The invitation to participate in this study included specific language that communicated the relevance, importance, and timeliness of completing the survey (see Appendices B & C).

CHAPTER IV. FINDINGS

In order to understand the microaggressive experiences of mid-level student affairs professionals, descriptive statistics and multiple regression analyses were conducted. The results of this study indicate that 78.3% of participants have experienced microaggression within the workplace. These individuals also revealed that the most common forms of microaggression include microinvalidations, followed by microinsults. Additionally, participants provided narratives that illustrate the pervasiveness of microaggression within higher education.

Participant Demographics

Although this study was primarily concerned with microaggression and leadership practices, respondents were asked a series of survey questions that captured demographic information. The type of information that was asked included the following: age, gender, disability, educational level, employment status, race, religion/worldview identification, and sexual orientation. This section begins with an overview of this information as well as related narratives in order to understand the sample as a whole.

Age

The ages for those included in this study ranged from 24-29 to those individuals who were 66 or older. The modal age range for the mid-level student affairs professionals who participated in this study was 30-35. Narratives that illustrate the microaggressions that participants face because of age, both young and old, are included below:

The microaggression I deal with the most comes from my age. I look younger than I

actually am, and therefore, I feel that often my opinions and/or views are not taken

seriously. At least once a month over the last three months, someone (outside my

department) has said something to the effect of, you look so young, how do you know

about that or you seem too young to be able to take that on, etc. 75

I have been passed up for promotion because of my age, even though I am more qualified with more years of higher ed experience. In that case I was told by the hiring manager that "people just won't respect a director who looks like she just graduated herself. You have too much of a baby face to be a senior administrator right now, but maybe in a few years." At another time, I was hired as an associate director at the same time as another associate director in the department. We had the same job description and same level of experience. In conversations with the male who had been hired for the other position, I discovered that he had been hired in at a salary that was $8,000 higher than what I had been offered. I asked if he had negotiated it up, and he replied, "No, that was their initial offer and I thought it was fair, so I didn't negotiate more." I am also an adjunct faculty member and have been told by students that I "look too young to be a professor".

Students have commented on my clothing and looks, for instance one student telling me I

"look super hot today". One student even wrote on an end-of-course evaluation form that he was "hot for teacher" in response to a question regarding my effectiveness as an instructor, which I believe is a reference to a popular song but I felt was a microaggression. A recent supervisor would often pat me on the head and call me "Little

Miss " when he walked past me in hallways, at conference tables, etc. He also would call me "cutie" in front of other administrators.

Being older, the microaggressions I experience often are ones that convey an assumption that I have not kept up with technology, or that I would not understand/relate to young students, or that I am out of touch with today's students. I also observe with others in my 76

age range, that we are often placed in categories based on assumptions: "Afraid of

change," "Grumpy Old Person," "Not promotable because they'll retire sooner than a

younger person."

My age seems to be a problem for some of my co-workers. Individuals would comment

about how young I am or that they have children my age.

Based on these excerpts, it is evident that age microaggression can occur for those who are considered younger and older within higher education. Specific amounts and percentages for the age ranges of the respondents are provided below in Table 5.

Table 5 Age Demographics for Participantsa Demographics N % Under 18 0 0 18-23 0 0 24-29 17 13.0 30-35 44 33.6 36-41 30 22.9 42-47 22 16.8 48-53 12 9.2 54-59 4 3.1 60-65 0 0 66 or older 2 1.5 Note. aMissing values results in some variables not adding up to the total sample of 212.

Gender

The gender identity for the participants within the current study was heavily concentrated in one gender category, with 71.5 % of the respondents identifying as women; while 27.7% identified as men and 0.8% identified as transgender. According to the responses, participants describe a variety of issues that centered on gender: 77

Constantly being negated because of my gender.

Most of my experiences with microaggressions have been directed at my gender. I work with physicians and the medical field is not a place where change is welcomed with open arms. To them, being a woman in an administrative role translates to answering their phones, typing their papers and serving them. I have repeatedly explained that I have a master's degree, have been in this field for several years and take pride in what I have accomplished.

In my current role and institution, I have experienced this mostly around a new supervisor who makes gendered and sexist comments.

Most of the microaggression I experience at work are a result of normative assumptions, e.g. assumed gender identity…

Typical microaggressions include both comments towards my gender…These typically involved invalidation of my abilities or judgment of my emotion in regard to gender.

Often experienced personally in meetings with external campus partners in relation to my gender. My knowledge base or level is often questioned, and/or spoken over unless I assert myself more strongly than usual.

Mainly gender based and concerns the stereotypes of what a woman should be like in the workplace. This is based on an outdated - certain hairstyle should be worn, certain clothes - for example skirts and "power suits" and should be more aggressive/show less empathy or emotion

The culture at my current institution is very sexist - I've experienced everything from men here referring to me as "support personnel" (even though my actual place in the organization was the same or higher than the person); men who only speak to other men in the room and ignore the women, men to thank each other for a job well done but leave any task large or small done by a woman as thankless.

The most recent experience I had involved a conversation with a senior administrator when I called him to talk about sponsoring a program. He laughed when he heard it was me and said, "You're worse than my wife, always asking for money!" He did not have ill intent, and is someone whom I would consider works toward a diversity conscious workplace, but that comment stuck with me and has affected the way I approach him for support. In my previous work place, when I was a newer student affairs professional, I'm not sure how you would categorize this, but I had the VP of Advancement pull me aside before we were to sit at a panel in front of several external constituents and tell me "be sure and keep your legs together up there, they can see under the table." I didn't even know how to respond, and I never reported it. He continued to make comments like this

(sexist) in our interactions, which were unavoidable due to the nature of our two jobs on campus. I still think about that moment, over 10 years later. Another memory that sticks 79

out was when I was a new Director at a previous institution and was asked to attend a

President's cabinet meeting where I would share enrollment and other data. When I got to

the meeting room (I was first to arrive), the President handed me a pink spreadsheet and

said, "I made yours pink!" and I noticed all the others were white. I was stunned and,

once again, didn't know how to respond. I didn't want to confront the President and I'm

not sure any of the others in the room noticed my different colored paper. I was 20-

something at the time and afraid of jeopardizing my new promotion I had worked so hard

to earn...not that I would have been retaliated against necessarily, but I was afraid I

wouldn't be asked back to the table if I confronted him and I needed the experience.

There is a male co-worker who clearly creates a gender hostile environment for women.

For example, he has a calendar of Kate Middleton on the outside of his door. That is

clearly objectifying a female body. He also thinks it is ok to use slang that refers to male

genitals in conversations and walks around in purple spandex/running tights that are so

tight a female student worker told him it was unprofessional. I have voiced 3 complaints

about him to my various supervisors... he is "friends" with them so nothing gets done.

Actual counts and percentages for the gender identity of those within this study are provided in

Table 6.

Table 6 Gender Demographics for Participantsa Demographics N % Men 21 27.7 Transgender 1 .8 Women 91 71.5 Note. aMissing values results in some variables not adding up to the total sample of 212.

Disability

Several of the respondents indicated that they possessed a disability (i.e., 8.4% of participants). 27.3% of those reporting this information about their disability indicated that this disability was not listed in the response choices. Two of these individuals recorded that their disabilities were related to size and autoimmune issues. Despite those who revealed their disability, only one participant mentioned their experience with disability microaggression in their open-ended response:

I have witnessed students in class or in a course presentation make unintended comments

that single out different individuals based on physical ability (different ability levels).

Although this narrative does not discuss the participant’s experience with microaggression because of a disability, it does reveal that disability microaggression is present within the higher education environment. Details regarding disability are provided in Table 7.

Table 7 Disability Demographics for Participantsa Demographics N % Disability 11 8.4 Learning 3 27.3 Mobility 2 18.2 Neurological 0 0 Psychological 2 18.2 Sensory (i.e. vision or 1 9 hearing) Note. aMissing values results in some variables not adding up to the total sample of 212.

Education Level

The results of the study demonstrated that .8% of the participants had a Bachelor’s degree. The majority, or 74%, of the participants held a Master’s degree, while 25.2% held a 81

Doctoral or Professional degree. The exact amounts and percentages for education level are listed in Table 8.

Table 8 Education Level for Participantsa Demographics N % High School Diploma/GED 0 0 Some college 0 0 Bachelor’s degree 1 0.8 Master’s degree 97 74.0 Doctor/Professional Degree 33 25.2 Note. aMissing values results in some variables not adding up to the total sample of 212.

Employment Status

When observing the employment status for the sample, 99.2% of the participants indicated that they are employed full-time, or work at least 40 hours per week. Specific counts and percentages for employment status are provided in Table 9.

Table 9 Employment Status for Participantsa Demographics N % Full-time 130 99.2 Part-time 1 0.8 Note. aMissing values results in some variables not adding up to the total sample of 212.

Functional Area

The participants within this study were employed in various functional areas across their respective institutions. Respondents were able to select from the following functional areas

(participants were able to select more than one functional area): academic advising, admissions, career services, counseling and psychological services, disability services, financial aid, greek affairs, international student affairs, Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender services, multicultural affairs, orientation, recreation and wellness, residence life and housing, service learning, student activities, student conduct, student leadership or other. The most frequently selected functional area was residence life and housing, which comprised 18.5% of the participants. Those 82 respondents who indicated that their functional area was not included as a response option on the survey, listed the following functional areas: dean of students administration, sexual violence prevention & behavioral intervention team, national fraternity headquarters, administrator in student affairs leadership, TRIO, student union, undergraduate research, academic support, bursar/registration, first-year programs, academic affairs, student support & advocacy, and religious & spiritual life. The specific amounts and corresponding percentages for functional area are listed in Table 10.

Table 10 Functional Area of Participantsa Demographics N % Academic Advising 20 9.0 Admissions 7 3.2 Career Services 15 6.8 Counseling & Psychological 4 1.8 Services Disability Services 2 .9 Financial Aid 2 .9 Greek Affairs 6 2.7 International Student Services 4 1.8 LGBT Services 3 1.4 Multicultural Affairs 18 8.1 Orientation 16 7.2 Recreation & Wellness 2 .9 Residential Life & Housing 41 18.5 Service Learning 7 3.2 Student Activities 29 13.1 Student Conduct 19 8.6 Student Leadership 26 11.7 Other 34 15.3 Note. aParticipants were allowed to select more than one area if applicable.

Race

The racial and ethnic composition for the sample includes individuals from various backgrounds. Participants were able to select American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian

American/Pacific Islander, Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic, Middle Eastern/Arab,

White Caucasian, and Other. The racial/ethnic composition for the participants included in this study has already been described; however, 45.2% of the sample identified as White/Caucasian, followed by 12.2% of the respondents identified as Black/African Americans. For those participants who discussed racial microaggression, their experiences were described as follows:

Because individuals who work in higher education and student affairs professions tend to

cultivate relationships in unique ways, I think for many people the lines can be blurred in

terms of what is work-place appropriate and what it not. So, while we preach being

inclusive and sensitive to difference with our students - we often forget that we should

treat each other similarly. Thus, I have been on the receiving in of microaggressions

regarding my orientation and in the past my race. These experiences can easily be

dismissed as being sarcastic or funny, but can have a culminating effect.

Questions about and even touching of my hair from colleagues. Expressed assumptions

about my personal background, tastes in entertainment, or presumed shared experience

based on my race. Repeatedly being told how "articulate" or "well-spoken" I am as if one

shouldn't expect it. Being a POC with a very Anglo-Saxon name and seeing students

walk up to my very small office (occupied solely by me) and state that they're looking for

, as if I, sitting at my desk, am not the person who's name is on the

door. Being asked how I got my job by a student at least 15 yrs my senior, because I 85

"looked so young". Seeing the shock on some people's faces when they are informed of

my level and quality of education. Having someone come to a meeting of the newly-

minted staff of color group on campus and suggest that we name it something else so as

not to alienate others. Receiving very underhanded "shade" from an individual with a

shared ethnic background for not being "radical" enough by their own personal

definition.

Have been called to meetings to discuss situations that have included African American

students only but excluded initially when white students were primarily involved. In

doing exercises like the "Privilege Line" people are surprised (almost shocked) when I

describe myself as a "Cosby Kid". Two college educated professional parents in the

home, in a house in a well established neighborhood, etc.

I have experienced micro aggressions within the last year. I worked in a rural area and the

values of the institution were not lived out. I identify as African American and the N

word was used in my presence.

These racial/ethnic backgrounds as well as the others are described in Table 11.

Table 11 Racial/Ethnic Demographics for Participantsab Demographics N % American Indian/Alaskan Native 3 1.4 Asian American/Pacific Islander 4 1.8 Black/African American 27 12.2 Latino/Hispanic 6 2.7 Middle Eastern/Arab 1 0.5 White/Caucasian 100 45.2 Other 2 .9 Note. aMissing values results in some variables not adding up to the total sample of 212. bParticipants were allowed to select more than one area if applicable. 86

Religious/Worldview Identification

Respondents were asked to select the religious or worldview they identified with the most. There were 25.6% of the participants who reported that they did not associate with any religion or worldview (i.e., none). There were several respondents who indicated they identified with other Christian groups that were not listed as response choices. These individuals wrote in the following responses as alternative groups: Jehovah's Witness, Non-Denominational

Christian, Free Evangelican [sic], General [sic], Pentecostal, and Church of God in Christ. The most frequently reported religion was Roman Catholic with 19.4% of the participants identifying as such. Several respondents included details on the microaggression that they encounter because of their religious/worldview identification below:

The most often microaggression I experience is the assumption that I am Christian.

Needing to remind same staff (after 10 years) to not schedule major student

programs/ceremonies on Jewish holidays (e.g., SGA Inauguration on Yom Kippur).

Receiving "looks" when I take off religious holidays.

I am an atheist and have had multiple experiences with some regularity with colleagues

who make an issue of my atheism or point it out for no reason. I once had a

communication issue with a staff member and when consulting with a close colleague

about how to approach the situation he implied that the issue occurred because of my

atheism. Several other colleagues always make a point of calling out my atheism when

they discuss their personal religious beliefs. Another example is a staff member who

declined to have me write her a letter of recommendation because of my atheism. 87

At work, I observe and hear things that are said that are inappropriate or insensitive.

There is a definite bias towards white, Catholic, straight men in the area…assuming all

are religious (presumably Catholic).

Christian students and faculty making comments about how their God is the only God.

Being asked repeatedly to go to Church, when I have made it clear several times I do not.

Being told I don't have good values for because of where in the country I am originally

from.

Assumption that everyone is Christian; assumption that all Jewish holidays involve a

menorah; important meetings planned on Yom Kippur;

Typical microaggressions include both comments my atheistic worldview. With my

atheism, it often is invalidation, but is sometimes forward remarks as well. I often feel

unwelcome when my campus has events that include a prayer or invocation or are held in

houses of worship - and receive many stares and glares for my non-participation or

vocalization of discomfort. One time I was basically accosted for not accepting a Bible

on campus grounds.

The breakdown of religious background or worldview identification for those who responded to this question item is reported in Table 12.

Table 12 Religious/Worldview Identification of Participantsa Demographics N % Baptist 10 7.8 Buddhists 0 0 Church of Christ 2 1.6 Eastern Orthodox 0 0 Episcopalian 4 3.1 Hindu 0 0 Jewish 8 6.2 LDS (Mormon) 0 0 Lutheran 6 4.7 Methodist 14 10.9 Muslim 1 0.8 Presbyterian 1 0.8 Quaker 0 0 Roman Catholic 25 19.4 Seventh Day Adventist 0 0 Unitarian/Universalist 2 1.6 United Church of Christ 1 0.8 Other Christian 18 14.0 Other Religion 4 3.1 None 33 25.6 Note. aMissing values results in some variables not adding up to the total sample of 212.

Sexual Orientation

Respondents were also asked to identify their sexual orientation. Those individuals who responded, selected from the following options: Asexual, Bisexual, Gay, Heterosexual, Lesbian,

Questioning or Unsure, and Not Listed. Those participants who indicated that their sexual orientation was not listed described themselves as queer or pansexual. Additionally, those individuals who provided accounts of their experience with sexual orientation microaggression shared the following:

Assignment of tasks or project oversight based on my sexual orientation, typically those

that are "more feminine";

Being passed up as a external representative for our institution because of my sexual

orientation. Wanting to conduct a workshop on microaggression but concern from

administration that it would cause unneeded distress.

Also, I've received critical feedback from parents/families about how our orientation

program focuses too much on LGBTQ issues. One father asked if we were trying to

"convert" students to be LGBTQ; a mother said she was uncomfortable with the amount

of times that LGBTQ opportunities/support/community was mentioned in our program.

That mother's comment started out with, "I don't have a problem with gay people, but..."

and later in the conversation she remarked, "when I went to my

roommate was gay - you can look it up!" - as if the university keeps statistics on how

students identify, and whose roommates are part of the LGBTQ community. I supervise

orientation leaders, and they commonly experience microaggressions in their work with 90 first-year students - particularly in small group conversations about transition issues, campus community, personal identity, diversity, and other important topics.

When I started at my institution, I was pressured into changing the drag show hosted by my students because it didn't promote the "right kind" of homosexuality. It was an

"extreme" and "not helpful." Then, once I came out to several supervisors, I was then told that I should know better than anyone the "damage" a drag show might do.

The types of microaggression I face are when a coworker may say, "don't worry he is gay." This happens in particular when our colleagues are doing an icebreaker and we were blindfolded. I accidentally grazed a female coworkers chest and my other coworker was taken aback as was I but my other coworker screamed out "don't worry he is gay" which was awkward and uncomfortable. Often times I also get asked about females clothing options at work which I hate but I don't feel comfortable saying anything to anyone since I'm new. Also, having male heterosexual boss is a struggle for me because the ones I have had in past don't really make an effort to get to know me, they want to discuss sports or football in our 1:1s when I really want to talk about work or other things going on around campus. I had one male boss who said he wasn't allowing his son to paint his fingernails because it wasn't ok which of course alienated me from ever opening up to him in the least bit. But I also think there is just a disconnect between heterosexual men and homosexual men when it comes to supervision and I usually just end not telling them that part of my life. 91

Table 13 outlines the number and percentage of individuals who identify with the options that were included as response choices on the survey instrument.

Table 13 Sexual Orientation Demographics for Participantsab Demographics N % Asexual 0 0 Bisexual 8 6.2 Gay 20 15.4 Heterosexual 94 72.3 Lesbian 3 2.3 Questioning or Unsure 1 0.8 Not Listed 4 3.1 Note. aMissing values results in some variables not adding up to the total sample of 212.

Microaggressive Experiences

The demographic characteristics for the sample are influential in understanding the participants’ experiences with microaggression. Based on what has been described within the current literature, the participants were asked to report the frequency of their experience with the three forms of microaggression: microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations. The findings for these variables are listed below and the specific amounts and percentages are displayed in Tables 14-16.

Microassaults

As previously described, microassaults are a type of microaggression that include conscious behaviors, either subtle or explicit, and represent racially, gendered, or sexually oriented biased attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors (Sue, 2010a). When it comes to experiencing microassaults, 25.3% of the respondents reported that they have experienced this form of microaggression within their work environment to some degree. Participants indicated that they encountered microassaults less than once a month (18%), once a month (6%), two to three times per month (2.7%), once a week (0.7%), and two to three times per week (0.7%). Details 92 regarding how often mid-level student affairs professionals experience microassaults are listed in

Table 14.

Microinsults

Microinsults are considered unconscious, demeaning, and insulting messages that convey rudeness and insensitivity to someone from a marginalized background (Sue, 2010a). The results of the current study indicated that 69.3% of the sample experienced microinsults while at work.

Participants expressed that they came across microinsults at the following rates: less than once a month (40.4%), once a month (16.4%), two to three times per month (17.8%), once a week

(2.1%), and two to three times per week (1.7%). Details on how often the respondents experience microinsults are also provided in Table 14.

Microinvalidations

Microinvalidations are environmental or interpersonal cues that negate, nullify, or exclude the psychological thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and experiences of the group that is being targeted (Sue, 2010b). When observing the sample for this study, 71.6% of respondents indicated that they encounter microinvalidations. These participants described that they experienced microinvalidations at the following rates: less than once a month (40.8%), once a month (19%), two to three times per month (15.6%), once a week (2.7%), two to three times per week (1.4%), and daily (1.4%). The exact counts and percentages of the frequencies for microinvalidations are also included in Table 14.

Table 14 Forms of Microaggressiona Forms N % Microassaults 42 25.3 Never 108 72.0 Less than Once a Month 27 18.0 Once a Month 9 6.0 2-3 Times per Month 4 2.7 Once a Week 1 0.7 2-3 Times per Week 1 0.7 Daily 0 0

Microinsults 115 69.3 Never 31 21.2 Less than Once a Month 59 40.4 Once a Month 24 16.4 2-3 Times per Month 26 17.8 Once a Week 3 2.1 2-3 Times per Week 2 1.4 Daily 1 0.7

Microinvalidations 119 71.7 Never 28 19.0 Less than Once a Month 60 40.8 Once a Month 28 19.0 2-3 Times per Month 23 15.6 Once a Week 4 2.7 2-3 Times per Week 2 1.4 Daily 2 1.4 Note. aMissing values results in some variables not adding up to the total sample of 212.

Sources of Microaggression

Participants were asked to record from whom they experienced microaggression and how often these experiences occurred. The results of this study revealed that 71.7% of respondents experience microaggressions from co-workers, 41.6% indicated they came from supervisors,

63.2% from students, and 73.4% reported that they experience microaggressions from people external to their institution.

Table 15 Sources of Microaggressiona Source N % Co-Worker 119 71.7 Never 24 10.9 Less than Once a Month 65 29.4 Once a Month 35 15.8 2-3 Times per Month 12 5.4 Once a Week 2 .9 2-3 Times per Week 5 2.3 Daily 0 0

Supervisor 69 41.6 Never 72 32.6 Less than Once a Month 34 15.4 Once a Month 19 8.6 2-3 Times per Month 9 4.1 Once a Week 3 1.4 2-3 Times per Week 3 1.4 Daily 1 0.5

Students 105 63.2 Never 38 17.2 Less than Once a Month 54 24.4 Once a Month 36 16.3 2-3 Times per Month 11 4.5 Once a Week 1 0.5 2-3 Times per Week 2 .9 Daily 1 0.5

People External to my Institution 122 73.4 Never 20 9.0 Less than Once a Month 52 23.5 Once a Month 37 16.7 2-3 Times per Month 16 7.2 Once a Week 9 4.1 2-3 Times per Week 6 2.7 Daily 2 .9 Note. aMissing values results in some variables not adding up to the total sample of 212.

Type of Microaggression

I also asked participants to report how often they experienced various types of microaggression. These types of microaggressions include racial (39%), religious/worldview identification (47.6%), sex (72%), sexual orientation (44.6%), socioeconomic status (51.2%), and other (31.9%). Several individuals who expressed that they experienced other types of microaggression provided the following types as examples: age (5%), body image/size (2.3%), campus role/hierarchy (1.4%), educational attainment (0.5%), disability (0.5%), political views

(0.5%), gender/gender identity (1.4%), and health issues. Those reporting that they have never experienced a specific type of microaggression may not possess a salient social identity that aligns with a respective type of microaggression. For example, the respondents who do not belong to a marginalized group, based on their racial or ethnic background, were more likely to indicate that they have never experience racial microaggression.

Specifically for racial microaggression, 39.8% of participants reported that they have never encountered this type of microaggression. This is likely because 60.2% of the sample identified as White/Caucasian. In examining the microaggression because of religious/worldview identification, 31.7% of respondents reported that they have never experience microaggression due to their social identity. 10.1% of the sample reported that they practiced a non-Christian religious/worldview identity. The most common type of microaggression reported by the mid-level student affairs professionals within this study was microaggression because of sex, with only 14.5% indicated that they have never experienced this type of microaggression. Based on the demographic characteristics, 71.5% of the respondents listed that they identified as a woman. Therefore, the composition of the sample, mostly women, could be related to the result of never experiencing this type of microaggression. Lastly, 39.4% 97 of the participants reported that they have never experienced microaggression because of their sexual orientation. It is important to note that 72.3% of the respondents indicated that they identified as heterosexual. More information regarding the specific amounts and percentages for each type of microaggression are displayed in Table 16.

Table 16 Type of Microaggressiona Type/Frequency N % Racial 64 39 Never 88 39.8 Less than Once a Month 33 14.9 Once a Month 13 5.9 2-3 Times per Month 11 5.0 Once a Week 5 2.3 2-3 Times per Week 1 0.5 Daily 1 0.5

Religious/Worldview 79 47.6 Never 70 31.7 Less than Once a Month 47 21.3 Once a Month 19 8.6 2-3 Times per Month 6 2.7 Once a Week 5 2.3 2-3 Times per Week 2 .9 Daily 0 0

Sex 119 72 Never 32 14.5 Less than Once a Month 48 21.7 Once a Month 35 15.8 2-3 Times per Month 20 9.0 Once a Week 11 5.0 2-3 Times per Week 4 1.8 Daily 1 0.5

Sexual Orientation 74 44.6 Never 87 39.4 Less than Once a Month 30 13.6 Once a Month 19 8.6 2-3 Times per Month 10 4.5 Once a Week 3 1.4 2-3 Times per Week 1 0.5 Daily 1 0.5

Socioeconomic Status 85 51.2 Never 65 29.4 Less than Once a Month 49 22.2 Once a Month 26 11.8 2-3 Times per Month 4 1.8 Once a Week 5 2.3

Type/Frequency N % 2-3 Times per Week 0 0 Daily 1 0.5

Other 53 31.9 Never 14 6.3 Less than Once a Month 5 2.3 Once a Month 9 4.1 2-3 Times per Month 3 1.4 Once a Week 4 1.8 2-3 Times per Week 3 1.4 Daily 2 .9 Note. aMissing values results in some variables not adding up to the total sample of 212.

Relationship between Microaggression and Leadership Practices

As previously mentioned, the third research question for this study examined the relationship between experiences with microaggression and leadership practices for mid-level student affairs professionals. Specifically, to what extent were mid-level student affairs professionals’ experiences with microaggressions related to their leadership practices (i.e., modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, and encouraging the heart)? Five multiple regression analyses were run in order to determine if the forms of microaggression were predictors of leadership practices. The independent variables that represented microaggression for each regression model were experiences with each of its forms: microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations. Prior to running the regression models in SPSS, Cronbach’s Alpha (.701) was run to determine how closely related the predictor variables (i.e., microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations) are to each other. This numerical value for Cronbach’s Alpha indicates an acceptable internal consistency for the independent variables. Each time a regression model was run, a different dependent variable

(i.e., leadership practices) was used. Leadership practices were defined as modeling the way, 100 inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, and encouraging the heart.

The overall regression model when examining the relationship between participant experiences with the forms of microaggression and the Inspiring a Shared Vision leadership practice was statistically significant, F(3,132)=3.434, p<.05. As such, 7.2% of the variance in the leadership practice, Inspiring a Shared Vision, can be explained by the forms of microaggression (i.e., microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations). A summary of the regression coefficients for this model is presented in Table 17 and indicates that only one out of the three predictor variables (microinvalidations) significantly contributed to the model. For every one standard deviation increment on the microinvalidation predictor variable, Inspiring a

Shared Vision increased by .235 standard deviations. Conversely, the other regression models that examined the relationship between participant experiences with the forms of microaggression and the remaining leadership practices (i.e., Challenging the Process, Enabling others to Act, Encouraging the Heart, and Modeling the way) all had a p-value above .05.

Therefore, these models were not found to be statistically significant. However the practical significance will be discussed in Chapter Five. It is important to note that the regression models that analyzed the forms of microaggression as predictors of enabling others to act (see Table 19) and modeling the way (see Table 21) did indicate statistical significance for microinvalidations.

Details regarding all regression models can be found in Tables 17 through 21.

101

Table 17 Regression Model for Leadership Practices: Inspiring a Shared Vision Predictor Variables B SE B ᵦ Microassaults .167 .172 .094 Microinsults -.051 .129 -.040 Microinvalidations .292 .125 .235* *p<.05, R2=.072

Table 18 Regression Model for Leadership Practices: Challenging the Process Predictor Variables B SE B ᵦ Microassaults .201 .171 .117 Microinsults -.036 .126 -.029 Microinvalidations .211 .123 .178 *p<.05, R2=.057

Table 19 Regression Model for Leadership Practices: Enabling Others to Act Predictor Variables B SE B ᵦ Microassaults .039 .181 .021 Microinsults .007 .134 .006 Microinvalidations .276 .130 .220* *p<.05, R2=.054

Table 20 Regression Model for Leadership Practices: Encouraging the Heart Predictor Variables B SE B ᵦ Microassaults .226 .171 .132 Microinsults -.058 .127 -.047 Microinvalidations .177 .123 .150 *p<.05, R2=.048

Table 21 Regression Model for Leadership Practices: Modeling the Way Predictor Variables B SE B ᵦ Microassaults .019 .167 .011 Microinsults -.130 .125 -.105 Microinvalidations .318 .121 .266* *p<.05, R2=.056

102

Demographics, Institutional Characteristics, and Microaggression

The purpose of research question four was twofold: (1) to examine the relationship between the sample’s demographic characteristics and participants’ reported experiences with microaggressions and (2) to explore the relationship between institutional characteristics (see

Table 22) and participants’ reported experiences with microaggressions. I sought to know to what degree did these mid-level professionals’ demographic characteristics (i.e., race/ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, age, religious affiliation, educational level, and years of experience in higher education) and institutional characteristics (i.e., control, degree level, and student body size) predict their experiences with microaggressions? When reviewing the results of the regression model that analyzed whether or not participants’ characteristics were predictors for microinvalidations (Table 24), the overall regression model was not statistically significant.

103

Table 22 Institutional Characteristicsa Demographics N % Institution Control Public 79 47.6 Private, for-profit 2 1.2 Private, not-for-profit 48 28.9

Degree Level 2-year degree 5 3.0 4-year degree 124 74.7

Student Body Size 0-999 3 1.8 1,000-4,999 25 15.1 5,000-9,999 17 10.2 10,000-14,999 19 11.4 15,000-19,999 18 10.8 20,000-24,999 10 6.0 25,000-29,999 11 6.6 30,000-34,999 7 4.2 35,000-39,999 4 2.4 40,000+ 15 9.0 Note. aMissing values results in some variables not adding up to the total sample of 212.

104

In exploring the relationship between the demographic characteristics of the participants and microassaults, the overall regression model was statistically significant, F(13,115)=1.990, p<.05. The participants’ demographic characteristics were predictors of the reported experiences with microassaults and 18.4% of the variance in reported experiences with microassaults can be explained by the predictor variables. These results mean that respondent demographic characteristics are significant predictors of microassaults for mid-level student affairs professionals. Only one individual characteristic, disability, was a significant predictor for the regression model. While holding all other predictor variables constant, participants who identified as having a disability were significantly more likely to report experiences with microinsults. A summary of the regression coefficients is presented in Table 23.

105

Table 23 Regression Model for Microassaults & Participant Demographics Predictor Variables B SE B ᵦ Age .154 .121 .245 Disability -.955 .285 -.300* Educational Level -.053 .195 -.026 (Doctoral/Professional) Gender (Women) -.107 .095 -.107 Race/Ethnicity American Indian .616 .537 .105 /Alaskan Native Asian American/ Pacific Islander .085 .446 .017

Black/African American .134 .235 .062

Latino/Hispanic -.391 .360 -.093

Middle Eastern/Arab -467 .871 -.046

Other -.331 .633 -.046

Other Religion -.084 .361 -.025 Sexual Orientation .151 .084 .165 (Non-Heterosexual) Years of Employment -.030 .027 -.219 *p<.05, R2=.184

106

Table 24 Regression Model for Microinvalidations & Participant Demographics Predictor Variables B SE B ᵦ Age .069 .179 .078 Disability -.488 .423 -.108 Educational Level -.362 .289 -.126 (Doctoral/Professional) Gender (Women) -.003 .141 -.002 Race/Ethnicity American Indian 1.006 .796 .121 /Alaskan Native Asian American/ Pacific Islander .432 .661 .060

Black/African American .073 .349 .024

Latino/Hispanic .729 .534 .122

Middle Eastern/Arab -1.551 1.291 -.108

Other -.026 .938 -.003 Other Religion -.108 .536 -.023 Sexual Orientation .194 .124 .149 (Non-Heterosexual) Years of Employment -.002 .040 -.010 *p<.05, R2=.107

107

However, when examining the relationship between the demographic characteristics of the participants and microinsults, the overall regression model was statistically significant,

F(13,113)=2.709, p<.05. The participants’ demographic characteristics are predictors of the reported experiences with microinsults and 23.8% of the variance in reported experiences with microinsults can be explained by the predictor variables. These results mean that respondent demographic characteristics are significant predictors of microinsults for mid-level student affairs professionals. Additionally, only one individual characteristic, disability, was a significant predictor for the overall regression model. While holding all other predictor variables constant, participants who identified as having a disability were significantly more likely to report experiences with microinsults. A summary of the regression coefficients is presented in

Table 25.

108

Table 25 Regression Model for Microinsults & Participant Demographics Predictor Variables B SE B ᵦ Age .096 .159 .113 Disability -1.449 .376 -.337* Educational Level -.305 .258 -.111 (Doctoral/Professional) Gender (Women) .101 .126 .075 Race/Ethnicity

American Indian 1.137 .708 .143 /Alaskan Native Asian American/ Pacific Islander .483 .588 .070

Black/African American -.012 .310 -.004

Latino/Hispanic .620 .475 .109

Middle Eastern/Arab -1.186 1.148 -.087

Other 1.561 .837 .161 Other Religion .144 .494 .031 Sexual Orientation .090 .111 .073 (Non-Heterosexual) Years of Employment -.015 .036 -.082 *p<.05, R2=.238

109

For the second portion of research question four, which aimed to explore the relationship between institutional characteristics and microaggression, none of the regression models were found to be statistically significant. This finding means that when examining the institutional characteristics (i.e., institutional control, degree level, and student body size), these combined variables are not significant predictors for the respective forms of microaggression. Therefore based on these results, I did not find a relationship between the forms of microaggression and institutional characteristics. Despite these findings, Tables 26-28 provide a summary for the regression coefficients for each model that I ran.

Table 26 Regression Model for Microassaults & Institutional Characteristics Predictor Variables B SE B ᵦ Institutional Control .289 .206 .158 Degree level -.360 .412 -.078 Student body size .041 .037 .124 *p<.05, R2=.049

Table 27 Regression Model for Microinsults & Institutional Characteristics Predictor Variables B SE B ᵦ Institutional Control .303 .280 .123 Degree level -.216 .556 -.035 Student body size .107 .051 .237* *p<.05, R2=.042

Table 28 Regression Model for Microinvalidations & Institutional Characteristics Predictor Variables B SE B ᵦ Institutional Control .263 .294 .102 Degree level -.259 .587 -.040 Student body size .069 .053 .147 *p<.05, R2=.023

Summary

In order to understand the role that microaggression plays in the experiences of mid-level student affairs professionals, descriptive statistics and several multiple regression analyses were 110 conducted. The research questions for this study included: (1) To what extent do mid-level student affairs professionals who hold supervisory positions experience microaggressions? (2)

Which of the three forms of microaggression (i.e., microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations) are most commonly reported among the respondents? (3) To what extent are mid-level student affairs professionals’ experiences with microaggressions related to their leadership practices (i.e., modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, and encouraging the heart)? (4) To what degree do these mid-level professionals’ demographic characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, age, religious affiliation, educational level, and years of experience in higher education) and institutional characteristics (e.g., control or size) predict their experiences with microaggressions? The results of this study demonstrated that 78.3% of the 212 mid-level student affairs professionals who responded to the survey instrument for this study experience microaggression within their work environment. Participants indicated that people external to the institution, followed by co-workers and students, were the most frequent perpetrators of microaggressions against the professionals in this study.

Additionally, this study determined that microinvalidations were the form of microaggression that respondents experienced the most. Microinvalidations are environmental or interpersonal cues that negate, nullify, or exclude the psychological thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and experiences of the group that is being targeted (Sue, 2010b). In the examination of the relationship between leadership practices and reported experiences with microaggression,

Inspiring a Shared Vision, was the only leadership behavior that was found to be statistically significant for this sample. Lastly, when considering the demographic characteristics of the mid- level student affairs professionals within this study, the combined factors appeared to be 111 statistically significant predictors for microinsults and microassaults. The results of this study provide additional insight on what is known about the experience of mid-level student affairs professionals and microaggression. Although these findings cannot be generalized beyond the target population for this study, the results provide a foundation for future research and implications for practice. Further interpretation and details for these findings will be discussed in chapter five.

112

CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION

This study set out to explore the relationship between experiences with microaggressions and leadership practices among mid-level student affairs professionals. Beyond this objective, the demographics of the sample and institutional characteristics were evaluated to determine if these factors were related to the frequency of experiences with microaggression as well.

Investigating these factors help build upon what is currently known about experiences with microaggression and mid-level student affairs professionals. The findings of this study offer compelling suggestions for the improvement of the student affairs profession. The current chapter will highlight the significant findings of this study, provide a discussion on how to interpret these findings, and conclude with implications for professional practice and future research.

Summary of Findings

The results of this study confirm what the extant literature, focused on the experience of higher education professionals, has previously demonstrated. Prior studies have found that administrators within higher education encounter microaggression (Alabi, 2014; Garvey &

Drezner, 2013). 78.3% of participants within this study reported that they have experienced microaggression within the workplace. These individuals also revealed that the forms of microaggression they experience most frequently included microinvalidations, followed by microinsults. To reiterate, microinvalidations are environmental or interpersonal cues that negate or exclude the psychological thoughts and experiences of the group that is being targeted

(Sue, 2010b); and microinsults are unconscious, demeaning and insulting messages that convey rudeness and insensitivity to someone from a marginalized background (Sue, 2010a). Although the populations varied in previous studies, the extant literature does reflect higher reported 113 occurrences of microinvalidations and microinsults (Clark et al., 2014; Garvey & Drezner, 2013;

Grier-Reed, 2010; Guzman et al., 2010; Harwood et al., 2012; Minikel-Lacocque, 2012;

Poolokasingham et al., 2014; Yosso et al., 2009).

Mid-Level Student Affairs Professionals and Microaggression

One of the key findings of this study is that 78.3% of the respondents who elected to participate in the survey indicated that they experienced some type of microaggression. These results reiterated what scholars have already determined: professionals who work within the higher education environment experience microaggression (Alabi, 2014; Garvey & Drezner,

2013). Although the literature focuses specifically on advancement staff (Garvey & Drezner,

2013) or librarians (Alabi, 2014), the current study is not limited to one functional area. This suggests that microaggression is not specific to a particular functional area or department; it occurs across a university. Additionally, this study presented multiple accounts of microaggression that transpires because of an individual’s gender identity. This finding could be due to the fact that a large proportion of the sample identified as women. Although this may appear to be trivial, it is important to recognize the potential effects that this type of microaggression can have on individuals. Three participants shared how their encounters with microaggression have influenced their work experience in the following excerpts:

I left a position in a department due to microaggressions by my supervisor. I felt that I

was minimized and trivialized based on my gender as a female [sic]; that my work was

not valued by him as much as my "pretty face" was. I felt that I would never be promoted

or advance because I was viewed more as a woman than as a professional colleague. By

leaving that position I derailed my career path and lost about 5 years of progress, in my

opinion. My new position was at a lower level, did not supervise staff, and paid about 114

$10,000 less per year...but I was desperate to leave what I felt was a dead-end role

because of the glass ceiling above me. I also lost a lot of confidence in my own ability

and started to second-guess my decisions and actions.

This participant’s story represents the reality for some women who work in higher education.

Their experiences are shaped by the White heteronormative patriarchy that exists within the higher education environment. “Being White and being a man are both identities and social locations that are privileged in our culture, and especially privileged in academe” (Owen, 2009, p. 187). Whereas the culture within higher education institutions may be reflective of the privilege held by white males, it is possible for women to commit gender microaggressions against members of the same and other marginalized groups. This issue is exemplified by the following respondent’s narrative:

Well, the boss I mentioned above was an absolute mess, and her consistent

microaggressions (and explicitly bigoted comments) to me and others were just one piece

of the puzzle. In the end it was a deciding factor of me leaving that institution to search

for another job.

As discussed in Chapter One and demonstrated by the participant above, both horizontal oppression and internalized dominance are issues that coincide with microaggression.

Horizontal oppression occurs when members of an oppressed group engage in prejudices and oppressive behaviors against other members of their own group (Tappan, 2006). The participant described that this supervisor committed microaggressions against other women within her office, and therefore exhibited horizontal oppression. Additionally, this supervisor represented internalized dominance by accepting and incorporating, by those individuals within dominant 115 groups, biases against others (Tappan, 2006). These actions, perpetuated oppression through the microaggressions she committed and bigoted comments that she made against employees.

This oppression can be maintained and complicated when an individual has multiple minoritized social identities that intersect and shape their experience with microaggression.

Such is the case for the following participant:

I constantly feel like I have to prove my worth, knowledge, and abilities as a young

female. I do find myself questioning my abilities, and sometimes not going for

opportunities because I don't feel like I would be seriously considered or because I just

don't have the energy to combat the microaggressions. I've gone so far as to cut and

darken my hair just to avoid experiencing the biases at work. I struggle with what to

wear, worrying if it will be perceived as "sexy" or "inappropriate" just because it's on my

body, and I try to use clothes to make my shape more benign. I'm sure my self-

consciousness spills over into my personal life. The way I'm treated professionally

definitely has had a ripple effect, even if it is unintentional.

The first two participants discussed how the microaggression they faced from their supervisors contributed to their decision to leave their jobs. Moreover, the first and last participants alluded to how their microaggressive experiences have contributed to becoming more self-conscious, questioning their abilities, and losing confidence surrounding decision-making and actions.

Given what these participants have described regarding their professional judgment and confidence, it can be surmised that their performance and work productivity has suffered as well.

This idea aligns with what has been explored by Lin (2010), in that experiencing microaggression in the workplace can lead to weakened performance and diminished productivity. 116

Furthermore, there is the connection between the experiences of the participants within this study and Capodilupo et al.’s (2010) taxonomy for gender microaggression. As previously stated, it is important to note that this taxonomy singly focuses on the experiences of women, one aspect of gender. Furthermore, the taxonomy fails to acknowledge gender identity, gender expression, and gender norms/roles. Nevertheless, the results of this study overlap with several of the themes identified by Capodilupo et al.’s (2010) taxonomy on gender microaggression.

Based on the participants’ qualitative responses, the following themes from the literature were emphasized: sexual objectification, second-class citizen, assumptions of inferiority, assumptions of traditional gender roles, use of sexist language, and environmental invalidations. Sexual objectification is concerned with a woman being treated as a sexual object, communicates that a woman’s value is her body, and her purpose is to entertain men. The second-class citizen theme occurs when women are overlooked or when men are given preferential treatment over women.

The assumptions of inferiority occur when women are assumed to be less competent than men.

The assumption of traditional gender roles appears when it is assumed that a woman should maintain traditional gender roles such as femininity. The fifth theme within the taxonomy of gender microaggressions is the use of sexist language, which implies that women are inferior in some way or held to a different set of standards than men. The final theme, environmental invalidations, includes “macrolevel aggressions that occur on systemic and environmental levels” (Capodilupo et al., 2010, p. 207). Environmental invalidations encompass gender-based pay inequalities for similar responsibilities in the workplace or low numbers of women in executive level positions within an organization.

As discussed in Chapter four, participants described the gender microaggressions they encountered within the workplace. The respondent that discussed being referred to as a “support 117 personnel, despite having a higher position within the institution” reflects the assumptions of inferiority and the assumption of traditional gender roles. The same participants also shared the experience of being present when men only speak to other men and ignore the women. This incident reflects the second-class citizen theme from Capodilupo et al.’s (2010) taxonomy on gender microaggression. Another participant described the behavior of a male colleague within her office by indicating that he placed a calendar of Kate Middleton on the outside of his door that objectified the female body. This example provided by the participant parallels with that of the sexual objectification theme. Despite not providing the full narrative on how the microaggression manifests within the work environment, another respondent generally stated that a supervisor made gendered and sexist comments. The final theme that was represented in the narratives provided by participants is environmental invalidations. One respondent conveyed the invalidation she faced as she spoke with a male colleague, who was hired at the same time and possessed similar credentials, received a salary offer that was $8,000 higher than what she was offered. This colleague did not engage in salary negotiation. These experiences provided above reflect the ways in which the gender microaggression themes have manifested in the work lives of many participants within the study. However, additional research is necessary to include the perspectives of those who do not identify as women. The study of gender microaggressions must expand beyond what exists in current literature.

Forms of Microaggression

The second finding for this study demonstrated that the most commonly experienced form of microaggression is microinvalidation. As a reminder, microinvalidations can be environmental or interpersonal cues that negate or exclude the psychological thoughts and experiences of the group that is being targeted (Sue, 2010b). Numerous studies have identified 118 the prevalence of microinvalidations within the higher education environment (Clark et al., 2014;

Garvey & Drezner, 2013; Grier-Reed, 2010; Guzman et al., 2010; Harwood et al., 2012;

Minikel-Lacocque, 2012; Poolokasingham et al., 2014; Yosso et al., 2009); however, none of these studies examined the experience mid-level student affairs professionals. Presumably, this form of microaggression is the most common because it involves interpersonal cues as well as environmental cues. Those who encounter microinvalidations do not only experience this form of microaggression through interpersonal interaction. Since microinvalidations also involve environmental cues, microinvalidations can be perceived through institutional policies, practices, and structures that exist on a university campus. For example, Harwood et al. (2012) affirmed that students residing within residence halls endured microinvalidations with regard to their residence hall placement. Harwood et al. (2012) revealed that marginalized students were placed in specific residence halls, resulting in those students living in inferior facilities. Practices such as creating segregated spaces do not reflect an interpersonal cue, but it does represent an environmental cue that constitutes microinvalidation. Therefore, it is important to recognize that microinvalidations do not always occur as exchanges between two or more individuals. An institution can perpetuate microaggressive practices through decisions and policies that have been implemented.

Similarly, institutions can also maintain microaggression by not adequately addressing microinsults that occur within the work environment. The current study found that 69.3% of participants have experienced microinsults. Microinsults have been described as unconscious insulting messages that convey insensitivity toward someone from a minoritized group (Sue,

2010a). However, I contend that “unconscious” is not an accurate descriptor for microinsults.

Although the extant literature describes microinsults as unconscious, I argue that socially 119 acceptable and implicit are more appropriate words to describe microinsults. The term unconscious implies that the perpetrator has no knowledge that they are committing a form of microaggression; and in some cases that may be true, however, in many occurrences of microinsults the person committing this form of microaggression is aware that the language or behaviors are offensive to the target. Hence, the popular statement, “I’m not racist but…” or

“I’m not homophobic, but…” These popular phrases often are used to mitigate the impact of a statement the perpetrator knows will be offensive toward the target population.

Likewise, the current literature on microaggression reflects numerous examples of microinsults within higher education institutions (Alabi, 2014; Clark et al., 2014; Constantine et al., 2008; Garvey and Drezner, 2013; Guzman et al., 2010; Harwood et al., 2012; Poolkasingham et al., 2014; Solorzano et al., 2009). Particularly relevant to the current findings, the doctoral students of color in Guzman et al.’s (2010) study had similar experiences as the sample for this study. Guzman et al. (2010) reported that students experienced discouragement from faculty, denigration of academic work, questioning of their credentials as well as the authenticity of their qualifications and accomplishments. One of the participants from the current study echoes the sentiments shared by the students in Guzman et al.’s (2010) study. The passage below provides further detail on how these experiences overlap.

Being a [person of color] with a very Anglo-Saxon name and seeing students walk up to

my very small office (occupied solely by me) and state that they're looking for

name>, as if I, sitting at my desk, am not the person whose name is on the door. Being

asked how I got my job by a student at least 15 yrs my senior, because I "looked so

young". Seeing the shock on some people's faces when they are informed of my level and

quality of education. 120

Although the populations are different, the bias is parallel, in that the questioning of credentials and the authenticity of qualifications or accomplishments equates to the denigration of the participants’ academic work. Therefore, the occurrence of microinsults as presented by participants within this study also reflects what has been shared within the extant literature on microaggression.

Leadership Practices and Microaggression

The third finding for this study includes the association of the leadership practice, inspiring a shared vision and microaggression. A vision outlines the framework of values that reflect the desired state within an organization or department (Berg, 2015). Moreover, a vision helps delineate why and how people should behave in relation to performance, decisions, and managing conflict. A shared vision is more effective in that it allows the merging of multiple perspectives within the organization, creating greater buy-in and support (Berg, 2015).

Therefore when a vision is absent, an organization can lack direction as well as support and buy- in from organizational members. Those who inspire a shared vision demonstrate having the capacity to envision the future and enlisting others by developing a shared sense of destiny

(Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Because it is important to envision the future and enlist others, perhaps for those mid-level student affairs professionals who are confronted with microaggression, the need to inspire a shared vision becomes pertinent in contesting the discrimination they face. Kouzes and Posner (2002) argue that envisioning the future occurs through imagining exciting and ennobling possibilities; and enlisting others in a common vision that appeals to a shared aspiration.

This connection between inspiring a shared vision and microaggression may be because in order to diminish this type of subtle discrimination, mid-level professionals must imagine a 121 new and different future and convince others to subscribe to this new ideal. This exemplary leadership practice could be the way in which the participants within this study attempt to invoke change in their work environment. This finding is new, considering what is currently known about microaggression. The current literature has yet to make a connection between experiences with microaggression and leadership practices; therefore this is a promising topic for future research. However, it can be surmised, based on the descriptions provided by the participants, that the invisibility, discomfort, lack of appreciation, and sadness they reported has some association with the desire to create new possibilities and work to get their colleagues on board with this shared vision. Without inspiring a shared vision, a mid-level student affairs professional cannot imagine new possibilities for the future or enlist others to buy in to this vision. Ultimately, this means for those participants within this study who do not inspire a shared vision, they cannot move toward a future that would involve combatting microaggressions within their work environment.

Although this study did not find the forms of microaggression to be statistically significant predictors for the other four leadership practices (i.e., model the way, challenge the process, enable others to act, and encourage the heart), the practical significance of these leadership practices must be considered. The commitments that correspond to each leadership practice can serve as foundational practices for dismantling microaggression. The remaining leadership practices and eight respective commitments are as follows: model the way (i.e., clarify values and set the example), challenge the process (i.e., search for opportunities, and experiment and take risks), enable others to act (i.e., foster collaboration and strengthen others), and encourage the heart (i.e., recognize contributions, and celebrate the value and victories). Besides employing the inspire a shared vision leadership practice, despite not being statistically 122 significant, the other four leadership practices can be used as a way to create buy-in from others within a campus environment to challenge microaggression.

Likewise, microaggressions are a form of oppression (Sue, 2010a), and this study determined that they are present in student affairs. For those individuals who are committing microaggressions against the mid-level student affairs professionals in this study, it is possible that they are being impacted in the following ways: cognitively (e.g., having a false sense of reality), emotionally (e.g., guilt or defensiveness), behaviorally (e.g., avoiding those from marginalized populations or creating inauthentic interactions), spiritually and morally (Sue,

2010a). Having said this, it is not only important to deconstruct and challenge microaggression for the sake of mid-level student affairs professionals, but it is also necessary for those committing microaggression as well. Furthermore, although the outcomes of microaggression may impact perpetrators in numerous ways, these factors may not be reason enough to rectify microaggressive experiences. People who commit microaggressions may “care less about the substantive outcome than they do about the implications of that outcome for their own sense of self-esteem and the social recognition of their importance” (Cohen & March, 2000, p. 24). Mid- level student affairs professionals who are trying to appeal to their colleagues in order to challenge the microaggressions within their work environment will have to cater to their colleagues’ self-esteem, and convince senior leaders to provide social recognition to change their environment. Additionally, senior leaders should be educated about the potential impact that microaggressions may have upon the work performance and productivity of employees (Lin,

2010).

Moreover, when specifically focusing on the work environment and productivity, Sue

(2010a) discussed the relationship between work performance and productivity, affirming the 123 relationship between microaggression and the work experience. In addition to exploring the connection between microaggression and leadership, work performance and productivity should be more thoroughly investigated as well. Participants shared that their experiences with microaggression within the work environment resulted in a negative perception of their colleagues, work environment, and confidence in their capacity to fulfill their work obligations.

Two participants described how they believe experiencing microaggression has affected their work experience in the following excerpt:

Most microaggressions that I've experienced have been at work. This makes me feel

unsafe at my job and ashamed of who I am.

A different respondent explicitly spoke about the influence of microaggression on this individual’s performance in the workplace, “until I confronted the situation, I began to actively job hunt (still am) and actively disengage from my work. My morale was abysmal and productivity was lower.”

Since mid-level student affairs professionals reported that their productivity and morale was lower because of their experiences with microaggression, it is necessary to examine what is being consciously and unconsciously communicated to students. The expectation within the field of student affairs is for professionals to create programs and environments that foster student learning and development. However, given that these same professionals reported feeling isolated, undervalued, and demoralized as a consequence of experiencing microaggressions at work, encouraging student development and learning at optimal levels is questionable. It is important to consider the standards that are placed upon the work that student affairs professionals do with students. One of the main purposes for the general standards set by the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) includes fostering and 124 enhancing student learning and development (CAS, 2014). Considering this factor, what can be said about those individuals who are expected to provide a certain level of care and advocacy for students, but are unable to advocate for themselves or colleagues when they experience microaggressions within the workplace? Since mid-level student affairs professionals within this study indicated that they dread coming to work because they do not feel valued, it is possible for those feelings to permeate the inclusive environments that higher education institutions are attempting to create for students. Additionally, these factors bring about concerns for the level of inclusion that actually exists on college campuses. One participant echoed this sentiment when asked to describe their experience with microaggressions:

Because individuals who work in higher education and student affairs professions tend to

cultivate relationships in unique ways, I think for many people the lines can be blurred in

terms of what is work-place appropriate and what it not. So, while we preach being

inclusive and sensitive to difference with our students - we often forget that we should

treat each other similarly. Thus, I have been on the receiving end of microaggressions

regarding my orientation and in the past my race. These experiences can easily be

dismissed as being sarcastic or funny, but can have a culminating effect.

Anecdotally, the cultivation of relationships between student affairs professionals tends to reflect the informal exchanges that staff may have with students. As a result of their connections with students, these professionals may feel more at ease making inappropriate remarks or actions, and thereafter describing these behaviors as jokes. Although this explanation does not justify the occurrence of microaggressions within higher education, it does reveal that microaggression may occur because of the student affairs culture.

125

Forms of Microaggression and Demographic Characteristics

The remaining finding for this study was the association of participant characteristics with microinsults and microassaults. Microinsults are unconscious, demeaning and insulting messages that convey rudeness and insensitivity (Sue, 2010a). The participant characteristics were significant predictors for microinsults. Moreover, the individual predictor variable that was found to be significant, besides the overall model for this regression, was disability. For those individuals who identified as having a disability, the likelihood of experiencing a microinsult increased. The only existing study that explored the connection between disability and microaggression was by Keller and Galgay (2010). Within this study the researchers did not parcel out the various forms of microaggression; they actually spoke to the manifestation of disability microaggressions as a whole. Disability microaggressions are “distorted assumptions and beliefs that fuel negative attitudes and behaviors toward” people with disabilities (Keller &

Galgay, 2010, p. 244). Given the results of this study, additional research is necessary to further understand the relationship between the various forms of microaggression and individuals with disabilities.

Similarly, disability was the single predictor variable that significantly contributed to the regression model for microassaults and participant demographic characteristics. I found the regression model for microassaults to be statistically significant, while only 25.3% of participants reported that they experience microassaults. This means that participant demographics (i.e., age, disability, educational level, gender, race/ethnicity, religious/worldview identification, sexual orientation, years of employment) are significant predictors for microassaults As previously mentioned, microassaults are a form of microaggression that encompass conscious behaviors, either subtle or explicit, and represent biased attitudes, beliefs, 126 or behaviors (Sue, 2010a). As Sue (2010a) described, microassaults are more likely to be expressed in a way that provides the perpetrator with protection, meaning the perpetrator feels safe or comfortable enough to express their bias. The lower number of microassaults may be attributed to the fact that perpetrators are not fully comfortable to express this form of microaggression within their work environment because it is less socially acceptable. Further,

Grier-Reed (2010) supported this notion by reporting that microassaults occur less frequently than microinsults and microinvalidations. According to the current literature, there were only three studies that discussed the microassaults that participants encountered (Harwood et al.,

2012 ; Minikel-Lacocque, 2012; Yosso et al., 2009). As such, none of the open-ended responses that were provided by the participants within the current study described experiences that reflected microassaults.

Challenging microaggression is important for the entire higher education community because fostering a supportive work environment has been associated with affective attachment

(Boehman, 2007). Affective attachment occurs when a professional recognizes the costs of leaving an organization, and feels morally obligated to remain at an organization. Consequently, for those student affairs professionals who feel that their work environment is supportive, they are more likely to develop an affective attachment. This type of obligation and connection to an organization can lead to higher retention rates and improved engagement for mid-level student affairs professionals.

Implications for Professional Practice

There are several critical recommendations that can be incorporated into professional practice, which will change the experiences that mid-level professionals have with microaggression within the work environment. The first suggestion would be to implement 127 required comprehensive trainings for all those involved in higher education. These trainings should address all issues related to diversity and marginalized populations within the workplace.

This type of training should be required of every employee in all industries, including higher education institutions. Despite these trainings, research has indicated:

Marginalized groups continue to describe their work climates as hostile, invalidating, and

insulting because of the many microaggressions that assail their race, gender, or sexual-

orientation identities, deplete their psychic energies, restrict their work options, lower

their work productivity, generate suppressed rage and anger, stereotype them as less

worthy workers and detrimentally impact their recruitment/hiring, retention, and

promotion in organizations. (Sue, 2010a, p.213)

In order to recognize, acknowledge, and challenge the discrepancies related to employment practices, offering trainings that educate multiple parties within the higher education environment would lead to increased discussion. These trainings should emphasize the importance of all aspects related to social identity, in addition to the intersectionality of multiple social identities. Based on the findings of this research, it is evident that mid-level student affairs professionals working within higher education experience microaggression. Beyond this factor, participants reported that they experience microaggression from people external to the institution, students, colleagues, and supervisors. Therefore, creating more comprehensive trainings on microaggression that are offered to the external community, employees at all levels within the university, and students is pertinent. Trainings on microaggression should reflect true inclusion and address the intersection of various social identities and perceptions thereof, because it is important for deconstructing microaggression. In addition, many places of employment have instituted diversity trainings that focus specifically on overt discrimination and 128 harassment within the workplace (Sue, 2010a). The specific strategies that are implemented to address microaggression should include the education of the entire university community (Hunn,

Harley, Elliot, & Canfield, 2015). Ideally, the recommended comprehensive trainings would lead to further discussion, understanding, and awareness of microaggression, and have a greater impact on all university and college campuses.

The extant literature has not explored the link between leadership behaviors and practices and experiences with microaggressions. However, since this study identified a link between inspiring a shared vision and microaggression, teaching those who are in, or aspire to hold leadership roles, how to approach and mitigate microaggression would be beneficial for these professionals. Therefore, as part of comprehensive training on microaggression, a second training or seminar should be developed that focuses on leadership behaviors and practices for mid-level higher education professionals.

The third implication for professional practice is to implement continuous evaluations that examine the culture and climate within an office, department, and across campus. Sue

(2010a) suggested that organizations take a thorough look at their cultures and determine whether or not underlying assumptions of equality and inclusiveness are impacting the work environment of employees. According to the results of this study, the most commonly reported form of microaggression by mid-level student affairs professionals was microinvalidations.

Although some microinvalidations can transpire in the form of interpersonal cues, other forms of microinvalidations include environmental cues. Determining a process and offering continuous evaluations would allow employees to report both interpersonal and environmental microinvalidations. These evaluations should be built into assessment plans, and must be recognized as one of the indicators for effectiveness campus-wide. Additionally, the evaluation 129 should be anonymous so that employees may vocalize their concerns with other colleagues, thereby identifying critical issues and points of contention. If the results of the evaluation indicate that employees are experiencing microinvalidations, especially because of environmental cues, then this information can serve as a foundation for developing solutions and fostering conversations about policies, procedures, and structures across campuses.

Many of the respondents within this study indicated that they earned master’s degrees.

Presumably, these graduate degrees are related to their chosen profession. For example, participants may have pursued advanced studies in a College Student Personnel or Higher

Education program. Based on this information, it would be within reason for the profession to set the standard within the higher education field that all graduate programs include a course, training, or certification that incorporates equity, inclusion, or difference. “Infusion of inclusiveness and cultural awareness in the curriculum is an important strategy in bringing conscious awareness of microaggression” to the foreground (Hunn et al., 2015). These courses or certifications can be used as a means to educate master’s and doctoral students on the prevalence of microaggressions within the field as well as how to address the various forms of microaggression, particularly, microinvalidations and microinsults.

Similarly, in order to assist those professionals within the university context, a resource must be developed that serves as a support system for those who encounter microaggressions.

One of the participants within this study reiterated what was reflected in the literature on using counterspaces. As they stated, “I've found individuals I can commiserate with on campus, some of whom I trust with ‘vault’ level personal stories or accounts.” As reported by the respondent, the commiseration with colleagues across campus serves as an outlet to share stories or accounts about microaggressions. Because of this participant’s narrative about using counterspaces as a 130 means to commiserate with colleagues, the next implication for professional practice is to create an online virtual resource that serves as a counterspace for student affairs professionals across the country. This online forum should function as a “space” where professionals can anonymously discuss their microaggressive experiences in addition to collect information on how to confront microaggression. As discussed by Grier-Reed (2010) and Solórzano et al.,

(2000), counterspaces serve as safe spaces that can provide victims of microaggression with an opportunity that safely allows them to make sense of their experiences, determine whether microaggression has occurred, find support or validation for their experience as well as receive advice on how to respond to microaggressive incidents.

The final recommendation for professional practice involves higher education institutions taking a distinct stance against the perpetuation of microaggressions within the campus environment. All institutions should develop a reporting system that will be used and strictly enforced by the Division of Human Resources. Charleston (2014) contended that Human

Resource managers should use technology to measure diversity and avoid discriminatory practices. Human Resource departments within higher education institutions should implement technological reporting systems that allow employees to report their experiences with subtle discrimination, such as microaggression. In order to properly handle incidences of microaggression, all Human Resource professionals should attend a comprehensive training, as suggested above, on how to address any microaggressive issues and support university staff that file reports. The finding that mid-level student affairs professionals are reporting instances of microaggression is reason alone to implement such a system. A reporting system would provide an avenue for employees to openly and freely communicate their experiences. The additional purpose of a reporting system operated by Human Resources would be to provide recognition of 131 and support for those who encounter microaggression. A system such as this should be taken seriously because supervisors may react with bias if the microaggressive acts occur between two co-workers. This was reflected in the narrative shared by a participant who indicated that her male colleague creates a gender hostile environment for women within her department.

Additionally, holding individuals accountable for the way they treat others would encourage microaggressors to think before committing microinsults, microassaults, and microinvalidations.

Implications for Future Research

The results of this study provide a solid foundation for possible areas of research. The first opportunity for future research could consist of replicating this study and extending it beyond members of ACPA. In order to determine if there is a difference between those mid- level student affairs professionals who are members of ACPA, and mid-level professionals who are members of other professional organizations (i.e., National Association of Student Personnel

Administrators, National Academic Advising Association, etc.) additional research should be conducted. The survey could be disseminated to members of other higher education professional organizations. Additionally, other target populations can be explored to assess their microaggressive experiences. For example, the relationship between leadership practices and microaggression could be examined for senior-level student affairs professionals. Presumably, because the experiences of mid-level student affairs professionals differ from that of senior-level student affairs professionals, it could be beneficial to extend this study to senior-level professionals as well. The ways in which these two types of professionals’ experiences are different include senior-level professionals interacting with a different set of individuals across and external to the university, and possessing a different level of responsibility within the organization. In conducting research on senior-level student affairs professionals, it would be 132 interesting to determine if this population experiences a difference in the common form of microaggression that they encounter.

Another avenue for future research that could be explored is examining new types of microaggressions. Several respondents within this study identified new types of microaggressions that have not been thoroughly discussed by the extant literature. Additional studies that examine microaggressions related to age, size/body image, and positional status within a higher education organization could be promising areas of research. Because these suggested types of microaggression were salient for participants within this study, but not addressed within current literature on microaggression, these are areas that could be further explored in the future.

The final area that could be examined in future research includes the use of counterspaces. As previously mentioned, one participant described what has been identified within the literature as counterspaces by Grier-Reed (2010) and Solorzano et al. (2000).

Counterspaces provide safety by allowing victims of microaggression to make sense of their experiences, determine whether microaggression has occurred, find support or validation for their experience as well as receive advice on how to respond to microaggressive incidents (Grier-

Reed, 2010; Solórzano et al., 2000). This serves as further evidence that victims of microaggression employ various methods to cope. Future researchers of microaggression could examine the difference between the ways in which these spaces help alleviate the impact of microaggression, what are the various types of counterspaces, and whether or not there are benefits or disadvantages to specific types of counterspaces.

133

Summary

This study demonstrated that experiencing microaggression was and continues to be a reality for mid-level student affairs professionals. The findings of this research suggest that while higher education institutions are working to create more inclusive and equitable environments for students, the same efforts need to be made for administrators. The more evidence and information that is presented on microaggressions and their associations with various populations within the postsecondary environment, the better prepared educators will be to dismantle and challenge their existence in society. One participant surmised the significance of this study succinctly:

I think you have two choices of action when encountering anything that negatively

affects your work experience: you can crawl into a shell and become cowed by the

experience, or you stand up and work to change it. I chose, on several occasions, to

change it.

Although this study is not an exhaustive investigation of microaggression and its relationship with all populations in higher education, it does offer insight on the experience of a fragment of the higher education community. The results of this study can be used to support institutional efforts that address issues concerning microaggression within the higher education environment.

134

REFERENCES

Aimar, C., & Stough, S. (2007). Leadership: Does culture matter? Comparative practices

between Argentina and United States of America. Academy of Educational Leadership

Journal, 11(3), 9-43.

Alabi, J. (2014). Racial microaggressions in academic libraries: Results of a survey of minority

and non-minority librarians. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41, 47-53. doi:

0.1016/j.acalib.2014.10.008

Allen, A., Scott, L. M., Lewis, C. W. (2013). Racial microaggressions and African Americans

and Hispanic students in urban schools: A call for culturally affirming education.

Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 117-129.

American College Personnel Association. (2014a). Who we are | ACPA. Retrieved from

http://www.acpa.nche.edu/who-we-are

American College Personnel Association. (2014b). Committees. Retrieved from

http://www.acpa.nche.edu/committees

American College Personnel Association. (2014c). Mid-level community of practice | ACPA .

Retrieved from http://www.acpa.nche.edu/mlcop

Balsam, K. F., Molina, Y., Beadnell, B., Simoni, J., & Walters, K. (2011). Measuring multiple

minority stress: the LGBT People of Color Microaggressions Scale. Cultural Diversity &

Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 163–174. doi:10.1037/a0023244

Basford, T. E., Offermann, L. R., & Behrend, T. (2014). Do you see what I see? Perceptions

of gender microaggressions in the workplace. Psychology of Women Quarterly,38, 340-

349.

Berg, J. L. (2015). The role of personal purpose and personal goals in symbiotic visions. Frontier

in Psychology, 6, 64-76. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00443 135

Boehman, J. (2007). Affective commitment among student affairs professionals. NASPA

Journal, 44(2), 307-326.

Bohmer, S., & Briggs, J. L. (1991). Teaching privileged students about gender, race, and class

oppression. Teaching Sociology, 19, 154–163.

Boysen, G. A. (2012). Teacher and student perceptions of microaggression in college

classrooms. College Teaching, 60, 122-129. doi: 10.1080/87567555.2012.654831

Bradburn, N., Sydman, S., Wansink, B. (2004). Asking questions: The definitive guide to

questionnaire design – For market research, political polls, and social and health

questionnaires. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Byng, R. (2013, November 13). #BBUM hashtag sparks dialogue about diversity at the

University of Michigan. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/20/bbum-university-of-michigan-black-

students_n_4310790.html

Capodilupo, C. M., Nadal, K. L., Corman, L., Hamit, S., Lyons, O. B., & Weinberg, A. (2010).

The manifestation of gender microaggressions. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and

Marginality: Manifestation, Dynamics, and Impact (pp. 193-216). Hoboken, NJ: John

Wiley & Sons.

Charleston, L. J. (2014). Using human resource software technology to mitigate glass ceiling

effects in higher education: Interdisciplinary applications for managing diversity. New

Directions for Institutional Research, 2013(159). 63-73.

Comeaux, E. (2012). Unmasking athlete microaggressions: Division I student-athletes

engagement with members of the campus community. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport,

5(2), 189-198. 136

Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2014). CAS General

Standards| Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. Retrieved

from http://standards.cas.edu/getpdf.cfm?PDF=E868395C-F784-2293-

129ED7842334B22A

Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2015). CAS Glossary| Council

for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://www.cas.edu/glossary

Clark, D. A., Kleiman, S., Spapierman, L. B., Isaac, P., & Poolokasingham, G. (2014). “Do you

live in a teepee?” Aboriginal students’ experiences with racial microaggressions in

Canada. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7, 112-125. doi: 10.1037/a0036573

Cohen, M. D., & March, J. G. (2000). Leadership in an organized anarchy. In M. C. Brown II

(Ed.), Organization and governance in higher education (5th ed., pp. 16-35). Boston,

MA: Pearson Custom.

Constantine, M. G., & Sue, D. W. (2007). Perceptions of racial microaggressions among Black

supervisees in cross-racial dyads. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 142-153. DOI:

10.1037/0022-0167.54.2.142

Constantine, M. G., Smith, L., Redington, R. M., Owens, D. (2008). Racial microaggressions

against Black counseling and counseling psychology faculty: A central challenge in the

multicultural counseling movement. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 348-355.

Davis, P. (1989). Law as microaggression. Yale Law Journal, 98, 1559-1577.

DiChiara, A. N. (2009). Fraternal leadership: Differences in leadership practices among four

governing councils. The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority

Advisors, 4, 16-29. 137

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys:

The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Flaherty, C. (2013, November 25). In-class sit-in. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/11/25/ucla-grad-students-stage-sit-during-

class-protest-what-they-see-racially-hostile

Franklin, A. J. (2004). From brotherhood to manhood: How Black men rescue their relationships

and dreams from the invisibility syndrome. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Frazier, K. N. (2011). Academic bullying: A barrier to tenure and promotion for African-

American faculty. Florida Journal of Educational Administration & Policy, 5(1), 1-13.

Garvey, J. C., & Drezner, N. D. (2013). Advancement staff and alumni advocates: Cultivating

LGBTQ alumni by promoting individual and community uplift. Journal of Diversity in

Higher Education, 6, 199-218. doi: 10.1037/a0033452

Gebremariam, G. W. (2014). Assessment of leadership practices and effectiveness in Ethiopian

universities. International Journal of Research in Commerce & Management, 5, 52-59.

Glasberg, D. S., & Shannon, D. (2011). Oppression, resistance, and the state: An introduction.

Political Sociology: Oppression, Resistance, and the State (pp. 1-14). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Gold, H. (2014, March 4). Six of the most disturbing racist and sexist themed college frat events

from the past year. AlterNet. Retrieved from http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-

politics/6-most-disturbing-acts-sexism-and-racism-emerge-frat-house-ragers-past-year

Gonzales, L., Davidoff, K. C., Nadal, K. L., & Yanos, P. T. (2014, November 17).

Microaggressions experience by persons with mental illnesses: An exploration study.

Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal. doi: 10.1037/prj0000096 138

Grandzol, C., Perlis, S., Draina, L. (2014). Leadership development of team captains in

collegiate varsity athletics. Journal of College Student Development, 51(4), 403-418. doi:

10.1353/csd.0.0143

Grier-Reed, T. (2010). The African American student network: Creating sanctuaries and

counterspaces for coping with racial microaggression in higher education settings.

Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 49, 181-188.

Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Jr., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M, Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R.

(2009). Survey methodology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Guzman, F., Trevino, J., Lubuguin, F. & Aryan, B. (2010). Microaggressions and the pipeline for

scholars of color. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation,

dynamics, and impact (pp. 145-167). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Harwood, S. A., Browne Huntt, M., Mendenhall, R., & Lewis, J. A. (2012). Racial

microaggressions in residence halls: Experiences of students of color at a Predominantly

White university. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5, 159-173. doi:

10.1037/a0028956

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Dewey, J. E. (2001). Management of organizational behavior:

Leading human resources (8th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hill, J. S., Kim, S., & Williams, C. D. (2010). The context of racial microaggressions against

indigenous peoples: Same old racism or something new? In D. W. Sue (Ed.),

Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact (pp. 105-122).

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Hillman, Jr., G. M. (2008). Leadership practices of non-traditional seminary students. Journal of

Research in Christian Education, 17, 54-80. doi: 10.1080/10656210801967937 139

Hinton, E. L. (2004). Microinequities: When small slights lead to huge problems in the

workplace. DiversityInc, 79-82.

Hirt, J. B. (2006). What do we really know about student affairs work? Where you Work Matters:

Students Affairs Administration at Different type of Institutions (pp. 1-17). Lanham, MD:

University Press of America.

Houshmand, S., Spanierman, L. B., & Tafarodi, R. W. (2014). Excluded and avoided: Racial

microaggressions targeting Asian international students in Canada. Cultural Diversity

and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(3), 377-388.

Huber, L. P., & Solorzano, D. G. (2014). Racial microaggressions as a tool for critical race

research. Race and Ethnicity and Education, 18,1-24. doi:

10.1080/13613324.2014.994173

Hunn, V., Harley, D., Elliott, W., & Canfield, J. P. (2015). Microaggression and the mitigation of

psychological harm: Four social workers’ exposition for care of clients, students and

faculty who suffer ‘A thousand little cuts’. The Journal of Pan African Studies, 7(9), 41-

54.

Hurtado, S. (1992). The campus racial climate: Contexts of conflict. The Journal of Higher

Education, 63, 539-569. doi: 10.2307/1982093

Johnston, M. P., & Nadal, K. L. (2010). Multiracial microaggressions: Exposing monoracism in

everyday life and clinical practice. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and

marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact (pp. 123-144). Hoboken, NJ: John

Wiley & Sons. 140

Keller, R. M., & Galgay, C. E. (2010). Microaggressive experiences of people with disabilities.

In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and

impact (pp. 241-267). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Kelley, D. R. (2008). Leadership development through the fraternity experience and the

relationship to career success after graduation. Oracle: The Research Journal of the

Association of Fraternity Advisors, 3(1), 1-12.

Kim, S. & Kim, R. H. (2010). Microaggressions experienced by International students attending

U.S. institutions of higher education. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and

marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact (pp. 171-191). Hoboken, NJ: John

Wiley & Sons.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1994). An extension of the leadership practices inventory to

individual contributors. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 959-966.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge. (3rd ed.). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lau, M., & Williams, C. (2010). Microaggression research: Methodological review and

recommendations. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and Marginality:

Manifestation, Dynamics, and Impact (pp. 313-336). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley& Sons.

Lee, J. (2014, March 5). ‘I, too am Harvard’ photos tell black students’ stories. USA Today.

Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/03/05/black-

students-harvard-tumblr/6013023/

Lewis, J. A., Mendenhall, R., & Harwood, S. A. (2013). Coping with gendered racial

microaggressions among black women college students. Journal of African American

Studies, 17, 51-73. doi: 10.1007/s12111-012-9212-0 141

Lin, A. I. (2010). Racial microaggressions directed at Asian Americans: Modern forms of

prejudice and discrimination. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality:

Manifestation, dynamics, and impact (pp. 85-103). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Liu, A. (2011). Unraveling the myth of meritocracy within the context of US higher education.

Higher Education, 62, 383-397. doi: 10.1007/s10734-010-9394-7

Mather, P. C., Bryan, S. P., Faulkner, W. O. (2009). Orienting mid-level student affairs

professionals. College Student Affairs Journal, 27, 242-256.

Mason, E. (2010). Leadership practices of school counselors and counseling program

implementation. NASSP Bulletin, 94, 274-285. doi: 10.1177/0192636510395012

Mayhew, M., Grunwald, H., Dey, E. (2006). Breaking the silence: Achieving a positive campus

climate for diversity from staff perspective. Research in Higher Education, 47, 63-88.

doi: 10.1007/s11162-004-8152-z

Mercer, S. H., Zeigler-Hill, V., Wallace, M., & Hayes, D. M. (2011). Development and initial

validation of the inventory of microaggressions against Black Individuals. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 58, 457–469. doi:10.1037/a0024937

Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2010). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods:

Practical application and interpretation (4th ed.). Glendate, CA: Pyrczak.

Minikel-Lacocque, J. (2012). Racism, college, and the power of words: Racial microaggressions

reconsidered. American Education Research Journal, 50, 432-465. doi:

10.3102/0002831212468048

Moon Johnson, J. (2015). Back to the basics: Meeting the needs of marginalized populations on

campus. The Vermont Connection, 35, 137-142. 142

Morales, E. (2014). Intersectional impact: Black students and race, gender and class

microaggressions in higher education. Race, Gender, & Class, 21, 48-66

Nadal, K., L., Issa, M-A., Griffin, K., Hamit, S., & Lyons, O. (2010a). Religious

microaggressions in the United States: Mental health implications for religious minority

groups. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics,

and impact (pp. 287-310). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Nadal, K., L., Rivera, D. P., & Corpus, M. J.H. (2010b). Sexual orientation and transgender

microaggressions: Implications for mental health and counseling. In D. W. Sue (Ed.),

Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact (pp. 217-240).

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Nadal, K. L. (2011). The Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS): construction,

reliability, and validity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 470–480.

doi:10.1037/a0025193

Nadal, K. L., Wong, Y., Issa, M., Meterco, V., Leon, J., & Wideman, M. (2011). Sexual

orientation microaggressions: Processes and coping mechanisms for Lesbian, Gay, and

Bisexual individuals. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 5, 21-46. doi:

10.1080/15538605.2011.554606

Nadal, K. L., Vigilia Escobar, K., Prado, G. T., David, E. J., & Haynes, K. (2012). Racial

microaggressions and the Filipino American experience: Recommendations for

counseling and development. Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development, 40,

156-173. 143

Nadal, K. L., Griffin, K. E., Wong, Y., Hamit, S., & Rasmus, M. (2014a). The impact of racial

microaggression on mental health: Counseling implications for clients of color. Journal

of Counseling and Development, 92, 57-66. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00130.x

Nadal, K. L., Wong, Y., Sriken, J., Griffin, K., Fujii-Doe, W. (2014b, October 27). Racial

microaggressions and Asians Americans: An exploratory study on within-group

difference and mental health. Asian American Journal of Psychology. doi:

10.1037/a0038058

Nadal, K. L., Wong, Y., Griffin, K. E., Davidoff, K., & Sriken, J. (2014c). The adverse impact of

racial microaggressions on college students' self-esteem. Journal of College Student

Development, 55(4), 462-474.

New, J. (2014, September 24). ‘Can you hear us know? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/09/24/anonymous-racist-posts-social-media-

network-prompt-colgate-students-stage-sit-now

New, J. (2015, January 8). A ‘chilly climate’ on campus. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/08/report-details-microaggressions-

campuses-students-color-and-women

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Offermann, L. R., Basford, T., E., Graebner, R., DeGraaf, S. B., & Jaffer, S. (2013). Slights,

snubs, and slurs: Leader equity and microaggressions. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal, 32, 374-393. doi:10.1108/EDI-05-2012-0046 144

Olson, D., & Borman, W. (1989). More evidence on relationships between the work environment

and job performance. Human Performance, 2, 113-130.

doi:10.1207/s15327043hup0202_3

Owen, D. S. (2009). Privileged social identities and diversity leadership in higher education.

Review of Higher Education, 32(2), 185-207.

Owen, J., Wampold, B. E., Tao, K. W., Imel, Z. E. & Rodolfa, E. (2014). Addressing racial and

ethnic microaggressions in therapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45,

283-290. doi: 10.1037/a0037420

Phillips Morrow, G., Burris-Kitchen, D., & Der-Karabetian, A. (2000). Assessing campus

climate of cultural diversity: A focus on focus groups. College Student Journal, 34, 589.

Pierce, C., Carew, J., Pierce-Gonzalez, D., & Willis, D. (1978). An experiment in racism: TV

commercials. In C. Pierce (Ed.), Television and education (pp.62-880. Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage.

Pittman, C. T. (2012). Racial microaggression: The narratives of African American faculty at a

predominantly white university. Journal of Negro Education, 8, 82-92.

Platt, L. F., & Lenzen, A. L. (2013). Sexual orientation microaggressions and the experience of

sexual minorities. Journal of Homosexuality, 60, 1011-1034. doi:

10.1080/00918369.2013.774878

Poolokasingham, G., Spanierman, L. B., Kleiman, S. & Houshmand, S. (2014). “Fresh off the

boat?” Racial microaggressions that target South Asian Canadian students. Journal of

Diversity in Higher Education, 7, 194-210. doi: 10.1037/a0037285

Posner, B. Z. (2012). Effectively measuring leadership. Administrative Sciences, 2, 221-234. doi:

10.3390/admsci2040221 145

Pugh, A. G., Fillingim, J. G., Blackbourn, J. M., Bunch, D., & Thomas, C. (2011). Faculty

validation of the leadership practices inventory with secondary school principals.

National Forum of Educational Administration & Supervision Journal, 28( 3), 4-11.

Rivera, D. P., Forquer, E. E., & Rangel, R. (2010). Microaggressions and the life experience of

Latina/o Americans. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality:

Manifestation, dynamics, and impact (pp. 59-83). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Rollock, N. (2012). Unspoken roles of engagement: Navigating racial microaggressions in the

academic terrain. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25, 517-532.

doi: 10.1080/09518398.2010.543433

Rosser, V. J. (2004). A national study on midlevel leaders in higher education: The unsung

professionals in the academy. Higher Education, 48, 317-337.

Rowe, M. P. (1990). Barriers to equality: power of subtle discrimination to maintain unequal

opportunity. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 3(2), 153-163.

Ryman, A. (2014, January 24). Detroit Free Press. Fraternity expelled over racist MLK-themed

party. Retrieved from

http://www.freep.com/article/20140124/NEWS07/301240036/Fraternity%20expelled%2

0over%20racist%20MLK-themed%20party

Sarno, E., & Wright, A., J. (2013). Homonegative microaggressions and identity in bisexual men

and women. Journal of Bisexuality, 13, 63-81. doi: 10.1080/15299716.2013.756677

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental

designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company 146

Shelton, K., & Delgado-Romero, E. A. (2011). Sexual orientation microaggressions: the

experience of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer clients in psychotherapy. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 58, 210–221. doi:10.1037/a0022251

Smith, L., & Redington, R. M. (2010). Class dismissed: Making the case for the study of classist

microaggressions. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation,

dynamics, and impact (pp. 269-285). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Smith, W. A., Hung, M., Franklin, J. D. (2011). Racial battle fatigue and the miseducation of

Black men: Microaggressions, societal problems, & environmental stress. Journal of

Negro Education, 80(1), 63-82.

Solórzano, D. G. (1998). Critical race theory, race and gender microaggressions, and the

experience of Chicana and Chicano scholars. Qualitative Studies in Education, 11, 121-

136.

Solórzano, D. G., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions,

and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students.

Journal of Negro Education, 69, 60-73,

Somers, P., Cofer, J., Austin, J., Inman, D., Martin, T., Rook, S., Stokes, T., & Wilkinson, L.

(2002). Faculty and staff: The weather radar of campus climate. New Directions for

Institutional Research, 1998, 35-52. doi: 10.1002/ir.9803

Sue, D. W. (2010a). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Sue, D. W. (2010b). Microaggressions, marginality, and oppression: An introduction. In D. W.

Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact (pp.

3-22). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 147

Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M., Nadal, K., L., &

Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical

practice. American Psychologist, 62, 271-286. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.62.4.271

Sue, D. W., & Capodilupo, C. M. (2008). Racial, gender, and sexual orientation

microaggressions: Implications for counseling and psychotherapy. In D.W. Sue & D. Sue

(Eds.), Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice (5th ed., pp. 105-130).

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Svokos, A. (2015, January 12). College campuses are full of subtle racism and sexism, study

says. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/12/microaggressions-college-racism-

sexism_n_6457106.html

Tappan, M. B. (2006). Reframing internalized oppression and internalized domination: From the

psychological to the sociocultural. Teachers College Record, 108, 2115-2144.

Taylor, T., Martin, B. N., Hutchinson, S., & Jinks, M. (2007). Examination of leadership

practices of principals identified as servant leaders. International Journal of Leadership

in Education, 10, 401-419. doi: 10.1080/1360312070148262

Tingle, J. K., Cooney, C., Asbury, S. E., & Tate, S. (2013). Developing a student employee

leadership program: The importance of evaluating effectiveness. Recreational Sports

Journal, 37, 2-13.

Torres-Harding, S. R., Andrade, A. L., Jr., & Romero Diaz, C. E. (2012). The Racial

Microaggressions Scale (RMAS): A new scale to measure experiences of racial

microaggressions in people of color. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology,

18, 153–164. doi:10.1037/a0027658 148

Tourangeau, A., & McGilton, K. (2004). Measuring leadership practices of nurses using the

Leadership Practices Inventory. Nursing Research, 53, 182-189.

Vega, T. (2014, March 21). Students see many slights as racial ‘microaggressions’. The New

York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/us/as-diversity-

increases-slights-get-subtler-but-still-sting.html?_r=0

Watkins, N. L., LaBarrie, T. L., & Appio, L. M. (2010). Black undergraduates’ experiences with

perceived racial microaggressions in Predominately White colleges and universities. In

D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and

impact (pp. 25-57). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Wong, G., Derthick, A. O., David, E. J. R., Saw, A., & Okazaki, S. (2013). The what, the why,

and the how: A review of racial microaggressions research in psychology. Race and

Social Problems, 6, 181-200. doi: 10.1007/s12552-013-9107-9

Yosso. T., Smith. W. A., Ceja, M., & Solórzano, D. G. (2009). Critical race theory, racial

microaggressions, and campus racial climate for Latina/o undergraduates. Harvard

Educational Review, 79, 659-690.

Yost, M., & Gilmore, S. (2011). Assessing LGBTQ campus climate and creating change.

Journal of homosexuality, 58, 1330-1354. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2011.605744

Young, K., Anderson, M., & Stewart, S. (2014). Hierarchical microaggressions in higher

education. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 8(1), 61-71.

Zucchino, D. (2013, February 7). Duke fraternity that held party mocking Asians is suspended.

Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/07/nation/la-na-

nn-duke-fraternity-mocked-asians-suspended-20130207 149

APPENDIX A. SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Q1. Please consider this information carefully. Feel free to ask questions before making your decision whether or not to participate. You are free to withdraw from this study at any time by closing the survey. If you decide to stop participating in this study, there will be no penalty to you, and you will not lose any benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. Deciding to participate or not will not affect your relationship with ACPA or Bowling Green State University. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between microaggression and leadership practices for mid-level student affairs professionals. By agreeing to participate in this study, you will complete the questions contained in this survey, lasting no more than 15 minutes. All information in this study is strictly anonymous. The results of this study will be used for dissertation research in completion of the requirements for the doctoral higher education administration program at Bowling Green State University. Only LaDonna Moore will have access to the individual data. The data for this project will be stored in a password- protected file on a password-protected computer. Any discomfort you might experience while completing the survey should be no more than typically experienced during a small group discussion. If you are not comfortable with the questions and wish to discontinue participation in the study, you will be free to exit the survey without penalty. The potential benefits of your participation include the opportunity to reflect on your experiences within higher education and generate new knowledge on microaggression as well as mid-level student affairs professionals and leadership practices. You will not be compensated for your participation. Questions and Contacts: For questions or concerns about the study, you may contact LaDonna Moore at [email protected] or (832) 842-2102. Additionally, you may contact the faculty advisor for this research project, Dr. Dafina-Lazarus Stewart at [email protected] or 419-372-6876 with questions regarding this study as well. You may also contact Bowling Green State University’s Office of Research Compliance at [email protected] or (419) 372-7716 for questions on participants’ rights. I have been informed of the purposes, procedures, risks and benefits of this study. I have had the opportunity to have all my questions answered and I have been informed that my participation is completely voluntary. Completing and submitting this survey indicates consent to participate. By selecting yes, I agree to participate in this research.

 Yes (1)  No (2) If Yes Is Selected, Then Skip To "Microaggressions are the everyday ve...”. If No Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey

150

Q2. "Microaggressions are the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, which communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership" (Sue, 2010, p. 3). Several examples of microaggression would include the following: A faculty member who is a person of color being mistaken for a janitorial staff member. The use of the pronoun "he" to refer to all individuals. A woman experiencing whistles or "catcalls" when walking across a college campus. I have experienced microaggression within my work environment.

Yes (1) No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey

Q3. Please indicate how often you have experienced the following type(s) of microaggression within the last 3 months:

Never (1) Less than Once a 2-3 Times Once a 2-3 Times Daily (8) Once a Month (4) per Month Week (6) per Week Month (3) (5) (7) Racial (1) Religious/Worldview

Identification (2) Sex (3) Sexual Orientation

(4) Socioeconomic

Status (5) Other (6)

151

Q4. Microassaults are a form of microaggression that include conscious behaviors, either subtle or explicit, and represent racially, gendered, or sexually oriented biased attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors (Sue, 2010).Examples of microassaults would include the following: being called a racial epithet or slur; the promotion of a heterosexual employee over an individual who is gay; or finding a noose hung on an office door.

Never (1) Less than Once a 2-3 Times Once a 2-3 Times Daily (7) Once a Month (3) per Month Week (5) per Week Month (2) (4) (6) Please indicate how often you have experienced microassaults as described above within the last 3 months: (4)

Q5. Microinsults are unconscious, demeaning and insulting messages that convey rudeness and insensitivity to someone from a marginalized background (Sue, 2010). Examples of microinsults would include the following: an Asian American student being asked to assist with Math or Science homework by a fellow classmate; a female physician being mistaken for a nurse within a hospital; or an African American individual being followed around a department store.

Never (1) Less than Once a 2-3 Times Once a 2-3 Times Daily (7) once a Month (3) per Month Week (5) per Week month (2) (4) (6) Please indicate how often you have experienced microinsults

as described above within the last 3 months: (1)

152

Q6. Microinvalidations are environmental or interpersonal cues that negate, nullify, or exclude the psychological thoughts, feelings, beliefs and experiences of someone who is being targeted (Sue, 2010).Examples of microinvalidations would include the following: a Hispanic or Latino individual is told, "If you don't like it here, go back to Mexico"; or when the statement, "I'm not homophobic, I have a gay friend" is made.

Never (1) Less than Once a 2-3 Times Once a 2-3 Times Daily (7) once a Month (3) per Month Week (5) per Week Month (2) (4) (6) Please indicate how often you have experienced microinvalidations as described above within the last 3 months: (1)

Q7. Please indicate how often you have experienced microaggression from the following people within the last 3 months:

Never (1) Less than Once a 2-3 Times Once a 2-3 Times Daily (7) once a Month (3) per Month Week (5) per Week Month (2) (4) (6) Co-workers

(1) Supervisor

(2) Students

(3) People external to my institution (4)

Q8. Leaders who Model the Way establish principles concerning the way people (constituents, peers, colleagues, and customers) should be treated and the way goals should be pursued. When leaders are modeling the way, they are effectively demonstrating the behaviors that they expect of followers (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Leaders display behaviors associated with modeling the way when they “follow through on their promises and commitments and affirm the common values they share with others” (Northouse, 2013, p. 198). 153

Never (1) Less than Once a 2-3 Times Once a 2-3 Times Daily (7) Once a Month (3) per Month Week (5) per Week Month (2) (4) (6) Please indicate how often you have Modeled the Way within the last 3 months: (1)

Q9. Leaders who Inspire a Shared Vision work to create an ideal and unique image of what an organization can become. These individuals imagine opportunities, possess the desire to make these things happen, and then share this vision with others (Kouzes & Posner, 2002).

Never (1) Less than Once a 2-3 Times Once a 2-3 Times Daily (7) Once a Month (3) per Month Week (5) per Week Month (2) (4) (6) Please indicate how often you have Inspired a

Shared Vision within the last 3 months: (1)

Q10. Leaders who Challenge the Process search for opportunities and innovative ways to improve an organization. This exemplary practice of leadership refers to a leader’s ability to object to the way in which existing systems prevent growth and change (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Leaders who challenge the process must search for opportunities and experiment as well as take risks. 154

Never (1) Less than Once a 2-3 Times Once a 2-3 Times Daily (7) Once a Month (3) per Month Week (5) per Week Month (2) (4) (6) Please indicate how often you have Challenged the Process within the last 3 months: (1)

Q11. Leaders who Enable Others to Act foster collaboration, work to build spirited teams, and actively involve others. These individuals strive to create an atmosphere of trust and human dignity, making others feel capable and powerful. Leaders who enable others to act make others feel capable, and do not hoard the power they have (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). The two ideals behind this leadership practice are fostering collaboration and strengthening others.

Never (1) Less than Once a 2-3 Times Once a 2-3 Times Daily (7) Once a Month (3) per Month Week (5) per Week Month (2) (4) (6) Please indicate how often you have Enabled Others to Act within the last 3 months: (4)

Q12. Leaders who Encourage the Heart work to keep hope and determination alive by recognizing contributions that individuals make. These individuals reward members for their efforts and celebrate accomplishments. They make people feel like heroes. A leader who encourages the heart displays actions that reflect care, encouragement, and the uplifting of followers’ spirits. In order to exhibit this practice, it is important for leaders to recognize contributions that followers make to the organization as well as celebrate values and victories (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). 155

Never (1) Less than Once a 2-3 Times Once a 2-3 Times Daily (7) Once a Month (3) per Month Week (5) per Week Month (2) (4) (6) Please indicate how often you have Encouraged the Heart within the last 3 months: (1)

Q13, Please provide your current job title.

Q14. Please indicate your current status of employment in higher education.

Full-time (i.e. 40 hours or more per week) (1) Part-time (i.e. less than 40 hours per week) (2)

156

Q15. Please indicate the number of years you have been employed in higher education.

1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 8 (8) 9 (9) 10 (10) 11 (11) 12 (12) 13 (13) 14 (14) 15 (15) 16 (16) 17 (17) 18 (18) 19 (19) 20 (20) 21 (21) 22 (22) 23 (23) 24 (24) 25 (25) 26 (26) 27 (27) 28 (28) 29 (29) 30+ (30)

157

Q16. In what functional area are you employed (Select all that apply)?

Academic Advising (1) Admissions (2) Career Services (3) Counseling and Psychological Services (4) Disability Services (5) Financial Aid (6) Greek Affairs (7) International Student Affairs (8) Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Services (9) Multicultural Affairs (10) Orientation (11) Recreation and Wellness (12) Residence Life and Housing (13) Service Learning (14) Student Activities (15) Student Conduct (16) Student Leadership (17) Other (18) ______

158

Q17. Please indicate the number of full-time (i.e., 35 hours per week or more) professional employees that you supervise.

159

Q18. Please indicate the institutional control of your current institution:

Private, for-profit (1) Private, not-for-profit (2) Public (3)

Q19. Please indicate the primary degree-level of your current institution:

2-year (i.e., primarily Associate degrees) (1) 4-year (i.e., primarily Bachelor's degrees) (2)

Q20. What is the size of the total student body at your institution of employment?

0-999 (1) 1000-4999 (2) 5000-9999 (3) 10,000-14,999 (4) 15,000-19,999 (5) 20,000-24,999 (6) 25,000-29,999 (7) 30,000-34,999 (8) 35,000-39,999 (9) 40,000+ (10)

Q21. What is the highest level of education that you have completed?

High School Diploma or GED (1) Some college but less than a bachelor's degree (2) Bachelor's degree (i.e., B.A., B.S., etc.) (3) Master's degree (i.e., M.A., M.Ed., M.S., etc.) (4) Doctoral or professional degree (i.e., Ph.D., Ed.D.,J.D.,M.D., etc.) (5)

Q22. How old are you?

Under 18 (1) 18-23 (2) 24-29 (3) 30-35 (4) 36-41 (5) 42-47 (6) 48-53 (7) 160

54-59 (8) 60-65 (9) 66 or older (10)

Q23. What is your racial/ethnic background? Please select all that apply.

American Indian/Alaskan Native (1) Asian American/Pacific Islander (2) Black/African American (3) Latino/Hispanic (4) Middle Eastern/Arab (5) White/Caucasian (6) Other (7) ______

Q24. What is your religious/worldview identification?

Baptist (1) Buddhist (2) Church of Christ (3) Eastern Orthodox (4) Episcopalian (5) Hindu (6) Jewish (7) LDS (Mormon) (8) Lutheran (9) Methodist (10) Muslim (11) Presbyterian (12) Quaker (13) Roman Catholic (14) Seventh Day Adventist (15) Unitarian/Universalist (16) United Church of Christ/Congregational (17) Other Christian (18) ______Other Religion (19) ______None (20)

161

Q25. What is your gender?

Man (1) Transgender (2) Woman (3) Not Listed (4) ______

Q26. What is your sexual orientation?

Asexual (6) Bisexual (1) Gay (2) Heterosexual (3) Lesbian (4) Questioning or unsure (5) Not Listed (7) ______

Q27. Are you a person with a disability?

Yes (1) No (2) If Yes Is Selected, Then Skip To Please mark all that apply.If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Please describe your experience(s) wi...

Q28 How would you categorize your disability?

Learning (3) Mobility (2) Neurological (4) Psychological (6) Sensory (i.e. vision or hearing) (1) Not Listed (5) ______

Q29. Please describe your experience(s) with microaggression (Please do not include any identifying information about yourself, others, or your department/institution, as any such information will not be used for this study).

Q30. Please describe how microaggression has affected your work experience (Please do not include any identifying information about yourself, others, or your department/institution, as any such information will not be used for this study). 162

APPENDIX B. PARTICIPANT INVITATION

From: Sent: August 31, 2015 To: [email protected] Subject: Mid-level Student Affairs Professional Survey

Dear ACPA member,

I am writing to ask for your participation in a survey that I am conducting for my dissertation as a Ph.D. candidate at Bowling Green State University (BGSU). I am asking mid-level student affairs professionals, like you, to reflect on your experiences with microaggression, which is subtle discrimination.

Your responses to this survey are very important and will help in understanding mid-level professionals’ exposure to microaggression. The best way to learn about this is by asking professionals about their experiences. This is a short survey and should take no more than 15 minutes to complete. Please enter the link below into your web browser to go to the survey website.

Survey link: https://bgsuedhd.az1.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9SIrZc2MdJnOdeJ

Your participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and all of your responses will be kept anonymous. No personally identifiable information will be associated with your responses in any reports of this data.

I appreciate your time and consideration in completing the survey. Thank you for your participation! It is only through the help of mid-level professionals like you that we can learn more and use this information to help create more inclusive environments within higher education.

If you have questions about this study, please contact:

Research Student: Faculty Sponsor: LaDonna Moore Dr. Dafina-Lazarus Stewart Doctoral Candidate, Higher Education Administration Associate Professor Bowling Green State University Bowling Green State University Phone: (832) 842-2102 Phone: (419) 372-7382 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Sincerely, LaDonna Moore

163

APPENDIX C. PARTICIPANT INVITATION REMINDER

From: Sent: September 7, 2015 To: [email protected] Subject: Mid-Level Student Affairs Professional Survey

Dear ACPA member,

Recently, you were sent an email asking you to respond to a very brief survey about your experience with microaggression. The survey is short and should take less than 15 minutes to complete.

If you have already completed the survey, I would like to thank you for your time, as your response will be helpful in understanding the experience of mid-level student affairs professionals! If you have not yet had the opportunity to complete the survey, I would like to urge you to take a couple of minutes to do so. Please select the link below, or enter the link into your web browser to go to the survey website.

Survey link: https://bgsuedhd.az1.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9SIrZc2MdJnOdeJ

Thank you for your help! This survey is important for gathering information to help create more inclusive environments for you and your fellow mid-level professionals.

If you have questions about this study, please contact:

Sincerely,

LaDonna Moore 164

APPENDIX D. HSRB APPROVAL LETTER

DATE: July 31, 2015

TO: LaDonna Moore, PhD FROM: Bowling Green State University Human Subjects Review Board

PROJECT TITLE: [756376-2] The Relationship between Experiences with Microaggression and Leadership Practices of Mid-Level Student Affairs Professionals SUBMISSION TYPE: Revision

ACTION: DETERMINATION OF EXEMPT STATUS DECISION DATE: July 30, 2015

REVIEW CATEGORY: Exemption category # 2

Thank you for your submission of Revision materials for this project. The Bowling Green State University Human Subjects Review Board has determined this project is exempt from IRB review according to federal regulations AND that the proposed research has met the principles outlined in the Belmont Report. You may now begin the research activities.

Note that an amendment may not be made to exempt research because of the possibility that proposed changes may change the research in such a way that it is no longer meets the criteria for exemption. A new application must be submitted and reviewed prior to modifying the research activity, unless the researcher believes that the change must be made to prevent harm to participants. In these cases, the Office of Research Compliance must be notified as soon as practicable.

We will retain a copy of this correspondence within our records.

If you have any questions, please contact Kristin Hagemyer at 419-372-7716 or [email protected]. Please include your project title and reference number in all correspondence with this committee.

This letter has been electronically signed in accordance with all applicable regulations, and a copy is retained within Bowling Green State University Human Subjects Review Board's records.

- 1 - Generated on IRBNet