The Role of Theoretical Groundings in Diversity Training: a Mixed Methods Case Study of a University Diversity Conference

Home , Black Power movement

The Role of Theoretical Groundings in Diversity Training: A Mixed Methods Case Study of a

University Diversity Conference

A dissertation submitted to the

Graduate School

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

PhD in Educational Studies

in the School of Education

of the College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services

Karla A. Gacasan

B.S., University of Cincinnati, 2003

M.A., University of Cincinnati, 2008

Committee Chair: Dr. Holly Johnson

Abstract

With over $200 million in annual spending by American organizations on diversity training, diversity conferences are increasingly becoming vehicles for information exchange and discussion on best practices in terms of diversity issues. Despite the substantial allocation to diversity training and diversity programs, there remains a gap in identifying where theoretical groundings fit in the dynamic of diversity, and particularly in the development and implementation of diversity training.

This case study was an investigation into the roles theoretical groundings played in diversity training, particularly during the design, development and implementation of a university diversity conference. Using a mixed methods approach, the research compared and contrasted theoretical groundings that diversity practitioners valued in a personal and professional capacity with the proposals they submitted to present at a diversity conference.

Contexts from multiple perspectives – the university itself, the socio-cultural milieu of the university, the region and the country, and a dichotomy between personal and professional beliefs held significant influence on this diversity conference, and what types of sessions were accepted and presented at the event.

This study affirmed that diversity consists of numerous layers, and involves many actors

– practitioners, organizations, participants and researchers. This myriad of components and elements corresponds to different implications for different points of view, but focuses on how the role of theoretical groundings in diversity training bridges the gap between the theory and practice.

This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Evelyn Beierly Arbis Gacasan and

Balmelgaspar “Gacs” Gacasan. I am who I am because you honored my freedom to be.

Acknowledgements

In 2010, when I began my journey into this doctoral program, I jokingly said to my sister,

Yvie, when she asked me why I was doing this, “Because I am an accidental tourist in my own life.” Many who have taken a similar path often claim that they could not have achieved their degree without the help of others. I completely agree. To those of whom I am sincerely grateful for joining me on this accidental tour:

My doctoral committee, also known as my academic dream team – Team Gacasan – for this adventure would have not been existent without them.

Dr. Holly Johnson, Chair. You were the calm to my storm. Thank you so much for your guidance, and knowing when to pull me back when I needed to, and for encouraging me to go full-throttle when it was time. I could not be more appreciative and thankful for your wisdom.

Dr. Vicki Plano Clark, Committee Member. You saw in me the researcher that I could not see. Thank you for patiently waiting for me to arrive at my own realizations, and cheering during a-ha moments, which you already knew were there! I am indebted to your contribution in my growth as a scholar.

Dr. Edson Cabalfin, Committee Member. Edson, you have inspired me in so many ways.

Your counsel, your insights, and your friendship are treasures that I hold near and dear. Thank you for being with me every step of the way.

Dr. Marvin J. Berlowitz, Committee Member and Advisor. Your mentorship, tutelage, and ability to challenge my thinking will forever be the hallmark of my scholarship. You surpass my attempt of description – my academic parent, my beloved professor… the list is long. Dr. B, you sir, are my revolutionary vanguard.

My friends, also known as Karla’s Tribe – There are many of you out there, and live in every corner of this globe. Near and far, you have hung in there with me, sharing in my tears and laughter, but most of all, providing me the comfort, encouragement and love that fueled me when my engine was running on fumes.

Doug Stevens, The Other Pea in My Pod. I love you. I could not have asked for a better friend, cohort, and partner in crime.

Peggy Shannon-Baker, My Angel and Spirit Sister. You pointed the way, accidental or not. This dissertation would not have been possible at all without you!

Delores Blackwell. HI DELORES! The adventure continues!

The Guys. In alphabetical order, because you are all my favorite – Bruce, Craig, Dom,

Eric, George, John, Michael, and Tim, thank you for allowing me my “safe space” and being a built-in pilot group for my ideas, my social experiments, and cooking therapy. I have no words, other than “giggity.”

Finally, I would like to acknowledge my family – the village that raised me, and has nurtured my soul. To all my cousins –there are so many of you that it would take another chapter to list the entire tree, but to all of you, I thank you, for taking part in shaping the person who I am today. My grandparents, Clara and Clemente Arbis, and Corazon and Genaro

Gacasan. In loving memory. I would not be here if not for you. Irvin and James, my reluctant muses. Thank you for patiently co-signing on my shenanigans and ignoring my 3am text messages. Jimma, Joanne, Jessica, Claire, Kits, Alex, Nic, Tita Helen, Frank and Joe, you were my biggest cheerleaders. My aunts and uncles, and contributory parents, most especially Tita

Melly, and Tita Connie, thank you for being my mothers-on-standby! Finally, in memoriam –

iii

Tito Ludy, Tito Noli, and Tita Betty. Your spirits march on in how I live and love today. My dearest family, I love you all so much!

Samantha Gacasan, The Child of My Heart. I am at my best because you give me the motivation to be my best for you. I love you, Paggle Monkey. Best. Niece. Ever.

Kirk Gacasan, we have an unconditional love and bond that has been tested, will continue to be tested, but will never be broken. I am fortunate to have you as my big brother.

Yvie Gacasan, this degree is as much yours, if not more, than it is mine. You held many roles during this rollercoaster ride – statistician, unofficial committee member, editor, idea generator, visual artist, sounding board, therapist, audience, participant, but most importantly, you were the glue that held me together! Truly – I could not have done this without you by my side. It was an amazing ride, wasn’t it? Next time, I’m riding shotgun! Thank you for being my best friend and favorite sister. I love you!

Last but not least, I would like to thank my parents, Evelyn Beierly Arbis Gacasan and

Balmelgaspar “Gacs” Gacasan. You both recognized my love and passion for learning before I did, and have been my teachers from day one.

Pops, your guidance continues beyond time and space. I miss you dearly, but am comforted in knowing that you have been with me every step of the way.

Mom, this is all yours. All that I have done, and will continue to do, is the fruit of your hard work, dedication, your commitment, and love for me. You, my Queen Mother, are my most important theoretical grounding.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Purpose of the Study 3

Research Questions 4

Limitations and Delimitations 5

Definition of Terms 5

Theoretical Framework 8

Significance of the Study 11

Chapter 2: Review of Literature 13

Race, Gender, and Class: Dialectic Interpretation versus 13

Identity Politics

Implications for the Development of Anti-Racist Pedagogy 19

and Diversity Training

Conclusion 22

Chapter 3: Methodology 25

Research Design 25

Role as a Researcher 31

Gaining Access and Control 32

Participants 34

Data Collection 35

Data Management 49

Data Analysis 50

Trustworthiness 57

Validity 59

Conclusion 59

Chapter 4: Findings 61

The Diversity Conference: Through the Eyes of the 61

Committee

Proposal Submissions: Setting the Landscape 64

Presenter Surveys and Proposal Submissions: A Similar 66

Landscape

Experiencing the Diversity Conference 69

Theoretical Groundings and the Roles They Play: An 76

Insider’s View

The Relationships: Race, Gender, Class, and Religion 86

Overall Case Study Findings 90

Conclusion 92

Chapter 5: Conclusion and Implications

Answering the Questions 94

Implications of the Research 97

Recommendations 99

Limitations of the Study 100

Areas for Future Studies 100

Conclusion 101

References 103

Appendices 114

Appendix A – Survey to Presenters 119

Appendix B – Email Invitation to Presenters to Participate 119

Appendix C – Interview Questions for Diversity Committee 120

Appendix D – Interview Questions for Presenters 121

Appendix E – Interview Questions for Attendees 122

Appendix F – Participant Consent Form 123

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Research Design Theoretical Premise 11

Figure 2. Overall Research Design 27

Figure 3. Case Selection Protocol 41

Figure 4. Case Study Analysis 53

Figure 5. Emerging Themes Word Cloud 55

Figure 6. Mixing and Analysis Process 56

Figure 7. Diversity Conference Proposals 66

Figure 8. Presenter Self-Identified Theoretical Grounding vs.

Content Analysis 67

Table 1. Data Collection Strategies 30

Table 2. Timeline and Description of Data Collection 37

Table 3. Selected Sessions for Observations 42

Table 4a. Pre-determined Categories 44

Table 4b. Emerging Themes 45

vii

Table 4c. Emerging Sub-Themes 45

Table 5. Session A Joint Display 72

Table 6. Session B Joint Display 73

Table 7. Session D Joint Display 74

Table 8. Session H Joint Display 75

viii

Chapter 1: Introduction

“Diversity is not negotiable.” ~ Dr. Marian Spencer (2014)

Organizations, whether in private industry or not-for profit, in some shape or fashion, conduct diversity training for employees. As a human resources practitioner, I have been exposed to various forms of diversity training. Learning objectives, at a glance, were often clear

– to address discrimination, whether against race and ethnicity, gender, age, or sexuality, or to build a culture of inclusion and heighten employees’ awareness of differences amongst each other. Some training focused on redirecting behavior such as sexual harassment. Despite having either implemented diversity training, or have been a recipient of diversity training, I’ve occasionally speculated on what the true intent of diversity training actually was.

Diversity training has been developing and evolving in the United States since the civil rights movement, and primarily for compliance with government mandates and antidiscrimination legislation (Kelly & Dobbin, 1998; Sleeter & Stillman, 2005). While most organizations view training as an integral part of operations and an important component of company vision, mission and values, the main goal for administration of such training still remains compliance (Ahmed, 2012; Chen, 2014; Sleeter & Stillman, 2005; Yang & Konrad,

2011). Because of this need, human resource management practitioners have undertaken the task of governing diversity training and education, while concurrently embedding this element of human resources management within strategic business models (Watson, Spoonley & Fitzgerald,

2009).

According to Vedantam (2008), American businesses earmark between $200 million to

$300 million annually on diversity training. Diversity is such a broad concept, and as a result, a wide berth of topics falls under this umbrella of training. Consequently, courses and instruction

are as varied. Based on the intent or need of an organization, diversity training may be aimed at increasing employees’ cultural awareness, knowledge and skills in order to protect the institution against civil rights violations, to promote inclusion, or to promote management of differences

(Chrobot-Mason & Ruderman, 2004).

However, there is a void in the discussion that delves into where theory – particularly formal social theories such as Feminist Theory, Marxist Theory, and Critical Race Theory, fit in the dynamic of diversity training. Do diversity training practitioners use theoretical groundings in their curricula design? Are the contents of diversity training based on personal or professional beliefs? How do these beliefs ultimately influence the development and the trajectory of diversity training goals?

There is ample research that investigates why organizations engage in diversity training from a practical standpoint, emphasizing what diversity training brings to the table as part of business strategies and goals. These inquiries offer arguments for the management of diversity, and couch diversity training as a business tool that can be quantified in terms of improved attrition rates, employee recruitment and retention, and increased employee productivity

(Cheese, 2010; Chrobot-Mason & Ruderman, 2004; Scott, Heathcote, & Gruman, 2011; Soltani,

2010; Thomas, 2011; Wojcik, 2012). Additionally, there is also comprehensive research that focus on the content of training curricula in terms of addressing specific needs for diversity training, what training objectives should be, and designs that target a specific audience (Dogra,

Giordano, & France, 2007; Gavino, Eber, & Bell, 2010; Roberson, Kulik, & Pepper, 2001; Syed

& Kramar, 2009; Tomlinson-Clark, 2000). The more philosophical goal of diversity training, on the other hand, intends to reduce and eliminate behaviors that devalue others. This objective then lends itself to training that uses anti-racist pedagogy that explains and counteracts the

persistence and impact of discrimination such as racism, gender bias, and micro-aggression

(Bernstein, Domingo & Solis, 2012; Zembylas, 2014).

These goals of diversity training, therefore, accentuate my assumption and argument that diversity training should have curricula that is built upon an explicit theoretical grounding.

However, there is a lack of scholarship that addresses the content of diversity training deployed that examines the theoretical underpinnings of diversity training, particularly in a conference setting (Chesler & Moldenhauer-Salazar, 1998; Davis, et al., 1999; Kelly & Dobbin, 1998).

Current scholarship has more than adequately answered the questions of why organizations engage in diversity training (Gavino, Eber & Bell, 2010), what to address during the training

(Harper, 2012; Jones, 2006; Scott, Heathcote, & Gruman, 2011), and who to train (Cheese, 2010;

Dunn, Kirova, Cooley & Ogilvie, 2009). While the practical goals of diversity training are apparent, there is little to no empirical evidence indicating whether practitioners use theoretical groundings in their designs, use theories that fall in line or contradict their personal beliefs and mental models, or reflect any formal theoretical foundations at all. Additionally, research has not sufficiently explored how a diversity training practitioner’s worldviews – their mental models – influence the development and implementation of training curricula.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this mixed methods case study is to explore the role of theoretical groundings in the development, design, and implementation of a university diversity conference.

This study is not intended to be a comprehensive inquiry into the theoretical complexity of training. Instead, it addresses a recognizable opportunity for research that explores what the roles of theoretical groundings play as practitioners develop diversity training curricula, particularly in the areas of race, gender and class. It is also relevant to identify what the

implications are for these developments. This research focuses on an annual diversity conference hosted by a Research-1 university in the Midwest. Session topics offered during the conference fit within a wide range of diversity issues, and did not target a specific audience.

Having a variety of topics presented makes the conference an ideal context to explore the theoretical groundings that diversity practitioners use when designing, proposing, and presenting a session.

Research Questions

To be able to explore what role theoretical groundings play in a diversity conference, as well as investigate the how diversity practitioners define and describe this role when they present at a university diversity conference, this study was guided by the following research questions:

1. What role do theoretical groundings play in the development, design, and implementation

of a university diversity conference?

a. How do presenters define theoretical groundings in diversity training curricula?

b. How do presenters describe the role of their theoretical groundings in the sessions

they developed, proposed, and presented at the conference?

c. What do participants note about the theoretical groundings in the sessions they

attended?

2. What differences exist with respect to theoretical groundings that presenters identify in

their personal and professional points of view, and in terms of sessions they proposed at a

university diversity conference?

3. What contexts surrounding the roles of theoretical groundings explain the relative

prevalence of different session topics in a university diversity conference?

These questions seek to answer, identify, and perhaps further understand how theory, in terms of diversity training, influences and bridges the gap with practice. Examining a diversity conference within the setting of higher education provides rich data and context, thereby allowing a thoughtful examination of what influences the sessions that are proposed, accepted and presented at a diversity conference at a university.

Limitations and Delimitations

The phenomenon being studied – the role of theoretical groundings in diversity training –

could not be directly observable or measurable as a single event, and therefore a mixed

methods case study was used for this design. The research focused on a single conference,

and the study was confined to a diversity conference hosted by a Research-1 university in the

Midwest. Data gathered for the study centered on the 2014 conference. The depth and detail

of proposal submissions were not uniform. Some submissions included greater details such

as learning objectives and session materials, while others only contained abstracts.

Definition of Terms

The following definitions were used during the course of this research study. It is important to note that this is not an exhaustive list, but includes terms that are both substantive and methodological which are germane to the research design’s focus.

Class. A social stratum sharing basic economic, political, or cultural characteristics, and having the same social position (Merriam-Webster, 2014).

Conference. Conference is defined as a formal event where individuals gather to discuss a specific topic or concern, and usually to exchange information (Merriam-Webster, 2014).

Dialectical relationships. Taken from Engels (1886/2003) in combination with Rawlins

(1989), dialectical relationships in terms of the relationships between race, gender, and class –

this term suggests that each construct cannot be understood in isolation, and are intrinsically related to each other. This definition and interpretation aims to understand things concretely in all their movement, change and unity with all sides, whether opposite or contradictory, as a whole.

Diversity. Consistent with the diversity conference’s definition of diversity, for the purpose of this research, the term is defined as commonly recognized considerations such as race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability status, socioeconomic status, gender identity and expression, sexual identity, sexual orientation, religion, and regional or national origin.

Diversity training. Training, in and of itself, is a multiplex concept. It may be defined as a delivery system to educate individuals with new skills or perhaps as an approach to focus on and perhaps affect behavior (Holvino, Ferdman, & Merrill-Sands, 2004). For this research study, diversity training adopts a broader definition to encompass strategies that promote awareness, address personal and interpersonal behavior, and education regarding the extensive subject of diversity in general. In particular, and as it relates to this study and anti-racist pedagogy, diversity training refers to the delivery of education that aims to reduce or eradicate behaviors that discriminate and devalue individuals based on characteristics such as race, gender and class.

Diversity training practitioners. Individuals who either develop or design training curricula, or implement or facilitate diversity training, regardless of delivery strategies. Training curricula may include, but are not limited to in-person and text-based methods.

Gender. The state of being male, female, or other distinction an individual identifies with, typically used with reference so social and cultural differences rather than biological ones

(Merriam-Webster, 2014).

Mental models. Taken from Rook (2013), “A concentrated, personally constructed, internal conception of external phenomena (historical, existing or projected), or experiences that affects how a person acts” (p. 42). Mental models, in this study, may also be interchanged with the term “worldview’, and refers to a diversity training practitioners’ personal and professional beliefs with respect to behaviors that explain, and dispel discriminatory behavior that disparages an individual’s identity such as race, gender, and class.

Presenters. Presenters refer to individuals whose proposals were accepted, and successfully presented sessions at a diversity conference hosted by a university. Diversity training practitioners are defined as individuals who either formally belong within a human resources discipline, or as a practice, engage in diversity training. Throughout this study, these individuals may be referred to as presenters, specifically and may also be described as a diversity training practitioner.

Race. Refers to a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. In the context of this research, the term is viewed as an arbitrary classification of individuals based on heredity, culture, and typically physical characteristics such as skin color and ethnicity

(Merriam-Webster, 2014).

Sessions. Sessions refer to the presentations accepted and delivered at the diversity conference.

Session attendees. Within the context of this study, session attendees point towards those who attended the diversity conference. These individuals may also be referred to as session participants.

Theoretical grounding. For the purpose of this study, theoretical grounding is defined as a formal synthesis of insights that shapes a person’s philosophy or worldview, such as

Feminist Theory (Weedon, 1996) or Critical Race Theory (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012).

However, theoretical groundings also encompass ideas that do not carry formal labels. For example, feminist theory may be operationalized as the roles of women in society, while

Marxism could be understood as socio-economic differences and its influence on social order.

Case study. Defined by Yin, (2014), “Involves the study of a case within a real-life, contemporary context or setting.”

Mixed methods research. Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) write,

“Mixed methods research is a research design with philosophical assumptions as

well as methods of inquiry. As a methodology, it involves philosophical

assumptions that guide the direction of the collection and analysis and the mixture

of qualitative and quantitative approaches in many phases of the research process.

As a method, it focuses on collecting, analyzing, and mixing both quantitative and

qualitative data in a single study or series of studies. Its central premise is that the

use of quantitative and qualitative approaches, in combination, provides a better

understanding of research problems than either approach alone. (p.5)”

Mixed methods case study. Combining Yin (2014) and Creswell & Plano Clark’s

(2011) definition of case study and mixed methods research, a mixed methods case study is a research design that focuses on a specific event, such as a conference, to investigate a central phenomenon, using both qualitative and quantitative approaches in data collection and analysis.

The particular disposition of this approach is that findings from both qualitative and quantitative analyses are combined in the final analysis to provide a detailed, robust, and holistic view of the phenomenon being examined.

Theoretical Framework

This study is framed and informed by the Marxist Theory of Race (Bohmer, 1998;

Chang, 1985; Mack, 1963; Marx, 1867). By no means does this research attempt to explain and delve into specific theoretical frameworks, but instead, use theoretical groundings as a contextual basis to explore a diversity practitioner’s mindset when designing, proposing, and presenting diversity training for a conference. I will not present an exhaustive overview of class analysis that falls under the broad umbrella of Marxism, as the intent of this research is focused on analyzing the injustices of society, particularly within the context of American history, as it relates to diversity and diversity training. Instead, I will highlight the dialectic interpretation of the relationships of race, gender, and class using a Marxist lens in contrast to interpretations grounded in identity politics. This study focuses on race, gender, and class as these three constructs consistently form the basis of discussions regarding discrimination (Ehrke, Berthod, &

Steffens, 2014; Manoharan, Kolb, & Javier, 2014).

Central to the Marxist analysis of race, gender, and class, and drawing from Karl Marx’s

(1867) theory of dialectic materialism, one must consider the position, per Bohmer (2005), that capitalists – those who hold power – use racism to divide and rule the working class. Amidst what Marx (1867) describes as class struggle, the working class tends to be fragmented, and divided racially both in conditions and ideology (Bohmer, 2005; Chang, 1985; Perlo & Welty,

1996). Further to this argument, the dogma of false consciousness decreases the ability of workers to unite along racial lines, thereby struggles as a unified group for better wages, work conditions, and benefits.

Conversely, identity politics rests on the argument that persons, collectively or as individuals, demand recognition based on mutual characteristics or circumstance such as race, gender or sexual identity (Kruks, 2001; McIntosh, 1993; Omi & Winant, 1994). This

interpretation of the relationship of race, gender, and class is premised on the idea that marginalization stems from a categorical identification of likeness in oppression (Alcoff, 1997;

Cornell, 2000; Ericson, 2011).

Marx’s (1867) dialectic interpretation of the relationships of race, gender, and class is grounded in the law of internal contradictions – the foundation for class struggle that social relationships, political systems, and ideology form the superstructure for which the economic system forms the base; whereas identity politics grounds its interpretation in metaphysics, viewing race, gender, and class as discrete, isolated, and largely static phenomena (Brown, 1995;

Gergen, 1995).

These two interpretations – Marxist Theory of Race and Identity Politics – provide the lenses for my analysis of this research. Figure 1 represents a visual map of this study’s theoretical premise. A comparison of Marxist Theory of Race and Identity Politics as my theoretical framework guides my examination of diversity training in general, and the diversity conference in particular, while focusing on the dialectical relationships of race, gender, and class.

(See Figure 1). The purposeful view of these relationships using Marxism juxtaposed against identity politics assists in identifying and perhaps explaining the current state of diversity and diversity training as it relates to the use or non-use of formal social theoretical groundings in diversity training curricula.

Figure 1. Research Design Theoretical Premise

• RACE • GENDER • CLASS

Marxist Diversity Theory of Conference Race

Diversity Identity Training Politics

Significance of the Study

My goals for this study are very specific. As a human resources practitioner, I am exposed to a variety of diversity training. My aim is not to provide a “how-to” approach when designing curricula, but to investigate and understand how a diversity training practitioner arrives at a finished product. My personal impression is that while practitioners are clear on their objectives for a particular session, a good portion are not aware, or may not be able to articulate what the theoretical underpinnings are for their design, or are hesitant to use their personal theoretical groundings in a public setting, such as a diversity conference. This thought begs to question whether the content of diversity training curricula being disseminated in organizations, and ultimately, at diversity conferences, is positioned from the intent to eradicate discriminatory

behavior, or is it merely a veneer for compliance to government regulations or organizational policies?

Primarily, this study aims to benefit diversity work as a whole. The wide umbrella of diversity and diversity training reflects a wide variety of stakeholders, whether those who develop and implement diversity training, or those who are recipients of this training. While contributing to the body of knowledge in the area of diversity training, this research delves into mental models and theoretical groundings that explain the development and design of diversity training curricula. One, this research would provide practitioners a better understanding of their own theoretical stances when developing curricula, and perhaps an improved awareness of how their mental models influence training programs and materials. Two, this research would help inform decisions that diversity conference planners make in terms of what type of session proposals are invited, accepted, and presented at a diversity conference. Finally, this research would help identify what ownership the academic community holds in terms of research, and in terms of being at the forefront of leading the charge in offering knowledge and best practices with respect to diversity training and where theoretical groundings fit within that dynamic.

Chapter 2: Review of Literature

This review of literature presents a historical perspective of theoretical groundings in the development of diversity training in terms of the relationships between race, gender and class.

The goal of anti-racist pedagogy, and ultimately, diversity training, is to extinguish discriminatory behavior, whether towards race, gender, or class. The crux of this discussion, therefore, centers on the development of diversity training, and where anti-racist pedagogy belongs in the narrative of its developments.

The discussion primarily focuses on the contrasts between the dialectic interpretations of these relationships, and those whose interpretations are grounded in identity politics. The distinct differences between these discussions, set in the American historical context, provide the basis for the implications on the development of future diversity training curricula.

Race, Gender and Class: Dialectic Interpretation versus Identity Politics

Discourse regarding race, gender, and class is not a new phenomenon. The battle between collective identity and the origins of marginalized groups has been argued between those who interpret these relationships from a Marxist perspective and those who interpret these relationships through identity politics. This debate has existed and rehashed with every social movement, from women’s suffrage in the early 1900s, to racial segregation leading to the Civil

Rights Movement in the 1960s, to feminism in the 1970s, lesbian and gay movements in the

1980s, back to racial discourse in the last two Obama presidential campaigns, and the resurgence of women’s rights in terms of reproductive rights and pay equality, and legal recognition for same-sex marriage in the present times (Bernstein, 2005; Nicholson, 2010; Polletta & Jasper,

2001; Rozmarin, 2010). The dialectical relationships between race, gender and class in terms of marginalized constructs have been highly debated by scholars. Many within the academic

community have planted their stakes in the ground regarding the conflicting interpretation of these relationships, and I would submit that this discussion has even polarized specific groups within themselves. While these movements have cycled through history many times, the debate remains, and these relationships are still in question.

Historical Overview. Using the Civil Rights era as historical context, the parallel journey of anti-racist pedagogy development grounded in identity politics, and those through

Marxist leanings is evident. The inception of the Civil Rights Movement, before being identified as such, traces back to the Highlander Folk School. Myles Horton, the founder of the Highlander

Folk School was a labor leader, and the original intent of his organization was to “deal with the plight of poor whites in Appalachia, but with the advent of Brown v. Board of Education, the emphasis had shifted to civil rights” (Boyd, 2005, p. 42). The Highlander Folk School conducted workshops that trained for strategy in the struggle against racial segregation – strategies that catapulted several leaders into the limelight, becoming the names and faces of anti-racist struggles, such as Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King.

As the Civil Rights Movement gained momentum, another movement was taking shape –

Black Power. The Black Power movement also gave rise to its own brand of leaders such as

Malcom X, Stokely Carmichael and the Black Panthers. While the Black Power movement is often remembered for its militant posture, and at the same time its cultural and political countenance, the movement also shined a spotlight on socio-economic issues with respect to education, housing, and employment (Banner-Haley, 2009; Boyd, 2005; Peniel, 2009). Often referred to as the Civil Rights Movement’s ruthless twin (Peniel, 2009), the Black Power

Movement followed the same trajectory as the Civil Rights Movement, but told with a different narrative. Peniel (2009) writes, “Civil rights and Black Power share a common history, but their

stories are usually told separately: whereas the civil rights movement drew from the American democratic tradition, Black Power found kinship in ideas of anti-colonialism and Third World liberation movements” (p. 1007).

Nearing its peak and coming close to fruition, the Civil Rights Movement and the Black

Power Movement were poised to transform into an old, yet new struggle, stepping away from race as its main platform, but towards labor and class. It was also during this time in the 1950s that ushered the era of McCarthyism. Any medium dealing with race issues was labeled as

Communist propaganda and faced censorship (Robbins, 1994). Books, films, articles, and research were under scrutiny, and often under attack. Universities were not immune to the sweep, forcing “loyalty oaths” from faculty members in an effort to avoid being viewed as spies and subversives – legitimate enemies of the State (Breiman, 2002). As a result, scholars grounded in Marxist perspectives were investigated, and often times, arrested and forced to go underground.

Identity Politics. Taking into consideration this American historical perspective in the discourse of race, gender and class, and before fully understanding the crux of the debate between those who interpret these relationships from a Marxist perspective that emphasizes the dialectic relationship of these constructs, versus those whose interpretation is grounded in identity politics, identity politics must first be defined. There are many schools of thought when defining identity politics – group consciousness, culture, activism, form of politics (Bernstein,

2005; Brown, 1995; Gergen, 1995), but the term itself has yet to be absolutely determined.

According to Gergen (1995), identity politics is “a self-designated identity (group consciousness) that is instantiated by individual identities of its constituents” (p.1). Additionally, Brown (1995) argues that marginalization forms the basis for the culture of identity groups, while Bernstein

(2005) characterizes identity politics as a term to describe developments or social movements as varied as civil rights, women’s rights and separatist movements such as those in Canada and

Spain. One must consider whether these definitions successfully describe identity politics.

Polletta and Jasper (2001) submit that identity politics is used to fill in the gaps between resources mobilization and political process models. It is an easy label for collective movements of a group that act and protest. Polletta and Jasper (2001) assert, “Identity is appealing as an alternative to material incentives” (p. 284).

The thought is that individuals, when identified with a specific group or label, can garner the strength to fight the injustice against them. With this, I pose the following questions:

• If an Asian female aligns herself with other Asians, then will she hold the collective

power of her Asian identity to battle discrimination and oppression experienced as such?

• How would this strategy affect her as a female?

• If she aligns herself with a women’s right movement, then is she foregoing her identity as

an Asian?

Some scholars have adopted the thought of intersectionality to respond to these types of questions. Intersectionality poses that specific identities do not act independently of one another

(McCall, 2005). However, intersectionality, in an effort to address this complication, has also spurred much discussion on its effectiveness in attempting to resolve these concerns.

Carasthathis (2013) argues that “intersectionality, as a critical project, reveals politicized identity categories to be held together variously by tacit, unspoken, deliberate, and explicit acts of alignment, solidarity and exclusion, about which we must become more reflective and critical if mass organizing for social justice is to be effectively pursued” (p. 942). On the other hand, those

who challenge intersectionality argue that the idea itself unveils fragmentation amongst groups, versus fostering a united front against the oppressors (Butler, 1990; Ludvig, 2006). Per Ludvig,

The endlessness of differences seems to be a weak point in intersectional theory. The

approach starts to get blurred with questions that are often avoided in published work:

Who defines when, where, which and why particular differences are given differences

when others are not? (p. 247).

These questions on intersectionality, alongside opinions that groups and movements grounded in identity politics are fragmented, thereby weakened in their purpose, form the baseline for critics, especially when the issue of class is taken into consideration. Where does class fit in the relationships between race and gender? If, according to Brown (1995), marginalization is the catalyst in forming the culture of identity politics, then why is class not readily included in that realm? Why is class rarely considered, if considered at all, in the discussion? Even those who study and pursue the subject of intersectionality agree. As McCall

(2005) conceded, “In terms of subject matter, I took the emphasis on differences among women as a call to examine structural inequalities among women, especially among different classes of women, since much less attention is devoted to class than to race in the new literature on intersectionality” (p. 1788).

Dialectic Interpretation. Contemporary scholars who draw upon classical Marxist theories assert that class inequality shapes and drives exploitation and oppression (Cheliotis,

2010; Guo, 2012; Kroos, 2012; Tyler, 2011). Per Bernstein (2005), “Identities based on social rather than economic status are not seen as having institutional or economic aspects, and the intersections between class and status identities are ignored” (p. 49). The stance is that identity politics has been used to divert the trajectory of the class struggle narrative, therefore weakening

the collective strength of the poor working class against institutions and persons that hold the capital power. Despite these predications, there is still an underlying refusal to discuss the position of class when analyzing the relationships of race and gender as it pertains to movements against oppression. The idea that it is merely economics, and not identity, that forms the basis of marginalization only reinforces the stereotype of economic determination. While the argument that culture, viewed through race and gender, is secondary to where an individual belongs in terms of opportunity and advantage or disadvantage has merit, it does not sufficiently consider the tenets of Marxist Theory. The philosophical component of Marxist Theory examines the dialectic relationship among race, gender, and class, and the discussion on class is drawn from the political economy component of Marxist Theory in which class struggle is central (Marx,

1867; Marx & Engels, 1845).

Matusov and Smith (2012) attribute this resistance to the present American middle class’s lack of consciousness, and posit this as the barrier to the recognition of the socio-economic aspect of oppression and marginalization. They assert that the middle class today view the world between two choices, and has unknowingly validated the “black or white” logic of the Marxist opposition of the two antagonistic classes: capitalist vs. proletariat. Additionally, Lawson

(2012) submits that recent capitalist crises, experienced not only in the United States, but also in countries such as Argentina, South Africa, Canada and Thailand, whose economies held historically a strong or growing middle class, further contributes to this resistance in acknowledging class. Lawson (2012) defines these crises as “periods of struggle over social categories and boundaries that remake or solidify class distinctions” (p. 10). Lawson (2012) posits that the crises signal a shift in socio-spatial order. Those who belong in the center and upper branches of the middle class, and presumably make up the majority of the population in

today’s society hold a silent fear of dropping below the poverty line. This unspoken anxiety, whether conscious or unconscious, as Matusov and Smith (2012) and Lawson (2012) pose, is the major component to the debate, or lack thereof, regarding the interpretation of the relationships between race, gender and class. Breiman (2002) also suggests that this silence and self- censorship could be the direct result of the suppression of discourse during the McCarthy era.

Nicholson (2010) submits that the 2008 and 2012 Obama presidential campaigns were popularly centered on discussions of race and gender, thereby giving pundits the fuel to declare identity politics as dead and signaling an end to the debate. However, the debate remains stronger than ever, with an equal resistance to include class in the forum. In the realm of the academe, many publications and research exist, and continually emerge regarding the relationships between race and gender. However, there is still minimal empirical research being conducted on where class fits in the dialectic (Guo, 2012; Kroos, 2012; Lawson, 2012). There is much to be examined in this triad, and as Kroos (2012) writes, “analysis of the social psychology of the middle class should be the analysis of the superstructure of the system which cannot be understood without the comprehension of the base” (p. 330). As quoted in German Ideology,

Marx (1845) writes, “It is not man’s social consciousness which determines his social being as it is his social being which determines his social consciousness.” In other words, in order to understand the structure and thoughts of the middle class, one must understand the superstructure of the capitalist system.

Implications for the Development of Anti-Racist Pedagogy and Diversity Training

When addressing the complex issue of race, especially within the United States, historical contexts and conditions must be taken into consideration in an effort to understand the movement and progression of anti-racist pedagogy (Berlowitz & Jackson, 1994; Harper, 2012; Jones, 2006;

Loewen, 1996; McKnight & Chandler, 2012; Orfield & Lee, 2005). Given America’s history of slavery and segregation, the subject of race becomes an emotionally charged discussion, and as a result, the term “racism” is often masked behind other terms such as intolerance, exclusion, and alienation (Harper, 2012; Srivastava, 2005). Because of these substitutions, anti-racist pedagogy, in its purest sense, has become convoluted by other monikers – multi-culturalism, diversity education, equal opportunity engagement – the list continues. How do these variations affect teachings on racism? Ultimately, what then is anti-racist pedagogy? Why is there a resistance to a more comprehensive development of training curricula based in anti-racist pedagogy?

Dunn, Kirova, Cooley and Ogilvie (2009) use the term “intercultural inquiry” and define it as “the pursuit of increased awareness, sensitivity, and understanding with respect to racial and ethnic identities” (p. 534). Niemonen (2007) uses the term “antiracist education” versus “anti- racist pedagogy”, and writes, “antiracist education is understood as a set of pedagogical, curricular, and organizational strategies that hope to promote racial equality by identifying, then eliminating, white privilege” (p. 160). What is common throughout the various terminology and definitions of anti-racist pedagogy is that the goals are to inform and educate about racism, equality and inequality, and social justice to eradicate marginalization, oppression and discrimination (Aptheker, 1987; Freire, 1970).

Despite the historical trend of identifying racism, inequalities, and marginalization in education, and despite calls from the academic community to eliminate these problems, why are scholars still hesitant to address racism directly? Why hide behind “softer” terms? There is a careful negotiation when tiptoeing through the subjects of culture, identity, and politics, especially when considered alongside marginalization and oppression. Ambiguity seems to be at the core of many disciplines addressing race and racism, and there is almost a silent acceptance

of this inconclusiveness. Harper (2012) contends that it is a subconscious action of researchers to avoid using the term racism because a) they do not perceive themselves to be racist, or b) do not want to be perceived as racist. This subconscious minimization of racism, “exonerates them of any responsibility” (Harper, 2012, p. 11). Srivastava (2005) submits that the emotions that racism brings out in individuals, especially those who are white, are usually guilt, fear, and defensiveness. It is a human response to maintain a good moral identity. No one wants to be considered racist.

On the other hand, scholars engaging in anti-racist research using a Marxist lens do not hesitate to point out that the development of anti-racist pedagogy, or the resistance to these developments, are rooted in socioeconomic interpretations (Berlowitz & Jackson, 1994; Blazak,

1998; Lewis, 2012; Loewen, 1996; Freire, 1970, Storer et al., 2012). Blazak (1998), Kroos

(2012), and Rogers and Teixeira (1999) ascertain that it is the downward mobility of the middle class that is propelling and driving this resistance within the United States. The shift in the demographics of the traditional socio-spatial order of society and dominance of those who hold power is, at most times, an unarticulated source of concern, and may manifest in the form of opposition to anti-racist pedagogy (Cheliotis, 2010; Lawson, 2012). According to Cheliotis, “the power to inculcate and spread particular understandings of social divisions is directly analogous to symbolic capital, namely, the power of those who have obtained sufficient recognition to be able to impose recognition” (p. 140). Drawing from classic Marxism, it is the position of these scholars and researchers that the ruling class controls the means of production, and any ideas and thoughts they will have will be made in their own best interests (Kamenka, 1983). In not so many words, effective anti-racist pedagogy that is made available and directed at the working class will trigger recognition of false consciousness, and thereby triggering the proletariat

struggle against the capitalist. It is the thought that the conflict between the powerful and the subjugated, and the need for the capitalists to maintain the population of the working class is driving this resistance to eradicate false consciousness, and therefore, a resistance to anti-racist pedagogy. Freire (1970) further supports this argument, with his concept of “banking education”, and his position that students who simply absorb information given to them, without the application of critical thinking, is a genesis of oppression. He illustrates this educational philosophy based on the relationship of form and content – that the need for the empowerment of students liberates them from their oppressors.

What does this mean for the continued development of anti-racist pedagogy, and ultimately, diversity training curricula? Certainly, the ideas of racism and how it is being addressed through education provide the foundation for the discussion of curriculum development, educational reform and policy. Storer, et al. (2012) contend that, “while race continues to play an important role in educational inequalities in the United States, socioeconomic status and other demographic variables are also critical factors in explaining disparities in educational achievement” (p. 18). However, much like the words “race” and

“racism” are being avoided, “class” and “class struggle” have also been displaced. The term

“middle class” is used in place of “working class”, and “stratification” has replaced “class” and

“class struggle”.

Conclusion

If the goal of anti-racist pedagogy, and ultimately, diversity training is to eliminate oppression among marginalized groups, then the intertwining of the discussion of race, gender, and class must be at the forefront in the development of anti-racist pedagogy. Orfield and Lee

(2005) write,

Race is deeply and systematically linked to many forms of inequality in background,

treatment, expectations and opportunities. From an educational perspective, perhaps the

most important of those linkages is with the level of concentrated poverty in a school…

Segregation has never just been by race: segregation by race is systematically linked to

other forms of segregation, including segregation by socioeconomic status, by residential

location, and increasingly by language (p.5, 14).

The relationships between race, gender, and class cannot be ignored, and must be unequivocally addressed. Scholars and the academic community must find the courage to question whether the current state of anti-racist pedagogy and subsequently, the development of diversity training curricula, is being “dummied down”. Along the same lines, human resources and diversity training practitioners must become more aware and be bold enough to point out which programs are superficial in its attempts. Ultimately, the academe must be the revolutionary vanguards that will analyze, identify, and address the root cause of this trend. As Levin (2008) implores, “the quest for educational equity is a moral imperative for a society in which education is a crucial determinant of life chances” (p. 5).

So why is there a need for a study of theoretical groundings in diversity training?

Understanding the trajectory and historical narrative of the development of diversity training in the United States, and framed with a Marxist lens in comparison with identity politics, accentuates how the use of theoretical groundings influences the design and implementation of training. It is important to recognize that how practitioners view diversity in general, and diversity training, in particular, have significant impact on what is being taught in organizations, learning institutions, and ultimately, society at large. It has been demonstrated that important historical events and movements, such as the Civil Rights and McCarthy era, and attitudes of

practitioners, whether by personal choice, or by policy, politics, or economic climate, dictate and shape the trend of what is being taught. Exploring these different perspectives allow for a more palpable understanding of what diversity training truly is, and how the widely held goals of current training curricula being disseminated today could be better aligned with the veritable intent of diversity training.

While empirical research and scholarship is abundant with data and information regarding a need for diversity training, and what the training should cover, and who should be the recipients of diversity training, there is an opportunity to study and understand the goals of training as it relates to bridging the gap between theory and practice. Conducting a case study research of a university diversity conference allows for an in depth investigation of the role theoretical groundings play in diversity training. Using a variety of research approaches in its analyses, this study would provide strong evidence in its contribution to the body of knowledge regarding diversity in general, and diversity training, in particular. This literature review helps to position my case study and my assumption that theoretical perspectives should be taken into consideration when investigating the development, design, and implementation of diversity training curricula.

Chapter 3: Methodology

In this chapter, I discuss the methodology that I used in this study, including the research design, setting of the case, session selection, data sources, data collection and analysis procedures. The overall research question of this study was to explore what role theoretical groundings played in the development, design, and implementation of a university diversity conference. In particular, how did researchers define their theoretical groundings, and how did they describe the role of theoretical groundings in the design and development of the proposals they submitted to present at the conference? This study also sought to investigate what session attendees noted about the theoretical groundings in the sessions that they attended. In addition, this research hoped to gain further insight into what differences existed with respect to theoretical groundings presenters identified in their personal and professional points of view, and in terms of the sessions they proposed to present at the conference. Finally, this research also sought to understand what contexts explain the relative prevalence of different session topics in a university diversity conference.

Research Design

A mixed methods case study design (Creswell & Plano Clark’s 2011; Yin, 2014) was used for this research to investigate what role theoretical groundings played in a diversity conference hosted by a university. Combining Yin (2014) and Creswell & Plano Clark’s (2011) definition of case study and mixed methods research, a mixed methods case study is a research design that focuses on a specific event, such as a conference, to investigate a central phenomenon, using both qualitative and quantitative approaches in data collection and analysis.

What sets apart a mixed methods design from a purely qualitative or purely quantitative study is that findings from each strand of research approach are combined, or “mixed”, adding a layer of

analysis and perspective gleaned from the overall findings. Focusing on a diversity conference hosted by a Research-1 university in the Midwest, this model made use of gathering both qualitative and quantitative data at appropriate points of the study that represented the many components of a diversity conference, but paid particular attention to four sessions presented at the conference. A case study design for this study was most appropriate, as it allowed for and accentuated the detailed analysis of a limited number of events, such as sessions during the conference, and their relationships (Yin, 2014). This conference was a complex event, with many components operating in separate, yet associated levels of engagement. A case study design for this research, I would submit, was necessary, as the diversity conference consisted of multiple layers of perspectives and data – from the conference committee that planned the event, those presenting in the conference, and those attending them. Data from these perspectives, as well as from field observations, session proposals, and survey results helped to create amore robust picture and description of the case study. (See Figure 2 for an overview of the research design).

This study was qualitative in priority, while embedding quantitative approaches throughout the design. It made use of interviews with diversity conference committee members, field observations for these meetings and the diversity conference itself, interviews with presenters from the sessions chosen for observations, interviews with session attendees, and results from a survey administered to individuals whose proposals were accepted for presentation into the conference. Archived data included submission proposals from both the 2013 and 2014 conference, as well as rosters of presenters and conference attendees, and session evaluations.

Figure 2. Overall Research Design

Interviews Interviews with with Presenters Session Attendees N=5 N=5

Presenter Surveys Field Observations N=22

Interviews with Diversity Diversity Conference Archived Data Committee Conference N=3

I chose a diversity conference hosted by a Research-1 university in the Midwest as my case study, because its calls for proposals to present at the conference was not constrained to specific parameters or topics within the realm of diversity. The diversity conference committee, in its call for proposals, issued broad definitions and parameters in terms of proposal submissions, which allowed an approximation of freedom of proposal submissions topics. This format, therefore, allowed me to gather more robust and richer data when exploring for emerging themes about theoretical groundings in diversity training, as well as personal and professional theoretical underpinnings that diversity practitioners use in the development and design of curricula.

Rationale. Drawing from Creswell and Plano Clark’s (2011) definition of mixed methods research, the rationale for this mixed methods was that having both qualitative and quantitative approaches throughout the course of the design provided a more descriptive and illustrative view of the phenomenon that I was trying to investigate – in this case, the role theoretical groundings played in diversity training, particularly training conducted during a university diversity conference. Similar to Waysman and Savaya’s (1997) case study evaluation of a non-profit organization, this mixed methods model made the best use of the concurrent collection of qualitative and quantitative data, while embedding separate analyses for each data collection method into the overall analysis of the study. Using a purely qualitative or purely quantitative approach would have only provided a one-dimensional view of what occurred at the conference. For example, a content analysis by itself may only explain what the prevalent theoretical groundings were present in the proposal submissions. Having both qualitative and quantitative approaches further informed the case study, and allowed the design to undertake a deeper examination of the theoretical groundings, if any, that guided the diversity conference.

Considering the chosen operational definition of mixed methods for this study, and the resources available from the diversity conference, this case study approach was ideal in terms of timing – how the sequence of the data collection and analyses unfolded throughout the research; interaction – how each component of the design informed findings from each approach; integration – how both qualitative and quantitative findings were combined and used to further inform and understand the findings; and priority – in this case, where the quantitative data and subsequent analysis was embedded within the larger, quantitative design (Creswell, 2013;

Creswell, Klassen, Plano Clark & Smith, 2011; Hancock & Algozzine, 2011; Yin, 2014). For this research, a qualitative driven design supported by quantitative data and analysis made best

use of available resources from the 2014 diversity conference. Aside from the availability of both quantitative and qualitative data, this mixed methods inquiry, as Morse and Niehaus (2009) submit, “accessed some part of the phenomena of interest that cannot be accessed by the use of the first method alone” (p. 9). This combining for enhancement, as Bazeley and Kemp (2012) argue, “is directed toward enhancing rather than completing an image” (p. 59). This case study research design developed a holistic and meaningful inquiry of a real life event (Yin, 2014) with an emphasis on interpretation, and informed the research with both qualitative and quantitative findings.

Research paradigms. The challenge to this multiphase mixed methods study was to design and complete integrative analyses of the research strands. Did both qualitative and quantitative methods measure the same phenomenon? What if each set of results did not agree with one another? Sale, Lohfeld, and Brazil (2002) argue that methods based on different paradigms, as with qualitative and quantitative philosophies, do not study the same phenomena.

However, Sale et al. (2002) addressed this dialectic, arguing that approaches can be combined, despite the difference in research paradigms, if it is done to complement and enhance findings (p.

60).

Further to this discussion, many scholars have laid to rest the argument of the paradigm debate (Jones & Kennedy, 2011; Greene, 2007; Tashakkori & Creswell, 2007; Teddlie

&Tashakkori, 2009). It is no longer a question of which paradigm stance to take when approaching an entire study, but instead, discussions focus on which paradigm is appropriate for each aspect of a mixed methods research study. While traditional philosophical stances have always matched specific paradigms for specific research methods, such as a positivist approach with quantitative research and constructivism with qualitative research, and question whether

two different paradigms can coexist in one research study, mixed methods researchers argue that both paradigms can exist within one study (Greene, 2007; Jones & Kennedy, 2011; Sale,

Lohfeld, & Brazil, 2002; Tashakkori & Creswell, 2007; Teddlie &Tashakkori, 2009). Mixed methods research has emerged as the “third research community” (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009, p. 3), or “third research paradigm” (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie & Turner, 2007, p. 112). While still considered as a growing and evolving area of research, mixed methods research has gained much support through the academic populace (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Greene, 2007; Teddlie &

Tashakkori, 2009). The use and acceptance of the mixed methods model is clearly defined not only as studies that use qualitative and quantitative methods, but studies that solidly integrate the findings of the qualitative and quantitative strands of the study (Tashakkori & Creswell, 2007).

In addition, Morse and Niehaus (2009) posit that the use of a mixed methods approach strengthens the validity of the study by offering an expanded understanding of the results from different points of view while drawing from different research paradigms.

The theoretical framework of this design was based on a pluralistic approach in terms of a paradigm stance. Given the nature of mixed methods research and the diverse nature of approaches in this design, I drew from pluralism, which allowed for more than a single view or stance when interpreting the data. A pluralistic approach, as defined by Jones and Kennedy

(2011), allows the researcher to use a method or paradigm “which pays greater attention to the research question being addressed, rather than to any overall philosophical tradition” (p. 26). A pluralistic approach worked best in this study because the fundamentals of mixed methods research and this design naturally called for the use of multiple research paradigms.

I am a human resources practitioner, and the nature of this discipline lends itself to maintaining an open approach that depends on the situation that I face. Even though there are

policies and procedures that guide my decisions, every case or issue at hand is not the same, nor would each case be handled in the same exact way. This worldview paralleled my theoretical stance when conducting this research. Using a Marxist dialectic interpretation of the relationship between race, gender and class also mirrored my research paradigm, as these interpretations may not always coincide, nor travel along an analogous trajectory.

Consistent with my pluralistic worldview, I relied on the most appropriate paradigm for the particular data collection approach when analyzing the data sets of this study. For example, I adopted a constructivist approach (Trochim, 2001) while analyzing the qualitative data, but drew on a post-positivist approach (Trochim, 2001) when analyzing quantitative data in the study.

While the research was qualitative in priority, the quantitative approaches and findings enhanced the understanding of the unique patterns and themes that emerged from the qualitative findings

(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Morse & Niehaus, 2009). During the final integration of the study, or while “mixing” (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011) the results, it was neither surprising nor unexpected to uncover findings that may be viewed as contradicting if limited to drawing from a single paradigm separately. Having a dialectic point of view, as argued and described by Greene

(2007), allowed me to understand and explain findings that were opposing and could not be reconciled (Greene & Caracelli, 1997; Greene, Caracelli & Graham, 1989; Tashakkori &

Teddlie, 1998; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).

Role as a Researcher

The role that I adopted as a researcher throughout the course of this study was as a nonparticipant/observer (Creswell, 2013). It was important that I had no direct involvement during the conference committee meetings, as well as during the conference itself, as it allowed me to fully record my observations throughout the process.

Because the majority of those who participated in the study were university employees, there was concern, for some, that the information obtained throughout the course of their participation would remain confidential. It was initially difficult for those that participated in the study to see me as an independent and objective researcher. However, this trepidation, in all my interactions with those who agreed to participate, eased as I discussed my intent and purpose of the research with them. It was important that they understood that my conversations and interactions with them were as a researcher first and foremost, and second, as a student. Both of these roles intended to learn from their experiences and their point of views as it related to their participation in the diversity conference.

Gaining Access and Control

The university allowed me access to data from previous years’ conferences, as well as entry to observe the conceptualization, procedural, and implementation processes of the 2014 conference through an agreement the committee would be able to review my published dissertation, and that findings from my study would be used in planning strategies for future conferences. It is important to note that the information shared from my dissertation would be limited to the published dissertation only. Per procedures reviewed and approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board, results from the study will only be reported in aggregate form, and participant identities will remain confidential, and that no identifiable information would be publicly disclosed.

Background of the Diversity Conference

This study was set in the context of a diversity conference hosted by a Research-1 university in the Midwest. The annual diversity conference was aimed at students, faculty, staff,

and the community at large. The conference format included a keynote address and concurrent sessions with the following topics:

• Class and Poverty – This topic deals with socio-economic diversity and challenges,

including debt and homelessness.

• Conflict Resolution and Leadership – Focus on resolving conflict and providing

participants with opportunities for leadership within their communities.

• History, Politics and Law – The intersection of government and politics with diversity.

• Media, Music, Art and Well-Being: Cultural diversity including social media use, music,

art and health consciousness.

• Mental and Physical Challenges – Workshops focus on topics affecting those with

physical challenges as well as mental challenges, learning disabilities and other

handicaps.

• Race, Ethnicity and Nationality – One of the more common topics in relation to the

conference is race, but expanded to include both ethnicity and nationality.

• Religion: Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and more – Religious diversity makes up a

significant topic among the workshops.

• Sexuality and Gender – Topics relating to sexuality, gender identities, and gender

expression.

• Work, School, Family and Community – Pertaining to the improvement of work, family

and school environments and strategies to enhance understanding and acceptance within

their community.

The conference was designed to highlight pedagogy, experiential knowledge and practices that encouraged individuals and organizations to build diverse and inclusive

environments. Presenters were chosen based on proposals that were thought provoking, interactive, and that stimulated discussions. Presenters were chosen by a sub-group of the diversity conference committee, comprised of university staff, faculty, students, and administrators. The committee was tasked with planning and implementing the conference.

Faculty, student, staff, administrators, and area professionals submitted proposals in line with the topics listed, and a committee comprised of university staff, faculty, administrators, and students reviewed and selected proposals.

Given the open structure and assortment of session topics, the varied audience of students, staff, faculty, and community members, along with open parameters in session curricula design, this conference provided an ideal setting to delve into how diversity practitioners arrived at their curricula and what influenced their pedagogy. The open call for proposals and the open invitation to attend the conference, along with the variety of session topics being covered at the conference enhanced the study, and allowed for a deeper investigation of the theoretical underpinnings presenters used in their diversity conference sessions. Choosing specific sessions from the conference to observe as part of the study, makes use of a stratified purposeful sampling (Creswell, 2013). This sampling strategy, per Creswell

(2013), “allows for the illustration of subgroups and facilitates comparisons” (p. 158).

Participants

Participants in this research included select members of the diversity conference committee, presenters at the conference, as well as session attendees who engaged in qualitative interviews. Participants also included presenters who responded to the survey, but not necessarily interviewed. Gaining perspective regarding the role of theoretical groundings in diversity training from each type of participant for interviews mirrored the multilayered

complexity of the diversity conference. Where were theoretical groundings in diversity training positioned in terms of planning and implementing a conference? What was the role of theoretical groundings in the development of training curricula by a practitioner? Were theoretical groundings recognized and considered when attendees choose a session to attend? A good number of participants were directly connected to the university that hosted the conference such as faculty, staff, administrators, and students, while some were members of the community at large. Invitations to participate in the research study were based on the individual’s engagement with the diversity conference itself. Diversity conference committee members were personally approached and invited to participate in interviews. Individuals whose proposals were accepted to present at the conference were invited to participate in an online survey via e- mail, and those whose sessions were selected for observation were subsequently contacted via e- mail to request for interviews. Session attendees were asked after the session they attended if they were interested in participating in an interview, and those who expressed interest were subsequently contacted via e-mail and telephone to schedule interviews. Each interviewed participant was advised of their rights as participants of the study, and given a copy of the consent form they were asked to sign that acknowledged their consent and agreement to participate (See Appendix F for a detailed view of the consent form administered to participants.)

Data Collection

Further into this section, I discuss how each data collection method was conducted in detail, and how each approach contributed to the methodology of this research study. Table 1 displays the research questions and the data collection methods applied to the appropriate questions. This study made use of artifacts, surveys, field observations, and interviews. These data gathering techniques allowed for a corroboration of evidence and support for the case study

overall (Yin, 2014). Quantitative and qualitative data were collected during various points of the study that included a review of archived data from the previous year’s conference, a content analysis of proposals submitted to the 2014 conference, a survey administered to presenters whose proposals were accepted, interviews with conference presenters, session attendees, and conference committee members. Field observations were also conducted during conference committee meetings and at the conference itself. Each data collection approach is discussed in greater detail, and the discussion closely follows the same sequence as how the information was gathered during the study.

Table 1. Data Collection Strategies

Research Questions Data Collection Data Type

Methods

What role do theoretical groundings play in Interviews Qualitative

the development, design, and implementation Survey Quantitative/Qualitative

of a university diversity conference? Archived Data Qualitative/Quantitative

a. How do presenters define Field Observations Qualitative

theoretical groundings in diversity

training curricula?

b. How do presenters describe the

role of their theoretical

groundings in the sessions they

developed, proposed, and

presented at the conference?

c. What do participants note about

the theoretical groundings in the

sessions they attended?

What differences exist with respect to Survey Quantitative/Qualitative

theoretical groundings that presenters Archived Data Qualitative/Quantitative

identify in their personal and professional

points of view, and in terms of sessions they

proposed at a university diversity

conference?

What contexts surrounding the roles of Interviews Qualitative

theoretical groundings explain the relative Field Observation Qualitative

prevalence of different session topics in a Archived Data Qualitative/Quantitative

university diversity conference? Survey Quantitative/Qualitative

Artifacts. The artifacts discussed in this section were important in providing text-based evidence that provided documentation of the diversity conference (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Per

Corbin and Strauss (2008), gathering and including this datum contributed to the robustness and rigor of the design, and furthered the substance and possibilities of the findings. Artifacts collected for this research included texts and documents that provided context to the phenomenon that I was studying – the 2014 diversity conference.

Archived 2013 conference data. A review of archived data from the 2013 diversity conference was conducted that assisted in informing and shaping the data collection strategies used during the 2014 conference. The archived data included submission proposals – both

accepted and rejected, and presentation evaluations completed by session attendees. 45 proposals were submitted electronically, and 33 sessions were ultimately presented at the 2013 conference. Rosters of presenters and conference attendees were also reviewed for demographic information such as organizations, job titles and contact information.

2014 conference proposal submissions. Proposal submissions for the 2014 diversity conference were mined from the conference’s electronic submission system, as proposals were submitted and managed only via this electronic system. Proposals included presenter information, abstracts, session curricula, and learning objectives. A total of 47 submissions for the 2014 conference were included in the data set for analysis.

Presenter information. A complete list of individuals who presented at the 2014 diversity conference was prepared in a spreadsheet format that included organizations, job titles or roles, and contact information.

Conference registration roster. Data retrieved from the conference registration database included a spreadsheet containing a roster of registered attendees for the 2014 Diversity

Conference. The roster provided the names of each registered attendee, their organizations, job titles or roles, geographic location, and contact information.

Presenter survey. A survey was designed and then administered to presenters whose proposals were accepted to the 2014 Diversity Conference (Alreck & Settle, 1985; Trochim,

2001). Using the Qualtrics survey system, the survey consisted of 15 questions that intended to inquire about the presenters’ theories and mindsets that grounded their view of diversity training.

The questions attempted to collect data in terms of their personal beliefs, their general work in diversity training, and the theoretical grounds of proposals that they submitted to the conference.

The survey was pilot tested to individuals who were not participating in the diversity conference,

but were interested in the subject of diversity. The pilot test was conducted to ensure that the survey system worked correctly, and that the questions on the survey were clear and easy to understand. Some minor revisions were made following the pilot test, such as the order and flow of questions, as well as edits to the questions for improved readability. (See Appendix A for a detailed view of the survey.)

Because findings from the survey also served to aide in the selection of sessions to observe at the conference, the sample of presenters asked to complete the survey was limited to those whose proposals were accepted to the 2014 Diversity conference. 33 sessions were accepted to the conference with a total of 79 presenters. The survey was emailed to all 79 presenters shortly after communication was sent to them from the diversity conference committee of their acceptance. Two (2) e-mail reminders were sent to presenters that the

Qualtrics system identified as not yet having completed the survey with one-week intervals from the initial e-mailed invitation. 22 presenters responded and completed the survey, with a response rate of 27.8%. (See Appendix B for a detailed view of the email communication sent to presenters.)

Selection protocol for observed sessions. Survey findings, along with the content analysis results of proposal submissions informed and guided the selection of sessions identified for field observations, and consequently, also identified presenters and session attendees invited for interviews. The comparison of results led to the following session selection criteria:

a. Presenter self-identified theoretical grounding and proposal submission theoretical

grounding was the same.

b. Presenter self-identified theoretical grounding and proposal submission theoretical

grounding was not the same.

c. Presenter self-identified as not having a theoretical grounding, but proposal submission

identified a theoretical grounding.

d. Presenter self-identified as not having a theoretical grounding, and proposal submission

theoretical grounding was not apparent.

These criterion were developed with the intent that each session observed would provide the optimum amount of variance between self-identified theoretical groundings of presenters taken from survey responses, and theoretical groundings identified from their proposal submissions taken from the content analysis. Two sessions that fit each criteria were identified, one as the primary session for field observation, and the second as an alternate session, also taking into consideration when the sessions were scheduled in the conference. (See Figure 3).

Ultimately, four sessions were selected for field observations, but not all four fit the criteria outlined the selection protocol. One session did not have presenters that responded to the survey, but the content analysis of its submission proposal clearly indicated that the topics of race, gender, and class were the main focus of the presentation. It was chosen based on the clear articulation of how the session was going to discuss the relationships of these three sessions.

The second session that was chosen that did not have a presenter survey response was an alternate session to be observed. It was chosen as an alternate session because the focus of the presentation was on the topic of religion. While religion was not part of the main target of this research, the proposal submission made moderate mention of how religion was related to an individual’s ethnicity. Ultimately, it was chosen for observation based on conference scheduling, as the primary session chosen for this time block during the conference was cancelled. (See Table 3 for selected sessions.) Having four sessions furthered the understanding of different patterns of theoretical replication, as defined by Yin (2014) “to predict contrasting

results but for anticipatable reasons” (p. 57). While this approach did not intend to predict similar results from each session, it allowed for the explanation of the different patterns discovered in each session as described in the criteria for session selection.

Figure 3. Session Selection Protocol

Survey Responses Proposal Submissions

Diversity Conference Session Schedule

Session Selection for Field Observations

Table 2. Selected Sessions for Observations

Session Personal Professional Proposal Proposal Submission SESSION A RACE RACE GENDER GENDER

SESSION B RACE, NO SURVEY RESPONSE GENDER, CLASS SESSION D RACE RACE RACE RACE

SESSION H NO SURVEY RESPONSE RELIGION

This session selection protocol closely resembled the strategies Ivankova (2014) described in a study that used a quantitative to qualitative sequential explanatory method to organize and develop the process in selecting the conference sessions for field observations.

This study explored how graduate students applied research methods online, and made use of quantitative findings from a survey administered to these students that set the foundation for the identification of participants to engage in qualitative interviews (p. 30). The methods for participant selection in this study demonstrated a well-suited model for my research study in terms of procedures and criterion in selecting sessions for observation. It used findings from an initial quantitative analysis of data to inform and guide the identification of participants for the qualitative component of the research. In this case, the content analysis of proposal submissions facilitated the identification of sessions to observe at the conference, and ultimately, the presenters to interview.

Observations. While observations have been noted as a particularly difficult approach in qualitative data collection in terms of time commitment, and how it could be perceived by individuals who are being observed, it was a critical component of this research, as it allowed me to record and document behaviors that individuals may not display nor be able to articulate via other methods, such as interviews or focus groups (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Field observations contributed to a large part of the qualitative data gathered for this study. With permission from the diversity conference committee to conduct observations during meetings and the conference itself, and along with the Institutional Review Board’s approval of my research study, I conducted observations as a non-participant observer (Creswell, 2013) with no direct involvement during observations conducted in conference committee meetings, conference proceedings, and conference sessions. Field observations were recorded via personal notes and a research journal, as well as audio recorded for later transcription.

Committee meetings. I attended six (6) diversity conference committee meetings, including the proposal selection sub-committee meeting. The meetings discussed the conception

and implementation of the 2014 conference, and included a range of four (4) to six (6) committee members in attendance each time. The sub-committee meeting tasked with reviewing and deciding which proposals to accept for presentation at the 2014 conference consisted of three (3) committee members – an administrator, a faculty member, and a student. Meetings were recorded via observations notes only. These hand-written notes included a description of the processes that shaped the planning and implementation of the conference, as well as observations regarding discussions during the meeting, such as the demeanor of the committee members during discussions, and the tone of the verbal communication among the group, along with non- verbal communication between members.

Conference proceedings. Observations during conference proceedings included opening remarks, the keynote address, a luncheon and a closing reception. Opening remarks and the keynote address were audio recorded for transcriptions, in addition to observation notes.

Observation notes were hand-written descriptions of the proceedings, including how the audience reacted to the opening remarks and keynote address, such as facial expressions and physical behaviors during specific parts of the speeches.

Conference sessions. The four (4) conference sessions selected for observations were audio recorded, and I attended the sessions as a non-participant/observer. Having no direct involvement during the sessions allowed me to fully record the data and take hand-written notes while the sessions were conducted (Creswell, 2013). Notes included descriptions of the audience demographics in terms of visual race and gender, and the number of individuals who attended the sessions. These notes also recorded nuances during the sessions, such as non-verbal communication that was expressed during the sessions between the audience and the presenters.

Research journal. Throughout the research process, I maintained a journal to record my thoughts, observations, and impressions regarding the research design, observations, the analyses and findings from the study. Handwritten journaling and memos were my primary methods, and supplemented by an electronic peer-reviewed journal. The peer-reviewed journal was accessible only to specific individuals who were familiar but not directly connected to my study, via an electronic blog that contained similar information as my research journal, and allowed for comments and feedback.

Interviews. Semi-structured, in-person interviews were conducted with presenters and session attendees whose sessions I observed. Interviews were also conducted with members of the diversity conference committee, and followed the same structure as those of the presenters and session attendees. Interviews for this research design were a rich and abundant source of data because it allowed for the pursuit of in-depth information around the participants’ experiences and points of view (McNamara, 2009). Contrary to a mailed or written interview, these in-person interviews gave me the opportunity to probe and ask for follow-up questions

(Creswell, 2013). The primary aim of the interviews was to gain an understanding of how presenters and session attendees described theoretical groundings in diversity training, and what role these groundings played in the development and design of sessions, with respect to presenters, and the understanding of these theoretical groundings, with respect to session attendees. Interviews with diversity conference committee members also provided a layer of perspective that contributed to the context of the diversity conference itself.

The interviews were all conducted in person, and audio recorded for later transcription.

The questions were semi-structured in nature, and each participant was asked the same standardized questions with the ability for follow-up questions, or further probing. This

approach allowed for consistency when the data was coded, and allowed a better extraction of themes or codes from transcriptions during the analysis, and gave the interviewee the ability to answer with as much detail as they preferred (Creswell, 2013).

During the interviews, the eight principles as described by McNamara (2009) were applied.

1. Choosing a setting with minimal distraction.

2. Explanation of the purpose of the interview.

3. Explanation of the terms of confidentiality.

4. Explanation of interview format.

5. Estimated length of interview.

6. Confirmation of contact information in case follow up is needed.

7. Ask for any questions before the start of the interview.

8. Record the interview.

These principles ensured that each participant had a clear understanding of their role in the study, and the opportunity to ask questions or share any observations or concerns regarding their involvement. Interviews were also conducted with members of the diversity conference committee and the same eight principles by McNamara (2009) were applied.

All interview questions for each interview group – presenters, attendees, and conference committee members – were pilot tested to ensure that the questions were focused on gaining the appropriate explanations, insights, and personal views regarding conference. The questions were vetted and tested with various individuals who were interested in diversity training, but not necessarily connected to the 2014 diversity conference. The pilot test helped the articulation and development of questions that gleaned specific information, and were important to the study

(Turner, 2010). Questions were continuously reviewed and revised throughout the pilot, and during the actual interviews with the participants, as ultimately, each interview allowed me to fine-tune questions to obtain the most relevant informative data (Creswell, 2013; Corbin &

Strauss, 2008).

Ultimately, four (4) conference sessions were selected for observations. From these sessions, five (5) presenters, and five (5) session attendees were interviewed. One conference session had a single presenter, while the remaining three had multiple presenters. A minimum of one presenter from each session agreed to be interviewed, with one session having two presenters who agreed to participate in the study. There was a planned minimum of two session attendees to be interviewed for each session. However, one individual attended each session that was observed, so information gleaned from this particular individual covered all four sessions.

Additionally, three (3) committee members agreed to participate in the study, and were also interviewed. Interviews with participants ranged from 30 minutes to two (2) hours, with the longest interviews belonging to conference presenters. While the sample of interviews were smaller than what Mason (2010) suggested for a qualitative study, it was reflective of the purpose and aim of this study, which focused more on how presenters described the role of theoretical grounding in diversity training.

Diversity conference committee interviews. Semi-structured interviews with three (3) members of the diversity conference committee were conducted to gather context around the diversity conference itself – in particular, the history of the diversity conference, the goals and missions of the conference, and how the committee was established and structured. Members invited to participate were chosen in particular for their experience in serving in the committee.

One (1) member had served in six (6) committees since the inception of the diversity conference.

The second member had served on five (5) committees, while the remaining member served on the committee for the first time in 2014. Interviews with committee members were conducted privately in their respective offices. The interviews were semi-structured in nature, and were audio-recorded for later transcription. (See Appendix C for a list of interview questions for diversity conference committee members.)

Presenter interviews. Semi-structured interviews with five (5) presenters investigated in- depth how they defined theoretical groundings, and how they described the role of theoretical grounding in diversity training. Presenters asked to participate in these interviews were specifically those who presented in each the four (4) conference sessions observed, with two (2) who presented in the same session. The interviews were conducted one-on-one and in person, and were semi-structured in nature. The interviews were conducted post-conference, as it added a layer of perspective from the presenters’ point of views of how the session unfolded, and their interaction with the session attendees. Location of these interviews heavily depended on the availability of the presenters, and most were conducted in a public setting such as a coffee house or restaurant, but provided a private space which allowed for an open discussion that was free from distraction and peripheral noise. Some interviews were conducted in the presenters’ offices. (See Appendix D for a list of interview questions for conference presenters.)

Session attendee interviews. Semi-structured interviews with five (5) session attendees were also conducted one-on-one, in person, and post-conference, gleaning their perspectives of why they chose to attend a particular session, and how they defined theoretical grounding, and how they described the role of theoretical grounding in diversity training. Each session attendee interviewed attended one of the sessions observed, with one participant having attended all four sessions. These interviews were conducted in private settings, such as the participants’ offices or

available conference rooms around the university. (See Appendix E for a list of interview questions for conference attendees.)

I personally transcribed all interviews, field notes, and session recordings and prepared the transcripts for coding and analysis. Each data set was combined into the following categories:

• Session (4) - Interviews with presenters and session attendees, session recordings, and

field observation notes were grouped in the appropriate session category.

• Committee Meetings - Interviews with committee members, and field observations from

the meetings were grouped into one category.

• Conference Proceedings - Transcriptions of the opening remarks, keynote address, and

field observation notes were grouped into one category.

Timeline of data collection. The timing of data collection for this research relied heavily on the schedule of the 2014 diversity conference. Collection and management of information carefully and logistically negotiated around the parameters and constraints of the conference. Table 2 displays a more detailed description of the timeline of the research study.

Table 3. Timeline and Description of Data Collection

Timeline Description of Data Collection

Six (6) months before 2014 Conference Formation of diversity conference committee.

A total of six (6) observations were conducted.

Six (6) months before 2014 Conference A review of 2013 conference data.

Two (2) months before 2014 Conference The call for proposals was issued, and proposal

submissions were collected, reviewed and

prepared for analysis.

One (1) month before 2014 Conference Interviews were conducted with selected

members of the diversity conference

committee.

Three (3) weeks before 2014 Conference Presenters were invited to participate and

respond to survey. Responses were maintained

in an electronic database system (Qualtrics)

until time of analysis.

One (1) week for 2014 Conference Sessions were identified and selected for

observations.

Actual day of 2014 Conference Field observations of conference proceedings

and selected sessions were conducted.

Post Conference Activities – up to three (3) Interviews with presenters, session attendees months and committee members were conducted. Post

conference activities also included member

checking.

Data Management

Data was primarily stored and managed in an electronic database and housed on a secured and encrypted server. Access to this database was restricted and private, and only I had permission to view and administer the stored information. Handwritten field notes, observations and journaling were stored in a secure area, or in my possession throughout the entire study.

Handwritten information was later transcribed electronically in preparation for analysis.

Steps were taken to remove all identifying information regarding individuals, groups and organizations. While complete anonymity could not be guaranteed, utmost care was taken to

ensure confidentiality of the participants, as well as the data sources gathered throughout the research study, as prescribed by the research protocols submitted to, reviewed and approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board (2014). (See Appendix F for a detailed view of the consent form administered to the study’s participants.

Data Analysis

This research study engaged multiple approaches to data analysis. Germane to the design and rational of this study as discussed in the previous sections, the mixed methods approach called for qualitative and quantitative methods in analysis. Some of the analyses were conducted in the order dictated by the logistical constraints of the diversity 2014 in terms of timing, but ultimately the case study analysis was conducted post-conference, but made use of all the findings for interpretation. I used both qualitative and quantitative data gathering and analyses approaches for throughout the research design. However, the case study remained qualitative in priority, as the design relied heavily on qualitative methods to answer the overall research question (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). The quantitative data and subsequent analyses assisted in informing and supplementing key areas of the overall research.

Analysis of 2013 conference data. A pilot content analysis was conducted with the submission proposals to discover whether theoretical groundings were clearly stated in the proposals, and an attempt to generate a variable list was made using results from the content analysis, and presenter demographic data such as gender and industry, i.e. higher education, not- for-profit industry, private corporation (Creswell, 2013; Ginsborg, Chafin & Nicholson, 2006).

There was also an attempt to determine if correlations could be made with theoretical groundings identified in the submission proposals with the demographic data. It was concluded that while the archived documents provided adequate data to determine the background and context of the

2013 Diversity Conference, the data could only provide a partial understanding of the conference in relation to the purpose of this study. There was no information available that identified theoretical groundings of presenters that could be connected with the theoretical groundings used in the 2013 Diversity Conference sessions. The existing data was instead used as a starting point in designing data collection strategies for the 2014 diversity conference. The shortage of information in the archived documents led to a better understanding of what information was needed from the 2014 conference that would prove most beneficial in answering the research questions of the study.

Survey analysis. Raw survey data results were taken from the Qualtrics survey system in a .csv format, and reformatted into an Excel spreadsheet. Questions that ranked importance of diversity topics, 1 being highest and 3 as lowest, were re-coded to a 3-1 scale, with 3 being the highest, and 1 as lowest. Questions that had agreement statements regarding diversity topics collected responses through a 1-5 Likert scale, with 1 being Strongly Agree and 5 as Strongly

Disagree. Responses to these questions were re-coded into a 5-1 scale, with 5 as Strongly Agree and 1 as Strongly Disagree. The scores were re-coded so that responses with a higher degree of importance or agreement would translate to a higher numbered score when all the responses were analyzed in aggregate. All response scores regarding race, gender and class were added, respectively, together and categorized under PERSONAL, PROFESSIONAL, and PROPOSAL.

Proposal referred to the questions that asked respondents to self-identify what theoretical groundings and issues, if any, were highlighted or were the focus for their proposal submissions.

Each response score was then ranked ordered to determine which category of race, gender, class, or other, ranked first in their professional and personal views, and then compared with which areas or issue they ranked first for their conference proposal.

The results were used to compare and contrast the presenters’ self-identified theoretical groundings from their personal and professional point of views, along with the self-identified theoretical groundings of the proposals they submitted to the conference. Results from this analysis were also integrated and contrasted with qualitative findings.

Content analysis. A content analysis was conducted of the proposals submitted to the

2014 Diversity Conference using MAXQDA software. Some submissions were very detailed and included outlines, learning outcomes, and session agendas, while others only had descriptions or abstracts. Since each proposal submission contained abstracts, only abstracts were used for the initial content analysis that informed the selection of sessions for observation.

The analysis first applied the different topic categories outlined in the call for proposals by the diversity conference committee – class, leadership, history, well being, mental and physical challenges, race, ethnicity and nationality, gender and sexuality, religion, and community as key themes (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Creswell, 2013; Saldana, 2013). The analysis was then condensed using race, gender, class, and other, in line with the theoretical framework of the overall case study – using a Marxist lens to interpret the dialectic relationships of race, gender, and class. Subsequent analyses also were conducted on accepted proposal submissions in its entirety to further understand the type of proposals that were submitted and ultimately accepted and presented at the conference, and to identify any interesting patterns regarding topics proposed for the diversity conference.

Qualitative analysis. After careful review of the all the transcripts, they were then coded for themes using MAXQDA software until context and themes emerged that were salient to the purpose of this research study (Gee, 2011; Saldana, 2013). An explanation building procedure, defined by Yin (2014) as “to analyze the case study data by building an explanation about the

case” (p. 147) was used, narrating the results of each category – sessions, committee meetings, and conference proceedings – to explain what occurred in the diversity conference. An analysis of each category was conducted, and a cross category analysis was performed to synthesize what was gleaned from all the categories within the context of the research questions. (See Figure 4).

This process was neither linear nor circular, but was reiterative in process. While logistics and time constraints dictated how the data was collected, the analysis was fluid throughout each approach.

Figure 4. Case Study Analysis

Proposal Submissions

Survey Responses

Session Observations

Interviews with Session Attendees

Interview with Presenters

Categories and Themes. The pre-determined categories for this analysis were race, gender, and class, as well as religion, consistent with the theoretical framework of this research study. Concepts were identified from the data during the initial analysis of transcripts, until categories emerged. Categories similar in explanation and meaning were then combined to form emerging themes. The themes that emerged during coding and analysis provided more specific connections of categories throughout the findings. Tables 4a and 4b summarize the themes and

categories that emerged from the analysis, as well as brief definitions of these themes. Figure 5 is a word cloud that provides a powerful visual of how personal identity and culture dominated discussions with diversity conference presenters and session attendees.

Table 4a. Pre-determined Categories

Pre-Determined Definitions Categories Race Pertained to a person’s identified race based on ethnicity, i.e. African- American, Hispanic, Asian, and Caucasian. Gender Referred to an individual’s sexual identity, especially in relation to culture and society. i.e., male, female, transgendered, and transmasculine. Class Defined as a person’s social stratum sharing basic economic and political characteristic or position. Religion Defined as a ritual observance of faith such as Christianity, Islam and Buddhism.

Table 4b. Emerging Themes

Emerging Definitions Pre-determined Category

Theme

Personal Identity A person’s reflection and how they Race identify themselves in terms of Gender individual characteristics such as race Class and gender. Religion

Sub-themes Definitions Pre-determined Category

Privilege A special advantage or right possessed Race by an individual or group gained by Gender birth, social position or concession. Class

Commonalities Commonalties refer to things that Race individuals find in common with others, Gender whether it pertains to race, nationality, Class gender, and other constructs. Religion

Roles of Women An idea, perception or reflection of the Gender in Society role women hold in society with respect to family and career.

Curiosity The desire to learn about a particular Race subject or area. Gender Class Religion

Emerging Definitions Pre-determined Category

Theme

Culture This theme is specific to a company or Race organization’s shared belief in values, Gender behavior, and activities. Class Religion

Sub-themes Definitions Pre-Determined Category

Familial Culture Family philosophies and cultural identity Race inherent to an individual that are either Gender assigned by birth or assimilated by Class environment and circumstance. Religion

Commitment Pertaining to an organization’s Race engagement and involvement to a goal Gender or purpose, i.e. commitment to diversity Class and inclusion. Religion

Mission Goal and purpose of an organization. NA

Figure 5. Emerging Themes Word Cloud

Mixing. Results from both the qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to inform each others’ findings, and providing complementarity and validity for each approach.

This “mixing” or integration of findings was intentional to draw on the strengths of each approach (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). For a detailed view of the process of integration of findings, refer to Figure 5. Similar to the explanation for building in the case study analysis process, this integration process frequently reviewed findings from each data set to explain or further the understanding of the study’s qualitative and quantitative components. Review of findings did not follow an established sequence, but instead, maintained open maneuverability between all the findings when required.

Figure 6. Mixing and Analysis Process

Field Observations

Proposal Survey Submissions Responses

Qualitative Interviews

Taking into consideration all the components of the data gathered for the case study and focusing on the four (4) sessions observed, the constructs of race, gender, class, and religion were ranked on a high, medium, and low scale. The scale was determined according to the following criteria:

• High – The terms race, gender, class, or religion were found within the session title or

abstract.

• Medium – The terms race, gender, class, or religion were moderately found within the

discussions and transcripts of sessions, interviews, and field observation notes.

• Low – There was no mention of the term race, gender, class, or religion in any of the data

collected.

This representation of the aggregated data in a high-medium-low scale recapitulated, while comparing and contrasting the results from the survey and content analysis and session observations.

Trustworthiness

Lincoln and Guba (1985) ascertained that trustworthiness of a research study is central to evaluating its value. The four benchmarks for trustworthiness include:

• Credibility - confidence in the 'truth' of the findings

• Transferability - showing that the findings have applicability in other contexts

• Dependability - showing that the findings are consistent and could be repeated

• Confirmability - a degree of neutrality or the extent to which the findings of a study are

shaped by the respondents and not researcher bias, motivation or interest

The following section describes in detail how this research study satisfied the preceding benchmarks for trustworthiness.

Credibility. Per Lincoln and Guba (1985), credibility must meet the specific elements including prolonged engagement, persistent observation, triangulation, peer debriefing, negative case analysis, referential adequacy and member-checking. This research study was the product of a two-year process. Review of data from the 2013 diversity conference was conducted

immediately after the archived data became available in June 2013, which informed and guided the research study design that focused on the 2014 diversity. The different perspectives of those interviewed and observed – committee members, presenters, and session attendees lent to persistent observation as this study specifically sought out these different perspectives. This mixed methods research approach lent itself to methods triangulation, as both qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to inform qualitative and quantitative findings separately, and in combination during mixing. Pilot tests were conducted for the survey administered to presenters as well as interview questions prepared for participants to ensure that the questions being asked on the survey and during the interview intended to glean the information that was being sought by the research questions. My electronic peer reviewed journal was an important step of this element of trustworthiness, as it provided me with a sounding board, as well as different opinions regarding any challenges or questions that I was facing from those who were interested in my research, but not necessarily in direct engagement with the study. The thematic coding conducted during this study was reiterative by design to ensure that any unexplainable findings or results were adequately reviewed and resolved. Finally, member-checking with those interviewed were conducted to ensure that the information I gleaned from my qualitative data was adequately described and interpreted.

Transferability. I memorialized my observations through field observation notes, memos and journaling that provided thick descriptions that allowed me to provide patterns and contexts surrounding the phenomenon that I was studying – the 2014 diversity conference. The tone and tenor of the committee meetings, the conference proceedings and conference sessions, in addition to the interviews that I conducted allowed me to provide vivid and detailed accounts

of every step of the conference, from planning to implementation, and post-conference reactions and impressions.

Dependability. Regular meetings with dissertation committee members, as well as conversations with academic peers regarding my research provided external audits that ensured the process that I engaged throughout the study was on point and within the scope of the proposal that was submitted and approved by the Institutional Review Board. These formal and informal discussions with dissertation committee members and peers also provided an unbiased review of the data and findings, as well as assured that my findings were clearly articulated and supported by the data collected.

Confirmability. Every methodological procedure, raw, reduced, and reconstructed data, and materials that contributed to this research study was carefully documented and managed to provide a clear audit trail, and to provide a clear outline and description of my research process.

Validity

The overall validity of this study was based on content validity (Teddlie & Tashakkori,

2009) through the triangulation of multiple data sources and numerous analyses approaches over the course of this research. Each chosen component of the design played a strategic role and contribution to evidence that allowed me to construct and interpret findings.

Conclusion

This case study demonstrated an investigation into an empirical topic – the role of theoretical groundings in diversity training in general and its role in a diversity conference in particular. Evidence gathered from this method through substantiated procedures in methodology, combined with a mixed-methods approach in terms of data collection and analyses illustrated the rigor and robustness of this study, facilitated the culmination of various processes

that ultimately led to a multi-layered perspective of a particular phenomenon – the 2014

Diversity Conference.

Chapter 4: Findings

In this chapter, I discuss findings from planning and facilitation of the diversity conference, findings of the analysis for each of the categories of data gathered throughout the study, emphasizing the diversity conference proceedings and sessions observed during the conference. Further in this chapter, I discuss the content analysis of submission proposals, and descriptive statistics gleaned from the quantitative data. Finally, I discuss the overall findings of the case study, where I interpret and attempt to explain the similarities and differences of the constructs that cross over each of the categories, emerging themes and sub-themes throughout the research.

This case study provided the opportunity to explore, investigate and describe a complete picture of a single phenomenon – the 2014 diversity conference. This research gathered evidence and information through a multi-layered perspective. Points of views gleaned from organizers of the conference, presenters and session attendees, captured a holistic and compelling account of the conference. This research allowed for a broad, rich, and representative interpretation of the question it sought to answer – what role do theoretical groundings play in diversity training?

The Diversity Conference: Through the Eyes of the Committee

The diversity conference committee included eight (8) members, comprised of university administrators, faculty, staff, and students. Serving on the committee was voluntary, and while some members asked to join the committee, others were strongly encouraged to serve as part of their professional and academic development. There was a preponderance of female members on the committee, yet demographically diverse in terms of race and ethnicity. The committee was tasked with designing, planning, and implementing the conference and ensuring that the

goals of the conference were met. Pre-determined categories were not appropriate for this analysis as it did not specifically fall under the umbrella of race, gender, nor class. However, the themes that emerged from observing the diversity conference committee, and through conversations with committee members were history and goals. A sub-theme that emerged from this analysis was proposal selection, as it played an important role in what topics were presented at the conference.

I interviewed three members of the committee, with two as being part of the conference since its inception, and the third as a new member – the 2014 conference was the first time she participated in it as a committee member.

History and goals. Data gathered from these observations and interviews was extremely rich in terms of historical context surrounding the diversity conference. Formal training sessions were not on the forefront of the conference’s intent. It started out as an internal event geared towards university employees and students to share best practices with the university community regarding the broad umbrella of diversity. As one committee member commented,

It was such a small event, really. We just wanted to provide a venue for folks to

talk about diversity. Now look at how much bigger it is!

As the university began to incorporate diversity and inclusion as part of its mission and values, the event gathered momentum and support, evolving into a more formal conference that drew in participants and presenters external to the university.

While there was no formal premise in which direction to steer the 2014 conference, there was a definite discussion regarding topics on race, as there had been some incidents within the campus that were racially charged, which heightened the awareness of racial relations within the community. The diversity conference was viewed as an opportunity to be the forum to discuss

race and racism, and potentially de-escalate the tension that was permeating throughout campus.

It was decided that the keynote address would set the tone for the conference and address these concerns.

Proposal selection. A sub-committee was tasked with reviewing all proposal submissions to the conference, and making a selection for acceptance. The sub-committee was comprised of a faculty member, a university administrator, and a student. The initial review of the proposals consisted of each sub-committee member ranking the proposals on a 1-3 scale, 1 being accepted, 2 as under consideration, and 3 as rejected. The sub-committee then met as a quorum to finalize acceptance decisions.

An informal rubric was given to the sub-committee members, and based primarily on ensuring a balance between the nine topics outlined in the conference:

• Class and Poverty – This topic deals with socio-economic diversity and challenges,

including debt and homelessness.

• Conflict Resolution and Leadership – Focus on resolving conflict and providing

participants with opportunities for leadership within their communities.

• History, Politics and Law – The intersection of government and politics with diversity.

• Media, Music, Art and Well-Being: Cultural diversity including social media use, music,

art and health consciousness.

• Mental and Physical Challenges – Workshops focus on topics affecting those with

physical challenges as well as mental challenges, learning disabilities and other

handicaps.

• Race, Ethnicity and Nationality – One of the more common topics in relation to the

conference is race, but expanded to include both ethnicity and nationality.

• Religion: Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and more – Religious diversity makes up a

significant topic among the workshops.

• Sexuality and Gender – Topics relating to sexuality, gender identities, and gender

expression.

• Work, School, Family and Community – Pertaining to the improvement of work, family

and school environments and strategies to enhance understanding and acceptance within

their community.

While the primary concern was regarding topics presented during the conference, a secondary concern rested on logistics. What was the perceived popularity of the topic and how did it translate to anticipated audience size and room space? Were there similar topics during the same break out schedule? Theoretical underpinnings of each proposal submission were not formally taken into consideration. Additionally, the constructs of race, gender, and class were not on the forefront of the discussion.

Proposal Submissions: Setting the Landscape

A content analysis of proposal abstracts was conducted based on the nine (9) categories listed in the call for proposals. Figure 6 displays the preponderance of sessions related to the particular topics. Some proposals contained more than one construct or topic, and were counted multiple times in the analysis. A total of 47 proposals were submitted to the diversity conference, with topics reflecting the eight primary categories outlined in the call for proposals. It is important to note that some submissions covered multiple topics, and were counted for each category that it encompassed.

Race, Ethnicity and Nationality had the highest number of proposal submissions, followed by Sexuality and Gender, with Class and Poverty as the third category with the highest

number of submissions. On the other hand, the category of History, Politics, and Law, as well as

Media, Music, Art and Well-being, garnered the lowest number of submissions.

Accepted and declined submissions. Of the 47 submissions, 29 were accepted to present at the conference. (For a detailed view of accepted proposals by topic, see Figure 7.)

The number of accepted proposals across the same categories in the call for proposals reflects the same pattern as overall submissions. Race, Ethnicity, and Nationality amassed the highest number of sessions, with Sexuality and Gender as the second highest, and Class and Poverty as the third highest. Similarly, declined proposals also reflected the overall pattern of total proposal submissions, with Race, Ethnicity, and Nationality with the highest number of proposal submissions followed by Sexuality and Gender. However, the third highest category of declined proposals fell under “Other”, as these submissions did not fit with the categories outlined in the call for proposals. (For a detailed view of declined proposals by topic, see Figure 7.) Examples of topics that were considered in the category of “Other” included uses of language in interactions with others, and creating physical, mental and emotional spaces during training sessions.

It was not surprising that the numbers of accepted and declined proposals across the eight categories reflect similar numbers of total proposal submissions across the same eight categories.

The similarities, one may posit, demonstrated no significant preponderance of a particular topic or category that was accepted for presentation at the 2014 diversity conference.

Figure 7. 2014 Diversity Conference Proposals

Submitted N= 47

Accepted N=29 Rejected N=18

Class & Conlict History, Media, Mental & Race, Religion Sexuality & other Poverty Resolution Politics & Music, Art, Physical Ethnicity & Gender & Law Well-being Challenges Nationality Leadership

Presenter Surveys and Proposal Submissions: A Similar Landscape

A total of 79 e-mails were sent to presenters whose proposal submissions were accepted

to the 2014 diversity conference. The e-mails invited them to respond to a survey that focused

on collecting information regarding the theoretical groundings that each presenter held within

their personal and professional points of view, as well as with regard to the proposals they

submitted to the 2014 diversity conference. The survey focused on the topics of race, gender,

class, religion and managing diversity as these constructs synthesized the topics outlined in the

conference’s call for proposals. Only 22 presenters completed the survey, and the following

findings represent their responses. Using the same constructs of race, gender, class, religion and

managing diversity, a content analysis was conducted on the proposals that survey respondents

submitted. Survey findings were then compared to the content analysis findings, focusing comparisons within the categories in terms of personal leanings, professional leanings and proposal submissions, and not across all categories. Figure 7 displays aggregated results of the findings.

Figure 8. Presenter Self-Identified Theoretical Groundings vs. Content Analysis

Personal N=22 Professional N=22 Proposal N=22 Content Analysis N=17

RACE GENDER CLASS RELIGION MANAGING OTHER DIVERSITY

Self-Identified Leanings. It was not surprising to discover that the topic of race had the highest number of self-identified proposal submissions, as it was also the construct of most importance to the presenters, both personally and professionally. While race and gender were comparable in importance from the presenters’ personal and professional point of view, class was not viewed as importantly in their professional capacity. A surprising outcome of this comparison was that the construct of gender was low in prevalence, with respect to personal and professional importance, but was high in frequency of self-identified proposal submissions.

The survey data and content analysis could not explain this particular result, but a cursory review of news events leading up to the diversity conference coincided with Women’s History Month in

the United States (National Women’s History Project, 2014) and the recent United States

Supreme Court position on the Defense of Marriage Act, suggesting that perhaps the preponderance of proposal submissions regarding gender was prompted by these events.

Another notable finding was that the topic of managing diversity was low in terms of importance to presenters personally, yet high in importance professionally, and had a significant number of proposal submissions.

Comparing the top issues and theoretical groundings in diversity that were considered as the most important in their personal reflection and professional capacity, there was a noticeable difference between what constructs were important to the presenters personally and what was important to them within their professional roles.

Personal leanings versus professional leanings. Comparing results within categories, and not across all categories, race, ultimately, was the top issue to survey respondents personally and professionally, and this high ranking was also reflected in the proposals submitted to the conference. However, despite the preponderance of a specific construct being considered as personally important to the respondents, presenters chose issues that were more closely related to what was important to them professionally. For example, managing diversity was an important issue to respondents professionally, and there were a comparable number of proposals that respondents submitted that addressed managing diversity. Conversely, class was a construct that ranked high among personal points of view, but less in frequency among proposal submissions.

Presenters were more likely to propose sessions that were important to their professional points of view rather than those that reflected their personal points of view.

In comparison to content analysis. Findings from the content analysis of 17 session proposals of the sessions that survey respondents either presented or co-presented was compared

to data taken from the 22 survey responses. Comparing the results of both data sets showed a near identical classification of session topics, and theoretical groundings, based on race, gender, class, religion, and managing diversity. For instance, the number of presenters who identified race as their proposal submission topic closely matched the number of proposal submissions categorized under race in the content analysis. This pattern consistently repeated itself within each category, signaling that presenters were conscious of the construct that they were proposing to present at the conference. The results of the content analysis also provided further support of the survey outcome that showed presenters were more likely to propose topics that were more important to them professionally than personally.

Results from analysis of the surveys and proposals submissions produced a consistent overview in terms of what presenters identified as the theoretical groundings used in their submitted proposals in comparison to the content analysis of the submitted proposals. These results, gained from a quantitative approach, supplemented the findings from the qualitative approach regarding the role of theoretical groundings play in diversity training.

Experiencing The Diversity Conference

The diversity conference was a full house. Over three hundred individuals participated in some shape or form – organizers, volunteers, presenters, and session attendees. It was a mix of students, faculty, staff, and community affiliates of the university. The room was buzzing with a variety of emotions and expectations ranging from excitement regarding the sessions, to resigned sighs of compliance. As several attendees commented,

This is my sixth conference, and I make it a point to attend each year. I like it. It makes me think about a lot of things.

My boss is here. My department is here. I’m here.

Throughout this analysis, it was evident that the ambiance of the event was a mixed bag of engagement – from voluntarily attending to being mandated by a supervisor or a manager.

However, the directive of the participation was clear: Diversity is serious business. Be mindful, be objective, and be respectful of others’ opinions. In the following sections I discuss segments of the diversity conference proceedings where I conducted field observations, starting with opening remarks, the keynote address, and each of the sessions that I observed.

Opening Remarks. Opening remarks by university administrators set the tone for the conference, and outlined the thrust of the event. The message reflected the climate and direction of the university in terms of its commitment in fostering a climate of diversity and inclusion within the university. The theme for the diversity conference was clear. The conference, along with the university, had a mission. This mission rested on the sub-themes of commitment and culture.

Mission. As part of the university’s diversity plan, it defines its diversity mission to recognize a very broad and inclusive concept of diversity that includes commonly recognized considerations such as race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability status, socioeconomic status, gender identity and expression, sexual identity, sexual orientation, religion, and regional or national origin. The mission emphasized that the university’s concept of diversity will retain the capacity to grow with its understanding. It is important to take this text into consideration, as it serves as the foundation for the goals of the diversity conference. With this mission, it was important to note that the highest university official supported this charge, and to show this support was necessary, as it encouraged conference attendees to position themselves within sessions in an open and positive manner. Per the speaker,

The nation will become a better place if there was an intentional conversation

about the civil rights of all. An intentional conversation in this nation to protect the

rights of each member in this nation and to try to connect all corners of this nation

together and in unity. And so, you can see the power of that decision, and that conviction

on this nation is certainly similar to what we could do – moving forward at this great

university.

The opening remarks was a subtle yet direct call to arms by this administrator, signaling the direction the university was travelling regarding diversity. While the message was cloaked within the context of where the United States was positioned in terms of diversity and civil rights, it was clear and apparent that the university intended to either follow suit, or perhaps be the leader in this charge.

Culture. The opening remark was a welcomed message, and attendees, from my observations during the opening address, were in agreement with what was being said. There were nodding heads across the room, and applause during certain points of the speech. As some attendees commented,

I thought the president’s speech really energized the room. It made me feel like

this was really important. I mean, come on. If the president sees it, then we all should

see it.

The man means well. He’s trying. He’s trying.

While the mission of the university in terms of diversity was clear and at the forefront of this event, the culture of the university remained divided. The energy and the spirit of the opening remarks was an important aspect of the conference that day, but it was apparent that not everyone who attended the event shared the same sentiment. On the surface, there was a unified

sentiment to drive towards a culture of diversity within the university community. In spite of this, there were also examples of contrasting opinions that the conference was superficial, or temporary. Per some attendees,

Was what he said really true? Is this school really committed to diversity and

inclusion, or is it just fluff and something to put on our website? It’s easy to be pumped

up for eight hours and sing kumbaya with everyone. Then we go back to the grind and

see the same thing over and over again.

Of course we are all about diversity. Isn’t that what the website says?

These sentiments indicated that not all members of the university community considered the institution’s mission at face value.

Keynote address. The chief executive officer of a company that consults with different groups and organizations regarding diversity issues delivered the keynote address. It was a personal narrative of his journey through diversity, and how he arrived at his current position in his career. While he conveyed a similar message as the opening remarks, his address expressed a contrasting tone. It was deliberate and, in not so many words, a frank discussion regarding race, class, and gender in the United States. Privilege was the theme that emerged from this address, with the underlying themes of race, gender, and class.

Privilege. Privilege was the overarching theme that emerged during this analysis, as the keynote address was contextualized around the speaker’s position in society in terms of race, gender, and class. His point of view as a white male set the stage for the consequent sub-themes of race, gender, and class to emerge. The speaker candidly acknowledged his privilege as a white male, and while he did not outright articulate the theory of white privilege, he pointedly alluded to it. As he shared during his speech,

I have a privileged place, I think to a large part based on, because I am a white

man. Because I can walk into corporations. And they don’t expect what’s going to

happen next. And so I’m going tell you how I see things and why this event is so

important.

It was clear from this passage that the keynote speaker understood the theory of white privilege, and where he fit into this dynamic.

For the remainder of the analysis of the keynote address, I will discuss the sub-themes of race and gender first, as class was a sub-theme that emerged not only as a stand-alone construct, but also as one that intertwined throughout the speaker’s dialogue around race and gender.

Race. Throughout his personal narrative, much of the speaker’s anecdotes focused around his experiences with friends and colleagues that racially belonged to underrepresented groups. It was through these shared experiences, along with historical citations, that he was able to form his mental models and worldviews regarding race, racism, and forms of oppression. In this anecdote, he shared,

[name] was a natural born professor. And he would tell me about his

experiences and how he was discriminated against. So it wasn’t the total conversation,

but these were things he’d include. And I’d say, “Oh, come on, [name]. You’re being

too sensitive. Oh, come on, [name]. It couldn’t have happened that way more than

once.” Those kinds of denials. But the problem for me was that [name], otherwise, was

so credible. He was one of the most credible men I’ve ever met. A man’s man. He’s still

married to his wife, [name] for 35 years now. But he talked about [name] in a way that

you would want to be married. That’s how he was and how he talked about his wife. He

talked about his then little boy. Now is a successful grown man. In a way that made you

want to be a father. It was really wonderful to hear him talk. He was a great officer. He

was a great aviator. I learned through the grapevine that he had to ditch a helicopter at

sea, and there’s two engines on a Navy helicopter. So when you lose one, you end up in

the water. He got his crew out and he was going to taxi up when he shut down the

engine, and his co-pilot was going to stay with him. He grabbed his co-pilot in the front

of his flight suit and said, “You’re getting out of this aircraft and I’m the one who will

taxi it up alone.” And he did this with no one on board, and he got out. This is a man

with total credibility to me. And yet, I was denying his experience and it dawned on me

one day.

Before 1965 there were non-white quotas on immigrants. Non-white quotas. And

if you look at one particularly disgusting part of our history, look up the Asian exclusion

act and the Chinese Exclusion act. Things that live with us right up until that era. So if

you think about this nation being a nation of immigrants, not so fast. It was a nation of

certain kinds of immigrants. Other ones not so… you had to wait.

The speaker clearly articulated his awareness of his privilege in terms of race, and that he understood and recognized that racism existed in the United States.

Gender. Compared to race and class, gender held a moderate part of the keynote address.

Nevertheless, it still emerged as an important theme because it contributed to the thrust of the speaker’s intent – issues, in his opinion, that are important within diversity that organizations currently face.

So investigated who was leaving and why they were leaving. And as it turns out,

it was women that were disproportionately leaving. And guess why? By the way my wife

says if men watched 50% of the children, these problems would be solved. But when

you’re going up for partner, which is the end goal of your career, and if you don’t make

partner in the firm, your career is over. Well at the same time, that’s when professional

couples have children. So women have to make the choice and the choice was, I’m going

to quit. Or I’m going to another firm where I’m perceived to be able to have a child or

have a family.

The role of women in society was the emphasis of this passage, alluding to the limited choices female professionals face to either advancing their career, or taking on the role as the primary caregiver with family and children.

Class. The speaker used powerful language in this segment of his address. With very simple, yet unusually piercing examples, he intertwined what I interpreted to be a cloaked narrative of Marx’s Theory of Race (Bohmer, 2005). It was this passage, towards the end of the address, which garnered the least audience reaction in terms of applause, and some fidgeting throughout a pronounced silence. However, one might consider that the lack of response was the greatest response of all.

This is directed to you, in [name of city]. The public school system for most

brown and black children is nothing more than systemic child abuse. And why do we

keep things this way? Well if you don’t think you need those black and brown children in

your workforce, you give them bad schools so you have schools and you have Section 8

housing, have all of this stuff, this economy that swirls around poverty. And then you

give them the war on drugs, and then you have nice prisons for them… and by the way,

the few that escape don’t have healthcare, so that way we can keep the lid on them real

good… That is where we are.

Think about this. We imprison more people per thousand than anywhere else on

earth. The fact that we imprison more than anybody by a factor of 6 to 1. More than half

of our prisoners are black and Latino. We’ve been fighting a war on drugs for over forty

years. Nobody fights anything for forty years unless someone is winning. Right? Who’s

winning?

From a conference attendee interview, one noted,

The speech about the school to prison pipeline was intense. I never thought I’d

hear someone say that out loud. Publicly. We all think it. No one ever says it. I bet his

speech wasn’t vetted before the conference!

I foreshadowed in my introduction of the sub-themes that the discussion on class would be presented last, as this theme crossed-over into the themes of race and gender for this particular analysis.

Theoretical Groundings and The Roles They Play: An Insider’s View

The sessions observed during the conference were selected for a specific purpose: to gain a deeper understanding, from the perspective of presenters and session attendees, of what role theoretical groundings play in a diversity conference. These sessions provided the basis to explore the landscape of diversity training from the viewpoint of the primary actors – those who taught, and those who learned.

Session A. Session A was a multiple presenter session with an all female panel. The panel teaches mathematics or a similar discipline at a regional college. Each member of the panel described their journey into the professoriate, and the challenges they faced as women in a field dominated by men. Session A was focused on gender, as the session topic centered on experiences of female faculty in higher education. One presenter and two session attendees

agreed to be interviewed as part of the research study. The pre-determined category of gender was central to this session, with roles of women in society and familial culture emerging as sub- themes.

Gender. It was not surprising that gender was the overarching theme of this session, as the topic was clearly geared towards a woman’s experiences in a discipline subjugated by males.

Combining all of the data from the session and the interviews, the sub-themes that emerged in

Session A were:

Roles of Women in Society. Not once during the analysis of this category, did the term

“feminism” materialize. However, throughout the transcripts, the construct of the role of women in society often emerged, if not directly, but through how women were perceived by “others”.

How women were supposed to act, or how because mathematics was such a male dominated field contributed to their struggle to achieve their particular goals.

When I asked the presenter that I interviewed how she defined and described the role of theoretical groundings in diversity training, she was unable to articulate the formal theory in which she based her presentation. She shared,

I don’t belong to a particular camp. Being a woman is important to me, but so is

being Latina. People just need to understand that different doesn’t mean wrong. Here I

am, in [name of state]… a Latina, and female, teaching in a predominantly male

discipline. What more can I explain about myself when meeting someone new?

This passage provides a strong example of how identity politics and intersectionality presents some contradictions. When an individual has the ability to identify with more than one marginalized group, there becomes a negotiation between identities as a source of oppression or discrimination.

Familial Culture. Family philosophies and cultural identity play an important role when shaping the worldviews of individuals. How one was “taught” by parents or family members is a heavy influence in their behavior and thinking. One presenter noted,

To start off with my role model. My dad. He was elementary math teacher and

he was very strict. He told me that… I had a nickname, [name]. He told me, “[name],

you can fail any other class, but not math.” And he was serious. And every evening he

would take all my homework and make sure everything all the problems in the

assignment was correct. And he even gave me more challenging problems to work with.

So I was, I think I was forced to like math. I appreciated his efforts there.

Cultural identity, with respect to familial culture, contributed to this sub-theme, as the research participants of this session commonly referred to either their race, or religious upbringing. While cultural identity could be argued as being a separate construct, in this particular session, cultural identity was intertwined with what shaped their family dynamics and upbringing. One presenter shared,

I went to, again, an orthodox Jewish high school, and there was a boys school and a girls

school. The boys had a science fair. The girls had a “good deeds fair”. The boys had

biology, honors biology and AP classes. The girls had… classes. They boys had

European history. The girls did… typing. So that was where I went, and for my math,

the teachers really were warm bodies. They just sat in the classrooms. They would do

the exact same samples as was in the book, and anything more than that…

From a session attendee,

I totally get the push from family on what I was supposed to be when I grew up. My

parents were old school. I was going to be a teacher or a nurse because that’s what

women in their time did.

The thrust of this session rested on the construct of roles of women in society as dictated by societal and personal values – ideology that has been cultivated by personal experiences and upbringing. While both session attendees and presenters shared similar narratives, it was particularly apparent with the presenters, naturally because this session focused on their individual journeys. The constructs of race and gender were briefly mentioned as having an impact on their worldviews to some degree, but their experiences as women in a traditionally male dominated discipline of mathematics was central to the discussion, and how these roles were heavily influenced by culture. What was notable in this session was that being a mathematics instructor in the K-12 levels was not extraordinary. It was not surprising to have a female math teacher in elementary school, but this perception shifted as the presenters transitioned their teaching roles into higher education. Males were regarded more of subject matter experts in the field as the education levels moved beyond K-12. This rearrangement in the perception of responsibility and in some cases, ability, alludes to the ideology that female instructors are displaced, when, in not so many words, “the stakes get higher.” What does this shift in perception signal in terms of the relationships of race, gender and class? While this session did not directly expresses a theoretical framework, I noted an underlying foundation that rested on feminism – the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Weedon, 1996).

Session B. Session B was structured as an interactive session aimed at providing instructors tools on how to use popular culture media, such as a television show, to introduce

conversations about race, gender, class and sexuality in a training or classroom setting. Using a science fiction based television show, the session demonstrated how the difficult conversations regarding race, gender, and class could be started, without as much discomfort, when using fictional characters and situations. The pre-determined categories for this session were race, gender, and class. The sub-themes that emerged from this session were personal identity and curiosity.

Race, gender, and class. Race, gender and class were at the forefront of this session for as the intent of the training was to offer tools and strategies to start the conversation regarding race, gender and class by using popular culture media.

From one presenter,

What was really impactful for me was the dialogue that you know, we tried to

make it an interactive session and as much as you can in that type of format and you

know, so we brought in the clickers and you know, there had to be a fun element but a

serious element.

From another,

First we enjoyed [name of show] and brought the affected filter down. Then we

talked to each other in a very structured way.

The session’s content, while touching on race, gender, and class, certainly focused on learning – how instructors can introduce concepts into a classroom, how an individual learns, and the strategies that educators can engage to reinforce learning.

Personal Identity. Throughout the session, its agenda paid attention to the overarching themes of race, gender, and class equally, but in conversations with the presenters the two

themes that emerged from the data were race and gender. One presenter was an African-

American male, while the other was a Caucasian female. One presenter’s self-description said,

I was the tomboy that ran around during elementary school wearing shorts under

my skirt. Instead of watching how June Cleaver made the perfect casserole on t.v., I was

more interested in what [name of show’s female character] was doing to make sure

[name of show’s male character] came back to the [name of show locale].

The other presenter noted,

So different people of different ethnic backgrounds, religious stripes… but

different ways of thinking. Different experiences. You know. And you have the typical

gender and class and all of those things, but I’m more interested in diversity of thought.

Diversity of practice. And not so much, you know, oh I’m a black person or I’m a white

person. Or I’m brown of some sort! I love brown because it’s like, let’s just lump

everybody brown!

These presenters clearly rested their worldviews and mental models on a foundation of personal identity. How they viewed themselves personally signaled how they negotiated and interpreted diversity issues.

Curiosity. The sub-theme that emerged from this session was personal curiosity, especially from the point of views of the session attendees. Because the session was designed around an extremely popular science fiction show, it brought in a built-in demographic. As two session attendees shared,

I’m a closet [fan identity]. Of course this was a must see.

How could anybody not love [name of show character]? [name of show

character] is an institution.

The draw to attend this session was not so much on the conversation of race, class, and gender, but how this conversation fit within the context of a popular culture staple.

While there was much dialogue surrounding race and gender, and occasional mention of class, a tangible discussion surrounding the theoretical grounding used in the session, or as it related to the presenters’ worldviews was not apparent. The presenters, especially during the interviews, placed an emphasis on learning theories drawn from areas such as cognitive psychology and multi-cultural education for this particular presentation and conference submission, but theoretical groundings as it relates to race, gender, and class, again remained below the surface. There was very nearly a subdued hesitancy to include their personal positions in the discussion.

Session D. Session D was a town hall focused around the subject of race and white privilege. This session was a second part of a two session series. The first session was centered on what white privilege meant in the university community, while this session was intended to discuss, specifically, awareness of white privilege, and how it can be used positively to move social justice and race relations forward. This session’s pre-determined category was race, with personal identity as an emerging sub-theme.

Race. The topic and singular intent of this session, was to discuss white privilege, and the context surrounding white privilege. The theoretical grounding of white privilege was the driver for this session, and while the term was constantly referenced, the discourse leaned towards operationalizing the formal theory. When I asked the presenter on how the theory of

White Privilege was engaged for this session, she responded,

I don’t really use a formal theoretical grounding for a conference session. A

paper, maybe. But for the diversity conference, it’s more relaxed.

This very casual, and almost offhand comment made by the presenter was a particularly considerable finding, as it articulated what this study sought to answer – what is the role of theoretical groundings in diversity training at a diversity conference? It signaled that despite the probability that a presenter was trained in formal social theory, this competency was not taken into consideration when proposing to present at a conference.

Personal Identity. Session D had a multiple presenters, with the panel consisting of four females. While the main thrust of the session was about race, there was a moderate discussion surrounding gender and slight consideration on class.

I grew up a poor white girl on a farm.

I am biologically female, but I consider myself as transmasculine. Even though I

struggle with how people take my gender identity, I’m still white. I still have some

privilege.

Again, while the session was focused heavily on race, session attendees also brought up how privilege was not confined to race, but crossed over to gender.

I am a black man. I have privilege as a man. I am afforded certain concessions

in life because I am male. But at the end of the day, I’m seen as black. Black. Black.

Black.

African-American women have double strikes against them. Black and female.

Then I’m looked at as an angry black woman. Because I probably am!

On the surface, this session substantially paid attention on the theory of White Privilege

(McIntosh, 1993). However, the discourse was heavily codified with respect to gender and class, in spite of the obvious focus on race. As posited by Berlowitz (2014), observations of white privilege has not displayed nor “led to significant behavioral changes among Whites, much less

address institutional racism” (p. 77). In the analyses of session and interview data, a tendency emerged from both the presenters and session attendees to intertwine their personal views on gender and class with race, and racism. Personal identity in the realm of gender and class was commonly brought up in tandem with race, such as being black and female, black and male, or being white and poor, which signals an underlying adoption of theory of intersectionality

(McCall, 2005). A fascinating relationship to note with this observation is that a panelist who also responded to the survey identified intersectionality as one of their personal theoretical groundings. It was difficult to extract an exact articulation of how much of these personal theoretical underpinnings influenced the session.

Session H. Session H was a personal narrative of an individual who wanted to share her experience visiting different religious sites and attending different religious ceremonies and observances in the city. Interaction with session attendees was very informal. The presenter would share her experience with a particular religious sect, such as a Presbyterian mass, and the attendees would share similar or dissimilar experiences. The emerging theme for this session was religion, with curiosity and commonalities as sub-themes.

Religion. While the obvious theme of this session was religion, a theoretical underpinning was not apparent. The sub-themes that emerged from this analysis were:

Curiosity. The presenter took this journey out of curiosity of other religions, and the

session attendees chose this topic out of curiosity of other religions as well.

It was a safe place to learn. There was no politics, no personal agenda. I went

because I wanted to know what worship was like for others. I know my stuff. I know

what we do as Christians. All I know about the Muslim religion is that they don’t eat

pork. There’s gotta be more to it than that, you know?

This quote is a solid example of how some individuals personal contexts influence the role of theoretical groundings in a public forum. It signaled that diversity training has the capability of resolving the dichotomy between personal and professional identities.

Commonalities. Through sharing of experiences, the sub-theme of commonalities through religion and faith based ceremonies and rituals were emphasized more than differences.

It was apparent that each religion contrasted in doctrine and observances, but the discussions during the session itself, and during interviews with the presenter and attendees gravitated towards what was similar, and what was a common denominator within different religions. As two session attendees noted,

It all boils down to family and community. Everyone gets to the same place in

different ways.

Communion was interesting. Some, like Catholics, had hosts. Right? Hosts. My

church broke bread, like, real bread. But it was still the same. I guess because it is

Christian based. But that one guy who was Muslim, no, something else. Sikh? They

always ate afterwards, right? It’s all about taking part in some kind of food. Food will

always bring people together; I don’t care what you are!

Salient to this session was the observable lack of a formal theoretical underpinning in its intent, whether unarticulated or by design. The presenter, as well as session attendees, was clear in their expectation that this discussion was going to be an information exchange - whether to satisfy curiosity or to impart knowledge and perhaps re-set preconceived notions of a particular religion or belief. Subtle connections between political stances and religion were intimated, but the presenter’s ability to steer the trajectory of the conversation away from discussing these connections solidified the timbre of the session to remain on sharing experiences.

The Relationships: Race, Gender, Class, and Religion

Of the four sessions observed during the sessions, two had the unique position of having presenters that agreed to participate in interviews who also responded to the presenter surveys.

The following sections discuss how all of the components of the data gathered for these particular sessions – session observations, presenter interviews, survey responses, and proposal content analysis – were taken into consideration and compared and contrasted as combined findings. The joint displays show how the constructs of race, gender, class, and religion ranked on a high, medium and low scale. The scale was based on the following definitions:

• High – The terms race, gender, class, or religion were found within the session title or

abstract and were the focus of the sessions.

• Medium – The terms race, gender, class or religion were moderately found within the

discussions and transcripts of sessions, interviews, and field observation notes.

• Low – There was no mention of the term race, gender, class, or religion in any of the data

sets collected.

Session A. As Table 5 shows in a joint display of qualitative and quantitative findings,

Session A ranked consistently high on gender, which was not surprising as the session was intended to discuss women who teach in a male dominated discipline in higher education. The presenter ranked gender as high in their personal and professional points of view, and was categorized as high in the analysis of proposal submissions.

This display shows a consistency between the presenter’s personal and professional theoretical groundings, as well as the theoretical grounding they identified for their proposal

submission and the theoretical grounding identified during session observations and content analysis conducted on the proposal submission.

Table 5. Session A Joint Display

SESSION A RACE GENDER CLASS RELIGION

SESSION OBSERVATIONS LOW HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM

PRESENTER INTERVIEWS HIGH HIGH MEDIUM LOW

SURVEY – PERSONAL HIGH HIGH HIGH LOW

SURVEY – PROFESSIONAL HIGH HIGH MEDIUM LOW

SURVEY – PROPOSAL LOW HIGH LOW LOW

PROPOSAL CONTENT ANALYSIS LOW HIGH LOW LOW

Session B. Session B’s presenters did not respond to the survey, but race, and gender ranked high during session observations and interviews. Class, on the other hand, ranked as high in the content analysis, but ranked medium during presenter interviews and in session observations. Based on the results from the qualitative data, while the construct of class was important to both presenters, they tended to focus on race and gender, as these constructs related to their personal identities. While a complete conclusion could not be found since the presenters for this session did not respond to the survey, the display still illustrates a consistency between theoretical groundings identified during session observations and the proposal content analysis.

What is of note, however, is that while the session and the proposal submission rated HIGH for class, presenter interviews discovered that the presenters only rated MEDIUM in their personal and professional beliefs. (See Table 6 for a joint display of qualitative and quantitative findings.)

Table 6. Session B Joint Display

SESSION B RACE GENDER CLASS RELIGION

SESSION OBSERVATIONS HIGH HIGH HIGH LOW

PRESENTER INTERVIEWS HIGH HIGH MEDIUM LOW

SURVEY – PERSONAL

SURVEY – PROFESSIONAL No Survey Response

SURVEY – PROPOSAL

PROPOSAL CONTENT ANALYSIS HIGH HIGH HIGH LOW

Session D. A co-presenter from Session D also responded to the survey, and race ranked high on all points of the matrix – survey response, session observation, presenter interview, and content analysis. Gender also ranked high on all points, and consistent with the observation from the qualitative data that there was a tendency to interweave race with gender in terms of the theory of privilege. Similar to results from the survey and content analysis, the session matched with what was important to the presenter in terms of their professional capacity. Race was important professionally, and race ranked high in the proposal submission. (See Table 7 for a joint display of qualitative and quantitative findings).

A notable result from session D in comparing the presenter’s survey response to the session observations and interview findings, gender and class were ranked as HIGH, but the proposal they submitted to the conference as well as their professional theoretical groundings only rated a MEDIUM for gender and class.

Table 7. Session D Joint Display

SESSION D RACE GENDER CLASS RELIGION

SESSION OBSERVATIONS HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW

PRESENTER INTERVIEWS HIGH HIGH HIGH LOW

SURVEY – PERSONAL HIGH HIGH HIGH LOW

SURVEY – PROFESSIONAL HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW

SURVEY – PROPOSAL HIGH LOW LOW LOW

PROPOSAL CONTENT ANALYSIS HIGH LOW LOW LOW

Session H. Session H was considered the outlier of this data set, as the construct of religion did not correspond in the interpretation of the relationships between race, gender, and class. However, it is meaningful to recognize that the pattern of where the construct rested on the high-medium-low matrix was uniform in terms of session observations, presenter interviews and proposal content analysis. (See Table 8 for a joint display of qualitative and quantitative findings).

Similar to Session A, the joint display showed a consistency between theoretical groundings observed and identified from session observations and the proposal submission.

However, a complete comparison could not be made, as the presenter for this session did not complete a survey. However, it is important to point out that this particular presenter was clear on their intent and goal of the session they submitted and ultimately presented at the conference

– race, gender and class were not of particular consideration, and the goal of the session was simply to impart knowledge of different religions and beliefs based on personal experiences and practice.

Table 8. Session H Joint Display

SESSION H RACE GENDER CLASS RELIGION

SESSION OBSERVATIONS LOW LOW LOW HIGH

PRESENTER INTERVIEWS LOW LOW LOW HIGH

SURVEY – PERSONAL

SURVEY – PROFESSIONAL No Survey Response

SURVEY – PROPOSAL

PROPOSAL CONTENT ANALYSIS LOW LOW LOW HIGH

Overall Case Study Findings

Given the data and analyses presented, this mixed methods case study illustrated a comprehensive understanding of what role theoretical groundings play in diversity training in particular, and in a diversity conference in general. Complex and intricate, the case study uncovered the following the pronounced results:

An individual’s personal identity and culture, provides the foundation for their theoretical underpinnings versus formal social theories.

The emerging themes from the qualitative findings were Personal Identity and Culture.

How people identified themselves, whether according to race, gender, class, or other constructs such as sexuality or religion, was an extremely salient subject that presented itself from the analysis.

Presenters were more likely to propose topics to present at the diversity conference that were closely aligned with their professional points of view and theoretical groundings versus those that they valued personally.

Diversity conferences, historically, were borne from a business need – an avenue to share best practices, exchange information, and promote learning regarding the broad topic of diversity. My interpretation based on the data, indicated that professional motivation to present at the diversity conference was primary, as there was a tendency for sessions to focus on issues that were prevalent within the context of an organization. Consequently, professional theoretical groundings held a heavier influence on the content of the 2014 conference session versus personal theoretical groundings.

Diversity training practitioner’s personal theoretical underpinnings play an important role in the implementation of sessions.

While this research points towards professional points of view as playing a significant role in diversity conference sessions in terms of content, one must also take into consideration that a presenter’s personal values also contribute to the session’s tone and tenor. Additionally, sessions with theoretical underpinnings based on personal theoretical groundings are more likely built on a foundation of personal identity and experiences versus formal social theories. Unless a diversity training practitioner is trained and well versed in terms of formal theoretical groundings, they will draw from the best resources available to them, and instinctively rely on information that accessible and familiar.

Contexts hold great influence over the role theoretical groundings play in diversity training curricula.

Contexts provide the signal of whether theoretical groundings are articulated or masked during the discussions regarding diversity and diversity training. In this case study of a diversity conference at a university, there were many instances where context determined the role of theoretical grounding in diversity training. For example, the opening remarks was a careful

negotiation of the university’s message emphasizing diversity and inclusion, whereas the keynote speaker’s address was very frank and at times, uncomfortable, but delivered the same message that emphasized diversity and inclusion. The difference between both speeches rested on context

– the university administrator had to deliver the message in a diplomatic manner, while the keynote speaker’s intention was to spur reaction.

Context in terms of professional and personal space also sets the direction of whether an individual publicly establishes a formal social theoretical grounding with respect to diversity and diversity training. An individual’s personal beliefs may contradict their professional beliefs, and which beliefs they choose to engage may depend on the space that they occupy at that particular moment.

Conclusion

While the restricted population of presenters, accepted proposals, and session attendees for the 2014 diversity conference limited the generalizability of outcomes of this research, this case study provided an in-depth exploration into what role theoretical groundings play in a diversity conference at a university. While peripheral contexts, such as the goals of the conference and the mission of the university that hosted it played a role in the conditions of the conference, the full case demonstrated that theoretical groundings, whether personal or professional in leanings, held significant influence in the sessions presented at the conference.

Chapter 5: Conclusion and Implications

The topic of diversity travels far and wide, and individuals will inevitably face and encounter issues in diversity. Organizations have recognized the need for diversity training, and therefore, have called upon diversity training practitioners to educate and inform through a variety of platforms. This case study of a diversity conference, at a glance, was an ambitious project. The collection of combined perspectives furnished a multi-faceted, yet comprehensive description of a diversity conference, and the roles theoretical groundings played within it. True to the nature of a case study, it was a linear yet iterative process (Yin, 2014). Guided by the overall research question, “What role do theoretical groundings play in sessions in a university diversity conference,” this study contributed to our knowledge of a complex social phenomenon.

Overall findings of this research established that the role theoretical groundings play in a university’s diversity conference is not formally nor explicitly articulated. Additionally, practitioners tended to propose topics to present at the conference that were more aligned with their professional leanings versus personal leanings. Further to this, some presenters were not able to identify a formal social theory related to their personal and professional beliefs, nor did they identify a theoretical underpinning that their proposal submissions rested upon. Most, if not all the presenters relied heavily on their personal experiences and worldviews as the foundation of their presentations. The few that indicated awareness of formal social theories did not use nor state them unequivocally in their proposal submissions, and during their respective sessions.

Ultimately, contexts, such as personal and professional political economies, carried a heavy, yet understated influence on what was proposed, accepted and presented at a university’s diversity conference.

Answering The Questions

This study sought to understand how presenters at the conference defined theoretical groundings, and what role these groundings held in the design, development, and implementation of sessions ultimately presented in the conference. Additionally, this research provided a brief description of what conference session attendees noted about the theoretical groundings in the session they attended. This study also delved into what differences existed with respect to theoretical groundings that presenters identified in their personal and professional points of view, and in terms of sessions they proposed and presented. What contexts explain the relative prevalence of different session topics in the conference? While this research study was, by no means, an attempt to provide an exhaustive exploration of diversity, it was guided by a particular goal – what role to theoretical groundings play in the development, design, and implementation of a university diversity conference?

Theoretical groundings, in a formal sense, were not immediately observable in this diversity conference. While many sessions clearly acknowledged topics for discussion such as race, gender, and class in their titles or abstracts, the articulation of a formal social theory, such as feminism (Weedon, 1996) or Marxism (Marx, 1867), was absent. However, this lack of direct visibility and acknowledgement was not an indicator that theoretical underpinnings were not present at all. What this research uncovered is that those who were cognizant of formal social theories did not view the diversity conference as an appropriate forum to explain or discuss them.

As one presenter noted, “I usually don’t use theoretical groundings during a conference session.

But for the diversity conference, it’s more relaxed.” Another presenter who was not interviewed, but responded to the survey stated when asked what theoretical grounding, if any, did they use

for their proposal, answered, “It's based in Marxist Theory, but I won't be presenting it as such to make the presentation much more accessible.”

For the most part, presenters were unable to identify which social theory their curricula rested upon, but were quite definitive about which topics within diversity were important to them, i.e. roles of women in society, or cultural differences within a group. Presenters based sessions on worldviews in terms of what was of personal importance to them, and what was deemed important in their professional roles. Sessions were based on personal experiences, and informed by experiences observed through others. Personal theoretical groundings rested on beliefs they appreciated through familial culture and individual identity, while professional theoretical groundings were heavily influenced by their particular organization’s culture and value system.

As a whole, the range of session topics presented at the conference reflected a similar distribution in comparison to submitted proposals. This year’s call for proposals presented a high number of submissions that focused on the topics of race, and the preponderance of accepted proposals echoed this pattern. However, what was curious was the number of proposals submitted and accepted to the conference regarding gender, in comparison to where gender rated in personal and professional leanings. There was a noted prevalence of sessions and proposals that focused on gender, while gender did not rate as high in terms of importance with respect to personal and professional theoretical groundings. Another notable observation was that the subject of class, while not a frequent stand-alone topic within presentations and proposals, earned moderate discussion during sessions that focused specifically on race or gender. Class, when specifically mentioned, was done so in tandem with race or with gender.

All things considered, how did these personal and professional theoretical leanings translate into the sessions presenters proposed and presented at the diversity conference?

Presenters who responded to the survey, and whose sessions were observed, were more inclined to present topics that expressed their professional beliefs versus personal beliefs. However, session content, while geared towards topics that held greater importance to them professionally, was informed through personal theoretical underpinnings and experiences. Session attendees, on the other hand, paid greater attention to sessions that resonated to their personal interests and concerns.

Ultimately, context had substantial influence on the role theoretical groundings play in diversity training, and in particular, at this diversity conference. Discussions with presenters regarding these theoretical groundings were very different during the sessions that I observed, compared to the discussions that took place during interviews. Individuals, particularly those who presented at the conference, placed a high value on their personal identities and culture.

However, these underpinnings were displaced, especially within the setting of public discourse, such as a diversity conference, where more emphasis was placed on professional leanings and professional theoretical groundings. Based on my interpretation of the data, presenters have learned to shape-shift between their personal and professional identities, and consequently, have learned to adopt multiple sets of theoretical groundings. This stark dichotomy in personal and professional worldviews emphasizes the lack of integration between personal and professional theoretical groundings.

This case study illustrated the multi-dimensional configuration of diversity. To explore what the role of theoretical grounding played in this conference was at the forefront of this exploration, consideration for contexts surrounding the conference was equally important, as it

improved the understanding of the relative prevalence of different session topics presented at the event. The parameters of the conference committee’s criteria to accept or decline a proposal, or perhaps a reflection of what was important to presenters personally or professionally signaled, again, influence of political economy, but in this instance, the position that the university held regarding diversity that shaped and dictated what was presented at the diversity conference.

Implications of The Research

So, how do the findings of this case study translate into practical applications of diversity training? This study affirmed that diversity is made up of numerous layers involving many actors – practitioners, organizations, participants and researchers. This myriad of components and elements corresponds to different implications for different points of view.

Implications for diversity work. Diversity is not a static concept. How diversity was defined during the civil rights era, arguably, may not mirror how it is defined in current times.

However, race, gender and class remain a substantial core of diversity and issues within diversity. The fluidity lies in the interpretation of the relationships between race, gender, and class, and how these interpretations direct the evolution of the definition of diversity. Those who work within this discipline must realize that the new world cannot operate under old rules.

Where theoretical grounding fit in the dynamic of this fluidity becomes the crux of this research study. If diversity training, based on anti-racist pedagogy, is intended to eradicate discrimination and oppression of marginalized groups, then why are theoretical groundings not articulated in diversity training sessions?

Implications for conference committees. Diversity conference committees hold in its grasp influence over diversity training far beyond logistics and coordination. It is essential that committees recognize and understand how their governance of a diversity conference, and the

framework that they develop, support, and implement carries immeasurable bearing on the topics presented, the style and content of the presentations, as well as the quality of the sessions offered during a conference. Diversity conference organizers need to consider providing a closed space in an open space. In other words, conference sessions must be viewed as safe zones of free thought, where personal and professional theoretical groundings can be explored, discussed and examined, unhindered by political motives. In not so many ways, diversity conference committees serve as the glue that holds all the pieces together, and the success of a conference rests, for the most part, on their stewardship.

Implications for universities. The academe, historically, has served as an incubator of thought and introspects. Universities must negotiate and determine its role in the evolution and direction of diversity training, whether to provide guidance towards a more scholarly approach in diversity training curricula, or to offer a balanced space in the discussion between academic, professional, and personal leanings regarding diversity.

It is a complicated and problematic issue to consider that institutions of higher education are operating in a manner expected in perhaps a private corporation, where public discourse regarding diversity is not truly public. As the data implicates, those in the academe are also shape-shifting, masking a stance regarding diversity based on formal social theoretical groundings with softer, politically correct discussions. Taking into consideration this study’s

Marxist theoretical lens, perhaps then one must consider a university as a capitalist system in and of itself, where students are the product, faculty and staff are the means of production, and knowledge is the capital. Therefore, the academe becomes a system where there is division of thought between scholars – the working class, and those who hold the capital – university administrators.

Regardless of position or philosophy, universities must be at the forefront of this narrative, and continue to be contemplative of how diversity training is developed and implemented. If the academic community is, indeed, the revolutionary vanguard who holds the means and power to bridge the gap between theory and practice, then universities must also practice what they preach.

Implications for participants. Those that present at diversity conferences, and those that attend conferences should appreciate that diversity is often times, a difficult concept to consider. There is no right or wrong answer, as what is true for some, may not be true for others.

It is necessary for presenters and attendees to contribute and maintain a open discussion regarding topics of diversity that is fair, respectful, and thought provoking.

Implications for researchers. Research, much like diversity, is not static. Mirroring the role of the academic community’s responsibility in shepherding the direction of diversity training, researchers must remain the cavalry that moves the direction forward. In not so many ways, researchers make up the foundation of knowledge and education. Furthering the understanding of diversity training and its relationship with formal social theories is integral to bridge the gap between theory and practice.

Recommendations

If the goal of diversity training is to change behaviors that discriminate based on race, gender, and class, then practitioners must consider developing curricula that also explains what drives these discriminatory behaviors. Awareness of differences merely scratches the surface of oppression, and there must be a more scholarly approach. Theoretical groundings in diversity training cannot be ignored. Diversity training sessions should clearly articulate a formal social theory without concern that the content and curricula is unapproachable.

Limitations of the Study

The depth and detail of this study was limited to one conference in a university. Only four sessions at the conference were observed, and did not embark on a cross-analysis of all the sessions presented. Focusing on the four sessions that were observed, not all presenters at each session participated in qualitative interviews. The findings of this research were not generalizable and did not implicate all diversity training conferences in all types of context and environments. Furthermore, findings were interpretative and subject to the researcher’s bias and understanding during analysis.

Areas for Future Studies

It would be interesting to further investigate curricula at a different diversity conference, perhaps not in an academic, but in a corporate setting to further investigate how context influences what sessions are being offered. What patterns could emerge from both data sets, and what could these patterns represent, and what can we attribute to these findings? This proposed research would also validate the trajectory that diversity conferences are travelling in terms of what types of session are being proposed, accepted, and presented.

It is also important to investigate the political economy surrounding diversity conferences. How do administrators influence the types of sessions that are accepted for presentation? What drives the emphasis of certain topics over others? What are the connections between socio-political contexts of conferences as current events?

Another perspective to investigate is how organizational leaders’ personal theoretical groundings in terms of diversity and diversity training influence the professional values and culture fostered within their organizations. If leaders set a company’s mission and values, then

100

what role do their theoretical groundings hold in the development of diversity training? What values are they imparting to their employees?

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to explore the role of theoretical groundings in sessions presented during diversity conferences. This case study design focused on a diversity conference hosted by a Research-1 university in the Midwest with a focal audience of students, faculty, and staff. Findings from this research demonstrated that despite its academic context and setting, this particular conference accommodated sessions that emphasized professional theoretical groundings in diversity. I submit that despite being situated within an institution of higher education, this mixed methods case study, viewed through a Marxist lens, supported my stance that an individual’s economic status, directly connected to their professional identity, holds considerable influence on how one publicly acknowledge the constructs of race, gender, and class. While personal identity such as race and gender remain an important consideration in terms of political economy, they are no longer the elephants in the room. Class has quietly received the distinction of being the taboo topic in diversity, and institutionalized oppression has merely changed costumes. Regardless of personal point of views regarding race, gender, and class, an individual who holds a false consciousness with respect to their economic position in society must cede to the values and culture of their professions in order to maintain and protect their economic status.

So, how does this help diversity training practitioners in terms of developing, designing, and implementing diversity training curricula? The dominance of professional values in diversity training is undisputed, as these have gained a position within strategic business models, regardless of intent – whether for compliance with government regulations, a part of vision,

101

mission and values, or to engage a culture of inclusion. Instead of adopting an antagonistic stance, perhaps one should consider observations from this study as a vehicle to actualize diversity training that allows for a positive amalgamation of personal and professional theoretical groundings. Diversity and diversity training are, indeed, multifaceted and complex subjects.

While I posit that diversity conferences were borne out of necessity, it is important to acknowledge that these events are beneficial, and anchored by good intent. Along with diversity, diversity training and diversity conferences will continue to evolve in terms of definition, in terms of goals, and terms of practice. It is my hope that the academe will continue to move towards a more scholarly approach when actualizing diversity training. Diversity training is a powerful mechanism. With sound social theoretical grounding, along with thoughtful and careful consideration of personal and professional groundings, the key message of this study suggests, and as accentuated by civil rights activist, Dr. Marian Spencer, “Diversity is not negotiable.”

102

References

Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Raleigh, NC:

Duke University Press.

Alcoff, L. (1997). Philosophy and racial identity. Philosophy Today, 41(1), 67-76.

Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (1985). The survey research handbook. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Aptheker, H. (1987). Racism and historiography. In M. Berlowitz, & C. Morgan (Eds.), Selected

Works of Herbert Aptheker: Racism, imperialism & peace (pp. 69-77). Minneapolis, MN:

MEP Publications.

Banner-Haley, C. (2009). Myths and truths: The civil rights movement and African Americans

on the southern tier of upstate New York. Afro-Americans in New York Life and History,

33(1), 17-26.

Bazeley, P., & Kemp, L. (2012). Mosaics, triangles, and DNA: Metaphors for integrated analysis

in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(1), 55–72.

Berlowitz, M. & Jackson, E. (1994). The age of education reform: myth and realities. In B.

Jones, & K. Borman, (Eds.), Investing in US Schools: Directions for Educational Policy

(pp.177-197). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Berlowitz, M. (2014). Diversity training and identity politics in the university: Reflections of a

Marxist scholar and activist. In Obiakor, F., Bakken, J., & Algozzine, B. (Eds.), White

voices in multicultural psychology, education and leadership: Inside the walls of

America’s higher education (pp. 75-88). New York, NY: Nova Publishers.

Bernstein, A., Domingo, J. & Solis, C. (2012). Critical race theory meets the NYPD: An

assessment of anti-racist pedagogy for police in New York City. Journal of Criminal

Justice Education, 23(2), 174-204.

103

Bernstein, M. (2005). Identity politics. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 47-74.

Blazak, R. (1998). Hate in the suburbs: The rise of the skinhead counterculture. In The practical

skeptic: Readings in sociology (pp.49-57). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Bohmer, P. (2005). Marxist theory of racism and racial inequality. African Americans in the US

Economy, 94-100.

Boyd, H. (2005). In memoriam: Rosa parks. The Black Scholar, 35(4), 42-64.

Breiman, L. (2002). On McCarthyism at Berkeley: The enemy is us. Deadalus, 131(2), 130-132.

Brown, W. (1995). States of inquiry: Power and freedom in late modernity. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge.

Carasthasis, A. (2013). Identity politics as potential coalitions. Signs, 38(4), 941-965.

Chang, H. (1985). Toward a Marxist theory of racism: Two essays by Harry Chang. Review of

Radical Political Economics, 17(3), 34-45.

Cheese, P. (2010). Talent management for a new era: what we have learned from the recession

and what we need to focus on next. Human Resource Management International Digest,

18(3), 3-5.

Cheliotis, L. (2010). The sociospatial mechanics of domination: Transcending the

exclusion/inclusion dualism. Law Critique, 2010(21), 131-145.

Chen, M. (2014). Presidential address – becoming ambicultural: A personal quest and

aspiration for organizations. Academy of Management Review, 39(2), 119-137.

Chesler, M. & Moldenhauer-Salazar, J. (1998). Diversity, organizational change, and social

justice: What’s happening in conferences and books? The Diversity Factor, 6(3), 13-19.

104

Chrobot-Mason, D., & Ruderman, M. (2004). Leadership in a diverse workplace. In M.

Stockdale & F. Crosby (Eds.) The psychology and management of workplace diversity,

100-121. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Cornell, D. (2000). Just cause: Freedom, identity, and rights. Lanham, MD: Rowman and

Littlefield.

Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., Klassen, A. C., Plano Clark, V. L., & Smith, K. C. for the Office of Behavioral

and Social Sciences Research. (2011, August). The protection of human subjects. In Best

practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences. Washington, DC: National

Institutes of Health. Retrieved from: http://obssr.od.nih.gov/mixed_methods_research

Davis, D., O'Brien, M. A. T., Freemantle, N., Wolf, F. M., Mazmanian, P., & Taylor-Vaisey, A.

(1999). Impact of formal continuing medical education: Do conferences, workshops,

rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or

health care outcomes?. JAMA, 282(9), 867-874.

Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction. NYU Press.

Dogra, N., Giordano, J., & France, N. (2007). Cultural diversity teaching and issues of

uncertainty: The findings of a qualitative study. BMC Medical Education, 7(1), 8.

Dunn, W., Kirova, A., Cooley, M., & Ogilvie, G. (2009). Fostering intercultural inquiry in

subject-area curriculum courses. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(3), 533-557.

105

Ehrke, F., Berthod, A., & Steffens, M. (2014). How diversity training can change attitudes:

Increasing perceived complexity of superordinate groups to improve intergroup relations.

Journal of Social Psychology, 53(1), 193-206.

Engels, F. (2003). The end of classical German philosophy. (P. Taylor & J. Jazewski, Trans.).

Moscow: Progress Publishers. (Original work published in 1886).

Ericson, D. (2011). The politics of inclusion and exclusion: Identity politics in twenty-first

century America. New York, NY: Routledge.

Freire, P. (1970). The pedagogy of the oppressed in D. Barash, Approaches to Peace (pp. 138-

144). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Gavino, M., Eber, J. & Bell, D. (2010). Celebrating our diversity: Creating an inclusive climate

in a US university. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 29(4),

395-405.

Gee, J. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis theory and method (3rd ed). New York, NY:

Routledge.

Ginsborg, J., Chaffin, R., & Nicholson, G. (2006). Shared performance cues in singing and

conducting: A content analysis of talk during practice. Psychology of Music, 34(2), 167-

194.

Gergen, K. J. (1995). Social construction and the transformation of identity politics. In

Conference for The New School for Social Research Symposium, 7, 1-16.

Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in

mixed-method evaluation. New directions for evaluation, 1997(74), 5-17.

106

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for

mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3),

255–274.

Guo, Y. (2012). Classes without class consciousness and class consciousness without class: the

meaning of class in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of Contemporary China,

21(77), 723-739.

Hancock, D., & Algozzine B. (2011). Doing case study research (2nd ed.). New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Harper, S. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize racist

institutional norms. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 9-29.

Holvino, E., Ferdman, B. & Merrill-Sands, D. (2004). Creating and sustaining diversity and

inclusion in organizations: Strategies and approaches. In M. Stockdale & F. Crosby

(Eds.), The psychology and management of workplace diversity (245-276). Malden:

Blackwell Publishing.

Ivankova, N. (2014). Implementing quality criteria in designing and conducting a sequential

quan – qual mixed methods study of student engagement with learning applied research

methods online. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 8(1), 25-51.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed

methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.

Jones, C. & Kennedy, G. (2011). Proceedings from ALT-C 2011: Stepping beyond the

paradigm wars: Pluralist methods for research in learning technology. Leeds:

Association for Learning Technology.

107

Jones, T. (2006). Combining conflict resolution education and human rights education: Thoughts

for school-based peace education. Journal of Peace Education, 3(2), 187-208.

Kamenka, E. (1983). The portable Karl Marx. New York, NY: Penguin Group.

Kelly, E. & Dobbin, F. (1998). How affirmative action became diversity management:

Employer response to antidiscrimination law 1961 to 1996. American Behavioral

Scientist, 41, 960-984.

Kroos, K. (2012). Becoming conscious of the American middle class (un) consciousness.

Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 46(3), 312-334.

Kruks, S. (2001). Retrieving experiences: Subjectivity and recognition in feminist politics.

Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Lawson, V. (2012). Decentring poverty studies: Middle class alliances and the social

construction of poverty. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 33, p. 1-19.

Levin, H. (2008). The economic payoff to investing in educational justice. Educational

Researcher, 38(1), 5-20.

Lewis, T. (2012). Mapping the constellation of educational Marxism(s). Educational Philosophy

and Theory, 44(S1), 98-114.

Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Loewen, J. (1996). Why is history taught like this? In Lies My Teachers Told Me (pp. 271-298).

New York, NY: Simon & Shuster.

Ludvig, A. (2006). Differences between women? Intersecting voices in a female narrative.

European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3), 245–58.

Mack, R. (1963). Race, class, and power. New York, NY: American Book Company.

108

Manoharan, A. Kolb, C., Durocher-Radeka, G., & Javier, G. (2014). Lesbian, bay, bisexual ally

training programs on campus: Current variations and future directions. Journal of

College Student Development, 53(3), 317-322.

Marx, K. (1867). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/.

Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1845). The German Ideology. In Karl Marx: Selected Writings (Ed.

David McClellan, 2000), (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews.

Forum: Qualitative Social Research, (11)3. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-

research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1428/3027.

Matusov, E., & Smith, M. P. (2012). The middle-class nature of identity and its implications for

education: A genealogical analysis and reevaluation of a culturally and historically

bounded concept. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 46(3), 274-295.

McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30(3), 1771-1800.

McIntosh, P. (1993). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see

correspondences through work in women’s studies in gender basics: Feminist

perspectives on women and men. Anne Minas (Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

McKnight, D. & Chandler, P. (2012). The complicated conversations of class and race in social

and curricular analysis: An examination of Pierre Bordieu’s interpretive framework in

relation to race. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(S1), 74-97.

McNamara, C. (2009). General guidelines for conducting interviews. Retrieved October 24,

2013, from http://managementhelp.org/evaluatn/intrview.htm

109

Merriam-Webster Inc. (2014). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Merriam-Webster.

Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com

Morse, J. M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed methods design: Principles and procedures. Walnut

Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

National Women’s History Project (2014). Retrieved from www.nwhp.org.

Nicholson, L. (2010). Identity after identity politics. Journal of Law & Policy, 33, 43-74.

Niemonen, J. (2007). Antiracist education in theory and practice: A critical assessment. The

American Sociologist, 38(2), 159-177.

Omi, M. & Winant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the

1990s. New York, NY: Routledge.

Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2005). Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational inequality.

Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.

Peniel, J. (2009). The black power movement, democracy, and America in the king years.

American Historical Review, 114(4), 1001-1016.

Perlo, V. & Welty, G. (1996). Economics of racism II: The roots of inequality, USA. New York,

NY: International Publishers.

Polletta, F. & Jasper, J. (2001). Collective identity and social movements. Annual Review of

Sociology, 27, 283-305.

Rawlins, W. (1989). A dialectic analysis of the tensions, functions and strategic challenges of

communications in young adult friendships. Communications Yearbook, 12(1), 157-189.

Robbins, L. (1994). Anti-communism, racism and censorship in the McCarthy era: The case of

Ruth w. Brown and the Bartlesville public library. Journal of Education for Library and

Information Sciences, 35(4), 331-334.

110

Roberson, L., Kulik, C., & Pepper, M. (2001). Designing effective diversity training: Influence

of group composition and trainee experience. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(8),

871-885.

Rogers, J., & Teixeira, R. (1999). America's forgotten majority. The Atlantic Monthly, June, 66-

75.

Rook, L. (2013). Mental models: A robust definition. The Learning Organization, 20(1), 38 – 47.

Rozmarin, E. (2010). Better identity politics. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 20, 181-190.

Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Sale, J. E., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate:

Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality & Quantity, 36, 43–53.

Scott, K., Heathcote, J. & Gruman, J. (2011). The diverse organization: Finding gold at the end

of the rainbow. Human Resources Management, 50(6), 735-755.

Sleeter, C. & Stillman, J. (2005). Standardizing knowledge in a multicultural society. Curriculum

Inquiry, 35, 27-46.

Soltani, E. (2010). The overlooked variable in managing human resources of Iranian

organizations: Workforce diversity – some evidence. The International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 21(1), 84-108.

Srivastava, S. (2005). You’re calling me a racist? The moral and emotional regulation of

antiracism and feminism. Signs, 31(1), 29-62.

Storer, H., Mienko, J., Chang, Y., Kang, J., Miyawaki, C., & Schultz, K. (2012). Moving beyond

dichotomies: How the intersection of race, class and place impacts high school

111

graduation rates for African American students. Journal of Sociology & Welfare, 39(1),

17-44.

Syed, J., & Kramar, R. (2009). Socially responsible diversity management. Journal of

Management & Organization, 15(5), 639-651.

Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining the qualitative and

quantitative approaches (Applied Social Research Methods, No. 46). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). The new era of mixed methods [Editorial]. Journal of

Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3–7.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating

quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Thomas, R. (2011). The management of workforce diversity: A continuing evolution.

Employment Relations Today, 38(3), 1-9.

Tomlinson-Clarke, S. (2000). Assessing outcomes in a multicultural training course: A

qualitative study. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 13(2), 221-231.

Trochim, W. (2001). The research methods knowledge base, 2nd Ed. Cincinnati, OH: Atomic

Dog Publishing.

Turner, D. (2010). Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice investigators. The

Qualitative Report, (15)3, 754-760.

Tyler, C. (2011). Power, alienation and performativity in capitalist societies. European Journal

of Social Theory, 14(2), 161-179.

112

University of Cincinnati Institutional Review Board. (2013). Social and behavioral sciences

(IRB-S) protocol [Data file]. Retrieved from

http://researchcompliance.uc.edu/HSR/IRB/FormsForNewSubmissionsProtocols/ePASSu

bmissionGuidanceDocuments/Protocol.aspx

Vedantam, S. (2008). Most diversity training ineffective, study finds. The Washington Post.

Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/story/2008/01/19/ST2008011901990.html.

Watson, B., Spoonley, P., & Fitzgerald, E. (2009). Managing diversity: A twenty-first century

agenda. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 34(2), 61-76.

Waysman, M., & Savaya, R. (1997). Mixed method evaluation: A case study. Evaluation

Practice, 18(3), 227.

Weedon, C. (1996). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Oxford, England: Basil

Blackwell.

Wojcik, J. (2012). Diversity programs bring in skills, profits. Business Insurance, 46(40), 6.

Yang, Y. & Konrad, A. (2011). Understanding diversity management practices: Implications of

institutional theory and resource-based theory. Group & Organizational Management,

36(1), 6-38.

Yin, R. (2014). Case study research design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zembylas, M. (2014). Rethinking race and racism as technologies of affect: Theorizing the

implications for anti-racist politics and practice in education. Race, Ethnicity and

Education (ahead of print), 1-18. Retrieved from www.tandfonline.com. DOI:

10.1080/13613324.2014.946492.

113

Appendix A

Survey Administered to Presenters

Q1. Please indicate your highest education level.

a. High School Graduate/GED

b. Bachelors Degree

c. Masters/Secondary Degree

d. Doctorate

e. Other. Please specify.

Q2. What is your gender?

a. Male

b. Female

c. Other. Please specify.

Q3. What is your general work in the area of diversity?

a. Human Resources Practitioner

b. Training and Development Practitioner

c. Higher Education

d. K-12

e. Student

f. Other. Please specify.

Q4. What is your role in your accepted proposal for the 2014 Diversity Conference?

a. Primary Presenter

b. Co-Presenter

c. Other. Please specify.

114

Q5. Think about your personal beliefs and concerns about diversity. Please rank the top 3 issues that are of most concern to you, with 1 indicating the issue of most concern to you personally.

a. Roles of men and women in society

b. Socio-economic differences and its influences

c. Managing differences in the workplace

d. Mental and physical challenges

e. Race, ethnicity, and nationality

f. Religion

g. Sexuality and gender

h. Other. Please specify.

Q6. Think about your personal beliefs and concerns about diversity. Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements from Strongly agree to Strongly disagree.

a. The roles of men and women in society are important to me.

b. Socio-economic differences and its influences in society are important to me.

c. Managing differences in the workplace is important to me.

d. Mental and physical challenges faced by individuals and groups are important to me.

e. Race, ethnicity, and nationality are important to me.

f. Religion is important to me.

g. Sexuality and gender is important to me.

Q7. Which theoretical grounding in diversity training, if any, do you relate to your personal beliefs? Please check all that apply.

a. Critical Race Theory

b. Feminist Theory

115

c. Queer Theory

d. Marxist Theory

e. Diversity Management

f. None

g. Other. Please specify.

Q8. Think about your professional work in diversity. Please rank the top 3 issues that are of most concern to you, with 1 indicating the issue of most concern to you personally.

a. Roles of men and women in society

b. Socio-economic differences and its influences

c. Managing differences in the workplace

d. Mental and physical challenges

e. Race, ethnicity, and nationality

f. Religion

g. Sexuality and gender

h. Other. Please specify.

Q9. Think about your professional beliefs and concerns about diversity. Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements from Strongly agree to Strongly disagree.

a. The roles of men and women in society are important to me.

b. Socio-economic differences and its influences in society are important to me.

c. Managing differences in the workplace is important to me.

d. Mental and physical challenges faced by individuals and groups are important to me.

e. Race, ethnicity, and nationality are important to me.

f. Religion is important to me.

116

g. Sexuality and gender is important to me.

Q10. In the work role that you have identified, which theoretical grounding in diversity training, if ay, are you encouraged to use? Please check all that apply.

a. Critical Race Theory

b. Feminist Theory

c. Queer Theory

d. Marxist Theory

e. Diversity Management

f. None

g. Other. Please specify.

Q11. Which theoretical grounding in diversity training, if any, did you adopt in your accepted presentation for the 2014 Diversity Conference? Please check all that apply.

a. Critical Race Theory

b. Feminist Theory

c. Queer Theory

d. Marxist Theory

e. Diversity Management

f. None

g. Other. Please specify.

Q12. Which of the following issues are addressed in your accepted presentation for the 2014

Diversity Conference? Please check all that apply.

a. Roles of men and women in society

b. Socio-economic differences and its influences

117

c. Managing differences in the workplace

d. Mental and physical challenges

e. Race, ethnicity, and nationality

f. Religion

g. Sexuality and gender

h. Other. Please specify.

For the purpose of the following questions, theoretical grounding is defined as the theories that you use as your conceptual framework when designing and presenting diversity training topics and curricula such as the roles of men and women in society or socio-economic differences and its influence on society.

Q13. How do you describe the theoretical grounding for your personal beliefs about diversity?

Q14. How do you describe the theoretical grounding for your professional beliefs about diversity?

Q15. How do you describe the theoretical grounding you adopted, if any, I your accepted presentation for the 2014 Diversity Conference?

118

Appendix B

E-mail to presenters inviting them to respond to the survey

Dear [Name]:

My name is Karla Gacasan, and I am a doctoral candidate in the University of

Cincinnati’s PhD Educational Studies program. I am currently working on my dissertation, and the aim of this study is to gather information regarding the role of theoretical groundings in diversity training. For the purpose of this study, theoretical grounding is defined as theories that you use as your conceptual framework when designing and presenting diversity topics and curricula, such as the roles of men and women in society, or socio-economic differences and its influence on social order.

I would like to invite you to participate in an on-line survey regarding your work and interest within the area of diversity. The results of this survey will be used for scholarly purposes only, and all of the responses will be confidential so neither you nor your organization will be identified in any reports.

The survey takes approximately 10 minutes to complete.

As a presenter at the 2014 Diversity conference, I may follow up with you and invite you to participate in an interview regarding your presentation, workshop or session. Your participation would be most appreciated!

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly by email, [email protected].

Sincerely,

Karla A. Gacasan

119

Appendix C

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE MEMBER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL (Adapted from Creswell,

2013)

Date/Location/Time of Interview:

Interviewee: • The purpose of this interview is to gather information and your experiences regarding the 2014 Diversity Conference as part of my research for my dissertation. Is it okay if I record the interview? • This consent form explains your participation in this research study. Do you have any questions?

1. What is your role within the university?

2. Is this the first time you have been a committee member for the diversity conference?

3. Can you describe the mission and goals of this conference?

4. Can you describe the history of the conference?

a. How has it changed from year to year?

If they were part of the selection sub-committee –

1. What was the criterion used to accept or decline a proposal?

120

Appendix D

PRESENTER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL (Adapted from Creswell, 2013)

Date/Location/Time of Interview:

1. What is your general work in the area of diversity?

2. How did you choose to present the particular topic/session at this conference?

a. Can you describe all the influences on these decisions? (expectations of

conference, audience, number of presenters)

b. Was this the first time you’ve proposed to present at this conference?

3. How do you describe your personal theoretical grounding with regard to diversity

training?

a. How did you come to this worldview?

4. How do you describe your professional theoretical grounding with regard to diversity

training?

5. How do you describe the theoretical grounding that was used in your proposal

submission?

6. Can you describe your overall impression of the diversity conference?

7. Can you describe your overall impression of the session you presented at the diversity

conference?

121

Appendix E

SESSION ATTENDEE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL (Adapted from Creswell, 2013)

Date/Location/Time of Interview:

1. Was this your first year in attending the diversity conference?

2. How did you decide to attend the conference?

3. How did you decide what sessions to attend at the diversity conference?

4. How do you describe your personal theoretical groundings with respect to diversity?

5. How do you describe your professional theoretical groundings with respect to diversity?

6. Can you describe your overall impression of the diversity conference?

7. Can you describe your overall impression of the session that you attended?

122

Appendix F

Participant Consent Form (adopted from the University of Cincinnati’s Institutional Review

Board)

Adult Consent Form for Research University of Cincinnati Department: College of Education, Criminal Justice and Human Services School of Education Educational Studies Principal Investigator: Karla A. Gacasan Faculty Advisor: Drs. Holly Johnson and Vicki Plano Clark

Title of Study: Theoretical Groundings in Diversity Training: A Mixed Methods Study of a Diversity Conference

Introduction: You are being asked to take part in a research study. Please read this paper carefully and ask questions about anything that you do not understand.

Who is doing this research study? The person in charge of this research study is Karla Gacasan of the University of Cincinnati (UC) College of Education, Criminal Justice and Human Services, Educational Studies Department. She is being guided in this research by Dr. Vicki Plano Clark.

What is the purpose of this research study? The purpose of this study is to explore the role of theoretical groundings in diversity training curricula.

Who will be in this research study? About twenty-four (24) people will take part in this study. You may be in this study if you have presented/attended a session chosen as a case study during the 2014 Diversity Conference.

What if you are an employee where the research study is done? Taking part in this research study is not part of your job. Refusing to be in the study will not affect your job. You will not be offered any special work-related benefits if you take part in this study.

What will you be asked to do in this research study, and how long will it take? You will be asked to participate in interviews with the researcher. It will take about thirty (30) minutes to one (1) hour. The research will take place during the 2014 Diversity Conference, and interviews will take place where convenient for you.

Are there any risks to being in this research study? • It is not expected that you will be exposed to any risk by being in this research study.

123

• It is not expected that you will be exposed to any risk by allowing your interview transcripts to be used in this research study. • The risk is not expected to be more than you would have in daily life.

Are there any benefits from being in this research study? You will probably not get any benefit because of being in this study. But, being in this study may help diversity training practitioners and scholars understand the implications on future development of diversity training curricula.

What will you get because of being in this research study? You will not be paid (or given anything) to take part in this study.

Do you have choices about taking part in this research study? If you do not want to take part in this research study you may simply not participate.

How will your research information be kept confidential? Information about you will be kept private by the following: • using a study ID number instead of the participant's name on the research forms • keeping the master list of names and study ID numbers in a separate location from the research forms • limiting access to research data to the student/primary investigator • not including the participant's name on the typed transcript • erasing audiotapes as soon as they are transcribed • keeping research data on a password-protected computer

Your information will be kept on a password-protected computer until completion of the requirements of the student’s program of study. After that it will be destroyed.

The data from this research study may be published; but you will not be identified by name.

Your identity and information will be kept confidential unless the authorities have to be notified about abuse or immediate harm that may come to you or others.

What are your legal rights in this research study? Nothing in this consent form waives any legal rights you may have. This consent form also does not release the investigator, the institution, or its agents from liability for negligence.

What if you have questions about this research study? If you have any questions or concerns about this research study, you should contact Karla Gacasan at [email protected]

Or, you may contact Vicki Plano Clark at [email protected]

The UC Institutional Review Board reviews all research projects that involve human participants to be sure the rights and welfare of participants are protected.

124

If you have questions about your rights as a participant or complaints about the study, you may contact the UC IRB at (513) 558-5259. Or, you may call the UC Research Compliance Hotline at (800) 889-1547, or write to the IRB, 300 University Hall, ML 0567, 51 Goodman Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0567, or email the IRB office at [email protected].

Do you HAVE to take part in this research study? No one has to be in this research study. Refusing to take part will NOT cause any penalty or loss of benefits that you would otherwise have.

You may start and then change your mind and stop at any time. To stop being in the study, you should tell Karla Gacasan at [email protected]

Agreement: I have read this information and have received answers to any questions I asked. I give my consent to participate in this research study. I will receive a copy of this signed and dated consent form to keep.

Participant Name (please print) ______

Participant Signature ______Date ______

125