Essay Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Advancing-Scholarship-For-The-Diversity 👈

1. EDITORIAL
Advancing Scholarship for the Diversity Imperative in Higher
Education: An Editorial
Roger L. Worthington
University of Missouri–Columbia
In this brief editorial the editor provides (a) a commentary on advancing the scholarship
on diversity in higher education, (b) an acknowledgment of the outstanding work of the
inaugural editor and editorial board, and (c) a vision for the growth and advancement
of the Journal of Diversity in Higher Education (JDHE). An abbreviated content
analysis of the first 4 volumes of JDHE is provided, along with suggested focal areas
of future research on diversity in higher education.
Keywords: diversity, inclusion, equity, diversity imperative, diversity paradigm, chief diversity
officers, diversity scholarship, diversity best practices, editorial
Initiatives designed to promote diversity, inclu-
sion, and equity have rapidly become some of the
most complex areas of policy and practice in
higher education, and there are ongoing shifts and
challenges on the horizon (Anderson, 2008; anto-
nio & Clark, 2011; Smith, 2009). In fact, over the
course of the past decade, there has been a signif-
icant paradigm shift in higher education diversity
efforts (Chang & Ledesma, 2011; Epperson,
2011; Zamani-Gallaher, Green, Brown, & Stovall,
2009). The diversity paradigm shift is the result of
five central, converging factors:
1. ongoing disparities in educational attain-
ment within the United States among ra-
cial–ethnic, gender, and socioeconomic
groups, as well as between the United
States and other developed countries
(Phillips, 2011; Smith, 2009; Worthing-
ton, Hart, & Khairallah, 2010);
2. recent state referenda, and executive, leg-
islative and judicial interventions (Dar-
ling-Hammond, 2011; Epperson, 2011;
Zamani-Gallaher et al., 2009);
3. ongoing pressure from U.S. business in-
terests on colleges and universities to help
prepare a competitive and multiculturally
competent workforce (Goldin & Katz,
2008; Jayakumar, 2008);
4. substantial evidence that diversity is inte-
gral to how institutions achieve their edu-
cational and intellectual missions (anto-
nio, 2001; Chang, 1996; Gottfredson et
al., 2008; Gurin, 1999; Hurtado, 2001;
Jayakumar, 2008; Smith & Associates,
1997); and
5. rapid shifts in population demographics
that are increasing the numbers of under-
represented racial–ethnic group members
in higher education (Smith, 2009; Wor-
thington et al., 2010).
Significant new challenges have arisen from a
combination of new pressures for higher educa-
tion accountability, along with economic condi-
tions resulting in dramatic increases in the costs of
higher education, and national demands for in-
creased human capital to meet growing economic
competition from abroad (Darling-Hammond,
2011; Goldin & Katz, 2008; Smith, 2009). As a
result of these multiple shifts in context, chief
diversity officers (CDOs) have become some of
the most rapidly growing administrative positions
Roger L. Worthington, Department of Educational,
School and Counseling Psychology and Department of Ed-
ucational Leadership and Policy Analysis, University of
Missouri–Columbia.
I thank Jeni Hart, associate editor of the Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, for her review of a draft of
this article. I also thank Garrett Hoffman for his assistance
on the content analysis.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Roger L. Worthington, 16 Hill Hall, University of
Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211. E-mail: WorthingtonR@
missouri.edu
Journal of Diversity in Higher Education © 2012 National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education
2012, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1–7 1938-8926/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0027184
1

2. in higher education, with intensifying levels of
professional specialization and expertise (Wil-
liams & Wade-Golden, 2008).
Diversity in higher education is becoming
disentangled from an exclusive focus on affir-
mative action based on race (antonio & Clark,
2011; Epperson, 2011), and it increasingly fo-
cuses on a broad set of identity characteristics,
focal constituent groups, and institutional initia-
tives. Figure 1 provides a three-dimensional
model of higher education diversity based on (a)
identity characteristics, (b) core areas of insti-
tutional initiatives, and (c) focal groups associ-
ated with institutions. Definitions of diversity,
although difficult to achieve consensus (Ander-
son, 2008; Chang & Ledesma, 2011), have
gradually expanded in scope across decades to
include institutional communities that reflect
human differences on a variety of identity char-
acteristics, including but not limited to race,
ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, reli-
gion, disability, national and geographic origin,
language use, socioeconomic status, first gener-
ation college status, veteran and military status,
and political ideology (Cuyjet, Howard-
Hamilton, & Cooper, 2011; Smith, 2009; Stul-
berg & Weinberg, 2011). Furthermore, higher
education stakeholders typically include stu-
dents, faculty, staff, and administrators, along
with a wide range of other groups such as
alumni, parents, donors, regents–curators–
trustees, and local–regional community mem-
bers (Cuyjet et al., 2011; D. G. Smith, 2009;
Stulberg & Weinberg, 2011; Worthington et al.,
2010). Finally, higher education diversity initia-
tives generally focus on 10 core areas: (a) re-
cruitment and retention of students, faculty,
staff, and administrators; (b) campus climate;
(c) curriculum and instruction; (d) research and
inquiry; (e) intergroup relations and discourse;
(f) student/faculty/staff/leadership development
and success; (g) nondiscrimination; (h) institu-
tional advancement; (i) external relations; and
(j) strategic planning and accountability (An-
derson, 2008; Clayton-Pederson, Parker, Smith,
Moreno, & Teraguchi, 2007; Cooper, Howard-
Hamilton, & Cuyjet, 2011; Epperson, 2011;
Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, & Allen,
1998; Maxwell, Nagda, & Thompson, 2011;
Smith, 2009; Worthington et al., 2010; Zamani-
Gallaher et al., 2009).
The model provided in Figure 1 served as the
organizing framework for an abbreviated con-
tent analysis of the first four volumes of the
Journal of Diversity in Higher Education
(JDHE) and is also offered as a conceptual
guide for those conducting diversity research
and practice in higher education. Table 1 indi-
Figure 1. Three-dimensional model of higher education diversity.
2 WORTHINGTON

3. cates that articles are varied across the 10 core
areas, with greater emphasis on issues of stu-
dent and faculty recruitment, retention, devel-
opment, and success (e.g., Aguayo, Herman,
Ojeda, & Flores, 2011; Garriott, Love, & Tyler,
2008; Gottfredson et al., 2008; Majer, 2009;
Spanierman, Neville, Liao, Hammer, & Wang,
2008; Todd, Spanierman, & Aber, 2010;
Turner, González, & Wood, 2008); along with
extensive coverage of campus climate and non-
discrimination (e.g., Clark, Spanierman, Reed,
Soble, & Cabana, 2011; Hart & Fellabaum,
2008; Hurtado, Griffin, Arellano, & Cuellar,
2008; Navarro, Worthington, Hart, & Khairal-
lah, 2009; Worthington, Navarro, Loewy, &
Hart, 2008); and some attention to curriculum,
instruction, intergroup relations, and discourse
(e.g., de Oliveira, Braun, Carlson, & de Ol-
iveira, 2009; Elicker, Thompson, Snell, &
O’Malley, 2009; Reid, 2010). Very limited at-
tention has been given to the areas of diversity
research, inquiry, leadership development, insti-
tutional advancement, external relations, and
strategic planning. Table 2 indicates that articles
appearing in the journal have focused primarily
on students and faculty, especially with regard
Table 1
Frequencies of Articles That Address Core Areas of Institutional Initiatives by Focal Groups
Focal groups Faculty Students Staff Administrators Other
Core area
Recruitment & retention 7 11 — — —
Campus climate 10 18 2 2 1
Curriculum & instruction 4 7 — — —
Research & inquiry — 1 — — —
Intergroup relations & discourse 1 4 — — —
Student–Faculty–Staff–Leadership development &
success 8 30 — — —
Nondiscrimination 11 16 — — 2
Institutional advancement — — — — —
External relations — — — — —
Strategic planning & accountability 1 2 1 1 1
Total 42 89 3 3 4
Note. N ⫽ 81 articles. Totals sum to more than 81 because many articles addressed more than one core area, social group,
or both.
Table 2
Frequencies of Articles That Address Identity Characteristics by Focal Groups
Focal groups Faculty Students Staff Administrators Other Total
Identity characteristic
Race/Ethnicity 16 47 4 4 2 73
Gender 15 15 4 4 2 40
Age 3 3 3 3 1 13
Sexual orientation 5 6 4 4 2 21
Disability status 6 8 4 4 2 23
Religion 4 4 4 4 2 18
National & geographic origin 7 6 4 4 2 23
Language use 2 2 2 2 1 9
Socioeconomic status 4 6 4 4 2 20
1st generation college status 2 4 2 2 1 11
Veteran & military status 3 3 3 3 1 13
Political ideology 3 4 3 3 1 14
Other 3 10 1 — — 14
Total 73 118 42 41 19 292
Note. N ⫽ 81 articles. Totals sum to more than 81 because many articles addressed more than one identity characteristic,
focal group, or both.
3
EDITORIAL

4. to race/ethnicity and gender. Identity charac-
teristics related to sexual orientation, disabil-
ity, national and geographic origin, and so-
cioeconomic status have received moderate
consideration, whereas other areas have re-
ceived more limited attention. It is worth-
while to note that a substantial number of the
articles published in JDHE thus far have fo-
cused very broadly on diversity issues across
the identity spectrum or attended to specific
intersections of identity characteristics, most
commonly race/ethnicity and gender. Finally,
of the 81 articles published in the first 4
volumes of JDHE, 47 were quantitative; 15
were qualitative; 9 were mixed methods;
and 10 were literature reviews, editorials, or
conceptual articles, reflecting a reasonable
level of methodological diversity.
As we look to the future, I would like to
promote a greater variety of articles in areas that
have not received extensive attention, while at
the same time maintaining a focus on critical
issues related to areas that have been traditional
priorities in the higher education diversity liter-
ature (e.g., race, gender, students, faculty, re-
cruitment, retention, nondiscrimination, campus
climate). This expanded scope will require
growth for JDHE (an issue I will return to
below) so that traditional areas of concern can
continue to be addressed fully, but I am also
committed to publishing high-quality scholar-
ship on a variety of other topics as well (e.g.,
sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic
status, etc.). The journal has already done well
in addressing some of these issues, and my
intent is to continue to broaden the scope in
these areas; I have assembled a team of consult-
ing editors with the expertise to assist in that
process.
In addition, I am hopeful that the journal will
attract manuscript submissions on the most
pressing issues in the field of higher education
diversity from established and emerging schol-
ars. I believe there is a need to continue pub-
lishing the strongest research assessing the
benefits of diversity and providing greater ex-
planatory power regarding how, why, and what
works in higher education diversity practices.
For that reason, I will be particularly interested
in manuscripts designed to address the quality
and nature of intergroup dialogues and interac-
tions, and their relations to important educa-
tional outcomes. In addition, I will be actively
pursuing scholarship that is theoretically
grounded or helps to build on the conceptual
foundations within the field. I will be seeking
brief manuscripts focused on the distribution of
best practices (or promising new practices) that
provide guidance for both research and policies
in higher education diversity. In helping to or-
ganize and guide scholarship in the field, I will
be seeking focused literature reviews, content
analyses, and meta-analyses in established areas
of diversity scholarship (e.g., Hart & Fella-
baum, 2008; Hurtado et al., 2008; Rubin, 2012
[this issue]; Turner, González, & Wood, 2008).
In addition, toward the goal of enhancing the
quality of scholarship, I will be seeking manu-
scripts that help to advance and improve meth-
odological approaches to research (both quali-
tative and quantitative), especially on research
best practices and measurement–scale develop-
ment (cf. Worthington, 2008; Worthington &
Whittaker, 2006). Finally, with the emergence
of the CDO as one of the most rapidly growing
administrative leadership positions in higher ed-
ucation, I will be seeking manuscripts written
by and about CDOs, and the impact of their
work in institutions of higher education.
Appreciation
It is a great honor to be appointed as the
second editor of JDHE. Inaugural editor, Mi-
chael R. Stevenson, worked with the board of
directors of the National Association of Diver-
sity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE)
to develop the vision for JDHE and establish the
successful partnership with the American Psy-
chological Association (APA). I greatly respect
and applaud Dr. Stevenson’s hard work in
building a journal that has been recognized by
our publisher, APA Journals, as one of the high-
est performing new journals in their history.
Indeed, JDHE has functioned similarly to a
“mature journal” in terms of manuscript sub-
missions, acceptance–rejection ratio, and sub-
scriptions. It was clear from the outset that
JDHE filled a void in higher education publica-
tions when the first year netted more than 115
manuscript submissions to fill 256 journal pages
in only four issues per year, resulting in an 82%
rejection rate. These numbers have held rela-
tively steady throughout the first four vol-
umes, contributing to the decision by the In-
stitute for Scientific Information (ISI) to es-
4 WORTHINGTON

5. tablish a citation index for JDHE starting in
2011. These are all outstanding accomplish-
ments for a new journal like JDHE and are to
the credit of Michael Stevenson, the inaugural
editorial board, the NADOHE board of direc-
tors, and APA Journals.
A Vision for Growth
As I take on the work as the new editor, I
have two central tasks ahead of me: (a) the
Journal has been passed to me in great shape,
try not to break it; and (b) work closely with the
new editorial board, APA Journals, NADOHE,
and other partners to advance JDHE to the next
level of higher education scholarship. As the
new editor, I plan to work very hard to build on
the successes achieved by the founding editorial
team. My first steps toward the advancement of
the journal were to increase the size of the
editorial board and to appoint an associate edi-
tor. Jeni Hart is currently serving as associate
editor for a 1-year term (renewable) and brings
strong expertise in the areas of qualitative re-
search methods as well as a broad understand-
ing of diversity in higher education, including
gender issues, feminism, and campus climate. I
am grateful to the returning members of the
editorial board: Katherine Conway-Turner,
Daryl G. Smith, John W. Tippeconnic III, and
Caroline Sotello Viernes Turner. I am very
pleased to appoint 18 new members to the edi-
torial board: Denise A. Battles, Estela Mara
Bensimon, Lauren Bowen, Mitchell J. Chang,
Trude Cooke Turner, Frank R. Dillon, Mary-
beth Gasman, John M. Majer, Charles Martinez,
Juan Sanchez Munoz, Landon D. Reid, Kristen
A. Renn, Amy Reynolds, Anneliese Singh, Lisa
Beth Spanierman, Christine A. Stanley, Robert
Teranishi, and Daniel Hiroyuki Teraguchi. I am
also tremendously grateful to Michael Steven-
son for agreeing to serve as a member of the
board after completing his term as editor. There
are currently two vacant slots on the editorial
board and seven board members with terms
ending in 2012 (renewable); thus, I will be
accepting nominations immediately to fill slots
that are (or will become) vacant. In addition, I
will be continuously seeking new members to
serve among our pool of ad hoc reviewers (self-
nominations are welcome). New editorial board
members will be selected based on overall
scholarly record (e.g., publications plus edito-
rial experience), along with publications in
and/or service as an ad hoc reviewer for JDHE.
With this group of expert scholars serving the
journal, my efforts will be geared toward in-
creasing the visibility of JDHE, thereby increas-
ing both the readership and manuscript submis-
sions. As subscriptions and submissions in-
crease, a case can be made for increasing the
number of pages in the journal, beginning with
an increase in the number of pages per issue and
later expanding the number of issues per vol-
ume. Ultimately, the expanded number of pages
will open the door to the opportunity to offer
topical special sections and special issues on a
regular basis. I envision these goals will take 3
to 6 years to accomplish.
JDHE is fortunate to have such a distin-
guished group of scholars serving on the edito-
rial board. The broad base of expertise among
board members will enable the journal to handle
the expanded scope of topics and methods in the
articles we publish. In addition, this team is
dedicated to providing timely and high-quality
reviews to authors, so that regardless of whether
manuscripts are accepted or rejected, authors
will receive useful feedback with a rapid turn-
around time. The current average lag time is
approximately 42 days (6 weeks) between sub-
mission and editorial decision. This is very
good, but we hope to improve on this record
over the next 3 years, especially in terms of
reducing the number of delays among “outliers”
so that every manuscript receives an action let-
ter in less than 70 days (10 weeks). Although
we are currently accepting only about 10–20%
of the manuscripts that are submitted to JDHE,
we want the journal to be author friendly, so
that all submissions are given thorough,
thoughtful, and constructive reviews that facil-
itate the advancement of scholarship on diver-
sity in higher education.
Within that context, our goal is for JDHE to
be the premiere journal on diversity in higher
education.
References
Aguayo, D., Herman, K., Ojeda, L., & Flores, L. Y.
(2011). Culture predicts Mexican Americans’ col-
lege self-efficacy and college performance. Jour-
nal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4, 79–89.
doi:10.1037/a0022504
5
EDITORIAL

6. Anderson, J. A. (2008). Driving change through di-
versity and globalization: Transformative leader-
ship in the academy. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
antonio, a. l. (2001). Diversity and the influence of
friendship groups in college. Review of Higher
Education, 25, 63–89.
antonio, a. l., & Clark, C. G. (2011). The official
organization of diversity in American higher edu-
cation: A retreat from race? In L. M. Stulberg &
S. L. Weinberg (Eds.), Diversity in American
higher education: Toward a more comprehensive
approach (pp. 86–103). New York: NY: Rout-
ledge.
Chang, M. J. (1996). Racial diversity in higher edu-
cation: Does a racially mixed student population
affect educational outcomes? (Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation). University of California, Los
Angeles.
Chang, M. J., & Ledesma, M. C. (2011). The diver-
sity rationale: Its limitations for educational prac-
tice. In L. M. Stulberg & S. L. Weinberg (Eds.),
Diversity in American higher education: Toward a
more comprehensive approach (pp. 74–85). New
York: NY: Routledge.
Clark, D. A., Spanierman, L. B., Reed, T. D., Soble,
J. R., & Cabana, S. (2011). Documenting Weblog
expressions of racial microaggressions that target
American Indians. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 4, 39–50.
Clayton-Pederson, A. R., Parker, S., Smith, D. G.,
Moreno, J. F., & Teraguchi, D. H. (2007). Making
a real difference with diversity: A guide to insti-
tutional change. Washington, DC: Association of
American Colleges and Universities.
Cooper, D. L., Howard-Hamilton, M. F., & Cuyjet,
M. J. (2011). Achieving cultural competence as a
practitioner, student, or faculty member. In M. J.
Cuyjet, M. F. Howard-Hamilton, & D. L. Cooper
(Eds.), Multiculturalism on campus: Theory, mod-
els, and practices for understanding diversity and
creating inclusion. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Cuyjet, M. J., Howard-Hamilton, M. F., & Cooper,
D. L. (2011). Introduction. In M. J. Cuyjet, M. F.
Howard-Hamilton, & D. L. Cooper (Eds.), Multi-
culturalism on campus: Theory, models, and prac-
tices for understanding diversity and creating in-
clusion. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2011). Testing, No Child Left
Behind, and educational equity. In L. M. Stulberg
& S. L. Weinberg (Eds.), Diversity in American
higher education: Toward a more comprehensive
approach (pp. 36–47). New York: NY: Rout-
ledge.
de Oliveira, E. A., Braun, J. L., Carlson, T. L., & de
Oliveira, S. G. (2009). Students’ attitudes toward
foreign-born and domestic instructors. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 2, 113–125.
Elicker, J. D., Thompson, M. N., Snell, A. F., &
O’Malley, A. L. (2009). A training framework and
follow-up observations for multiculturally inclu-
sive teaching: Is believing that we are emphasizing
diversity enough? Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 2, 63–77.
Epperson, L. (2011). New legal perspectives: Impli-
cations for diversity in the post-Grutter era. In
L. M. Stulberg & S. L. Weinberg (Eds.), Diversity
in American higher education: Toward a more
comprehensive approach (pp. 260–275). New
York: NY: Routledge.
Garriott, P. O., Love, K. M., & Tyler, K. M. (2008).
Anti-Black racism, self-esteem, and the adjustment
of White students in higher education. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 1, 45–58.
Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2008). The race between
education and technology. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
Gottfredson, N. C., Panter, A. T., Daye, C. E., Allen,
W. A., Wightman, L. F., & Deo, M. E. (2008).
Does diversity at undergraduate institutions influ-
ence student outcomes? Journal of Diversity in
Higher Education, 1, 80–94.
Gurin, P. (1999). The compelling need for diversity in
education. Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/
⬃urel/admissions/legal/expert/gurintoc.html
Hart, J., & Fellabaum, J. (2008). Analyzing campus
climate studies: Seeking to define and understand.
Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1, 222–
234.
Hurtado, S. (2001). Linking diversity and educational
purpose: How diversity affects the classroom en-
vironment and student development. In G. Orfield
& M. Kurlaender (Eds.), Diversity challenged: Ev-
idence on the impact of affirmative action (pp.
187–203). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Civil Rights
Project.
Hurtado, S., Griffin, K. A., Arellano, L., & Cuellar,
M. (2008). Assessing the value of climate assess-
ments: Progress and future directions. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 1, 204–221.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pederson, A. R., &
Allen, W. R. (1998). Enhancing campus climates
for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and
practice. The Review of Higher Education, 21,
279–302.
Jayakumar, U. M. (2008). Can higher education meet
the needs of an increasingly diverse society and
global marketplace? Campus Diversity and Cross-
cultural Workforce Competencies Harvard Educa-
tional Review, 78, 615–651.
Majer, J. M. (2009). Self-efficacy and academic suc-
cess among ethnically diverse first-generation
community college students. Journal of Diversity
in Higher Education, 2, 243–250.
Maxwell, K. E., Nagda, B. A., & Thompson, M. C.
(2011). Facilitating intergroup dialogues: Bridg-
6 WORTHINGTON

7. ing differences, catalyzing change. Sterling, VA:
Stylus.
Navarro, R. L., Worthington, R. L., Hart, J., & Khai-
rallah, T. (2009). Liberal and conservative political
ideology, experiences of harassment, and percep-
tions of campus climate. Journal of Diversity in
Higher Education, 2, 78–90.
Phillips, M. (2011). Ethnic and social class dispari-
ties in academic skills: Their origins and conse-
quences. In L. M. Stulberg & S. L. Weinberg
(Eds.), Diversity in American higher education:
Toward a more comprehensive approach (pp.
7–24). New York: NY: Routledge.
Reid, L. D. (2010). The role of perceived race and
gender in the evaluation of college teaching on
RateMyProfessor.com. Journal of Diversity in
Higher Education, 3, 137–152.
Rubin, M. (2012). Social class differences in social
integration among students in higher education: A
meta-analysis and recommendations for future re-
search. Journal of Diversity in Higher Educa-
tion, 5, 22–38.
Smith, D. G. (2009). Diversity’s promise for higher
education: Making it work. Baltimore, MD: John’s
Hopkins University Press.
Smith, D. G., & Associates (1997). Diversity works:
The emerging picture of how students benefit.
Washington, DC: Association of American Col-
leges and Universities.
Spanierman, L. B., Neville, H. A., Liao, H., Hammer,
J. H., & Wang, Y. (2008). Participation in formal
and informal campus diversity experiences: Ef-
fects on students’ racial democratic beliefs. Jour-
nal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1, 108–125.
Stulberg, L. M., & Weinberg, S. L. (2011). Introduc-
tion. In L. M. Stulberg & S. L. Weinberg (Eds.),
Diversity in American higher education: Toward a
more comprehensive approach (pp. 1–4). New
York: NY: Routledge.
Todd, N. R., Spanierman, L. B., & Aber, M. S.
(2010). White students reflecting on whiteness:
Understanding emotional responses. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 3, 97–110.
Turner, C. S. V., González, J. C., & Wood, J. L.
(2008). Faculty of color in academe: What 20
years of literature tells us. Journal of Diversity in
Higher Education, 1, 139–168.
Williams, D. A., & Wade-Golden, K. C. (2007). The
chief diversity officer: A primer for college and
university presidents. Washington, DC: American
Council on Education.
Worthington, R. L. (2008). Measurement and assess-
ment in campus climate research: A scientific im-
perative. Journal of Diversity in Higher Educa-
tion, 1, 201–203.
Worthington, R. L., Hart, J., & Khairallah, T. (2010).
Counselors as diversity change agents in higher
education. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A.
Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of
multicultural counseling (3rd ed., pp. 563–576).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Worthington, R. L., Navarro, R. L., Loewy, M., &
Hart, J. (2008). Color-blind racial attitudes, social
dominance orientation, racial-ethnic group mem-
bership and college students’ perceptions of cam-
pus climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher Edu-
cation, 1, 8–19.
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale
development research: A content analysis and rec-
ommendations for best practices. The Counseling
Psychologist, 34, 806–838.
Zamani-Gallaher, E. M., Green, D. O., Brown, M. C.,
& Stovall, D. O. (2009). The case for affirmative
action on campus: Concepts of equity, consider-
ations for practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
7
EDITORIAL