Organizational Rhetoric or Reality?

The Disparities Between Avowed Commitment to Diversity and Formal Programs and

Initiatives in Higher Education Institutions

Larry L. Rowley, Sylvia Hurtado,Luis Ponjuan and Zachary Anderson

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

Research Goals

To examine selective aspects of the approaches that colleges and universities utilize to emphasize or achieve diversity

To identify organizational characteristics that predict diversity

initiatives and outcomes in colleges and universities

To contribute to discussions of how closely institutional diversity at colleges and universities mirrors the institutional mission statements, administrative rhetoric, and formal policies

Theoretical Framework

Diversity as an Organizational Concept Diversity is a multi-level organizational concept that is impacted by

various institutional contexts (e.g., historical, structural, psychological) (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, & Allen, 1999)

Diversity has an impact or implications within and across various organizational dimensions (Cox, 1993; Smith, 1995)

Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis Prevailing institutionalized concepts can impact organizational forms

and behaviors (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991)

Formal structures constructed within organizations can function as “myth and ceremony” (Meyer & Rowan, 1991)

Institutionalized concepts are manifested in organizations partially based upon social actions and interactions (Jepperson, 1991)

Methods

Sample 1440 Four year Institutions surveyed 55% return rate (744 institutions)

Analyses Factor Analysis Bivariate Analysis Multiple Regression

2000 Carnegie Classifications

281314

149

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Doctoral Res Ext/Int Masters I/II Bachelors Gen / LA

Institutional Type

NUm

ber

of S

choo

ls

Percentage of Institutions with Mission

Statements that Address Diversity

85 8573

0

20

40

60

80

100

DoctoralExt/Int

Masters I/II BachelorsGen/LA

Institutional Type

Perc

enta

ge

Percentage of Minority Faculty (Presence)

Percentage of Tenured Minority Faculty (Commitment)

9

11

12

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Bachelors Gen/LA

Masters I/II

Doctoral Ext/Int

Insti

tutio

nal T

ype

Percentage

Dependent Variables

Evaluation and Rewards for Diversity

Peer Comparisons to Create a Diverse Environment

Percentage of Minority Students Enrolled

Percentage of Tenured and Tenure Track Minority Faculty

Percentage of Tenured Minority faculty

Independent Variables

Institutional Background Characteristics Student Enrollment figures represent the demographics of the

local area Institution’s admission selectivity Association Affiliations (e.g. ACE, AACU, AAHE)

Institutional Categorization Variables Carnegie Classification (Doctoral, Masters, Bachelors) Institutional Control (e.g. Private or Public)

Institutional Rhetoric Variables Core Leadership supports diversity Institutional Priority on Diversity Institutional Priority on Prestige Does your Institution’s mission statement address: Diversity

Regression Results

Predictors of Evaluation and Rewards for DiversityDoctoral Institution **Private ***Core Leadership Support for Diversity ***Institutional Priority for Diversity ***

Predictors of Progress Relative to Peers: Creating a Diverse Environment Core Leadership Support for Diversity ***Institutional Priority on Prestige (-)*Institutional Priority on Diversity ***

Predictors of Institution’s Percentage of Minority StudentsInstitution’s admission selectivity (-)***Public Institution ***

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Regression Results

Predictors of Institution’s Percentage of Minority Faculty (Presence)Mission statement addresses diversity *Institutional Priority on Prestige **Percentage of Minority Students ***

Predictors of Percentage of Tenured Minority Faculty (Commitment)Student enrollment reflect demographics of local area *Institutional Priority on Prestige *Percentage of Minority Students ***p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Discussion and Conclusion

There are indeed some disparities between avowed institutional commitment to diversity activity and diversity outcomes

Institutional characteristics and rhetoric were strong predictors of self-reported outcome measures. (Institutions “walk the walk” and “talk the talk”)

Institutional characteristics and rhetoric were weak predictors of more objective outcome measures (Institutions “talk the talk” but don’t “walk the walk”)

To maximize diversity outcomes (tenured minority faculty) there must be an “interlocking” set of commitments including both structural and behavioral factors

There is a need to move beyond mission rhetoric to articulation of priorities, evaluation and rewards for diversity progress, and core leadership support, and development of a diverse student body

To access Presentation slides and paper Please visit our Website:

www.umich.edu/~divdemo