• Like
  • Save
Towards an Evaluative Model for Determining the Value of Faculty Diversity and Inclusion in Higher Education
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Towards an Evaluative Model for Determining the Value of Faculty Diversity and Inclusion in Higher Education

on

  • 1,018 views

This paper presentation offers a dynamic model for determining the value of diverse faculty in higher education. It rests on the assumption that the administrations of predominantly white higher ...

This paper presentation offers a dynamic model for determining the value of diverse faculty in higher education. It rests on the assumption that the administrations of predominantly white higher education institutions continuously grapple with the dilemma of achieving racial and ethnic diversity among their faculties. The model proffered is evaluative because it could be used to evaluate existing higher education diversity programs. The model is transformative because it creates a paradigm shift from a socio-economic view of diversity to an expanded view that incorporates cultural and ecological dimensions that are rarely considered or appropriately valued when faculty-of-color are hired to diversify higher education institutions.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,018
Views on SlideShare
1,010
Embed Views
8

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
29
Comments
0

1 Embed 8

http://www.slideshare.net 8

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • This framework, in our view, is open and flexible enough to accommodate and adapt diversity to an organization’s unique context, emphasis or strategies. It helps to illuminate indicators relevant to the evaluation process.
  • It is important to note some subtle environmental differences between academic and corporate organizations. There are also differences between public and private institutions to briefly consider. By comparison, private institutions wield more autonomous authority to set the direction for the institution and by association resist outside influence.
  • We advise that groups agree on or err toward institutional goals over program goals --least subunits’ work may not roll up cohesively or units may be working toward divergent/incoherent outcomes.
  • model requires key informants familiar with the organization to identify both a baseline and concluding point in terms of diversity efforts. The illustrative list of accelerators, derailers and sustainers is neither linear nor exhaustive.

Towards an Evaluative Model for Determining the Value of Faculty Diversity and Inclusion in Higher Education Towards an Evaluative Model for Determining the Value of Faculty Diversity and Inclusion in Higher Education Presentation Transcript

  • Towards an Evaluative Model for Determining the Value of Faculty Diversity and Inclusion in Higher Education
    Ray K. Haynes, Indiana University-Bloomington, rkhaynes@indiana.edu
    Eric Abdullateef, Directed Study Services, eric.abdullateef@mac.com
    Evaluation 2009 Orlando
  • Abstract
    This paper presentation offers a dynamic model for determining the value of diverse faculty in higher education. It rests on the assumption that the administrations of predominantly white higher education institutions continuously grapple with the dilemma of achieving racial and ethnic diversity among their faculties. The model proffered is evaluative because it could be used to evaluate existing higher education diversity programs. The model is transformative because it creates a paradigm shift from a socio-economic view of diversity to an expanded view that incorporates cultural and ecological dimensions that are rarely considered or appropriately valued when faculty-of-color are hired to diversify higher education institutions.
    Evaluation 2009 Orlando
  • Why?
    We believe that this is a necessary and worthwhile endeavor especially since Barack Obama, was elected president of the United States and leader for the free world. For some, the first man of color to be elected to the U S presidency may signal the triumph of diversity and inclusion initiatives and for others, it is an inspirational milestone that may engender complacency and or summative decisions about the efficacy and even the continued need for diversity and inclusion programs.
    Evaluation 2009 Orlando
  • What is Diversity & Inclusion?
    Diversity in its broadest sense describes the composition of groups and workforces (Roberson, 2006). Furthermore, diversity could be viewed as traits or demographic characteristics that underscore differences within groups. Milliken and Martins, 1996 succinctly captures the complexity of the diversity construct by suggesting that diversity, in its essence, means the observable and non-observable characteristics of human beings.
    Inclusion is defined as racial and ethnic minorities (people of color) gaining access to organizational-related information, resources, specialized work groups along with the ability to influence decision making (Miller, 1998; Mor Barak & Cherin, 1998).
    Evaluation 2009 Orlando
  • Workforce Realities
    Past labor predictions and prevailing trends suggest that the workforce of the 21st century is and will continue to be characterized by diversity which includes more women, and people of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds and life styles (Langdon, McMenamin, & Krolik, 2002)
    The need for diversity and inclusion programs still exist!
    Evaluation 2009 Orlando
  • The Diversity-Inclusion Continuum
    Evaluation 2009 Orlando
    “Building an inclusive culture on a global scale is more than recruiting diverse talent. People tend to think about filling representation quotas, which is important, but you cant have great representation without an inclusive culture.”
    Gil Casellas, Vice President, Corporate Responsibility & Chief Diversity Officer- Dell
    The New York Times Magazine , September 13, 2009, p54.
    Diversity
    Inclusion
  • Five Step Diversity Framework
    Evaluation 2009 Orlando
    Institution has reflected on itself
    Institution has articulated its policy goals
    Institution has a diversity plan
    Institution has regularized interim reviews
    Institution has industry and national diversity linkages
  • Inspiration for the Model: Frederick Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory
    Evaluation 2009 Orlando
    Motivator Factors:
    These factors are also called satisfiers and are know to motivate individuals towards superior performance and effort.
    Hygiene or maintenance factors:
    These factors can also be called dissatisfiers. They describe the organizational environment and function mainly to prevent dissatisfaction but have little effect on positive job attitudes.
  • The Diversity Ecology Evaluation Model
    Evaluation 2009 Orlando
    DA
    Diversity
    Inclusion
    DD
    DS
  • Evaluation 2009 Orlando
    Diversity Ecology Evaluation Model (DEEM)
    Provides a framework for answering the following questions:
    • What is the institutional leadership capacity for diversity?
    • What is the current state of institutional diversity?
    • What is the desired future state of institutional diversity?
    • Has institutional diversity changed over time?
    • Are diversity efforts likely to be sustained?
    • What lessons have been learn, applied and transferred?
  • DEEM Indicators
    Evaluation 2009 Orlando
  • DEEM LOGIC MODEL
    Evaluation 2009 Orlando
    Diversity
    Inclusion
  • Diversity Accelerators Evaluative Focus
    Evaluation 2009 Orlando
  • Diversity Derailers Evaluative Focus
    Evaluation 2009 Orlando
  • Diversity Sustainers Evaluative Focus
    Evaluation 2009 Orlando
  • Thank You!
    Evaluation 2009 Orlando
    What Questions do You Have?