Diversity Management In Higher Education: Motivations And . - EUR
Diversity Management in Higher Education: Motivations andImplementationA comparative case study on universities in the United States and theNetherlandsAbstractThis study aims to provide a new perspective on understanding and analysing diversitymanagement in the higher education sector. It highlights the importance of motivation towardsdiversity management and the interplays between motivations and the actual policies implemented.Through conducting narrative analysis on motivation discourses adopted by universities andcomparing it with the implementation level of diversity management, this thesis aims to scrutinizethe consistency between the motivation narratives and actual diversity policies, to understand theapproaches of selected universities in this study. This research is an ambitious attempt to conducta comparative case study on two vastly different countries; the United States and the Netherlands.Keywords: diversity management, narrative, discourse, diversity policiesName: Gabriela, Tsz-ying LAI(478702)Msc Public Administration (Governance of Migration and Diversity)First reader: Mark van OstaijenSecond reader: Zeynep Kasli26148 words (including references; excluding appendices)
Lai 1Table of ContentsChapter 1. Introduction . 4Chapter 2. Theoretical Framework . 8Private vs public . 8Organizational inconsistency . 102.1 Motivations . 12Motivation Triangle. 132.2 Types of diversity policies . 14Categorization of diversity policies for the higher education context . 17Chapter 3. Research Design . 193.1 Methodology. 193.2 Data collection . 203.3 Operationalization . 21Paradigmatic narrative analysis . 21Motivations . 22Diversity Policies Categorization . 24Consistency . 263.4 Case selection . 27Campus diversity statistics of selected universities . 29Diversity Index . 293.5 Terminology . 343.6 Ethical consideration and reliability. 35Chapter 4. Background . 364.1 Education System . 364.2 Legislations. 374.3 Founding background of diversity office at selected universities . 39Chapter 5. Empirical Findings . 415.1 Motivations . 411. Social justice/moral . 412. Legal . 433. Economic . 445.2 Diversity policies . 47
Lai 21.Admission . 472.MED . 503.Information analysis. 635.3 Case studies summary table . 66Chapter 6. Analysis. 686.1 Motivations . 68Surface level . 68Narrative analysis. 696.2 Categories of diversity policies . 726.3 Consistency and diversity approaches of universities . 74Visual mapping . 806.4 Reviewing expectations . 81Chapter 7. Conclusion . 84Chapter 8. Reflection . 888.1 Scope and Limitation . 88On case selection . 88On Absence of policy documents . 90On Diversity size . 908.2 Reflection . 91Bibliography . 92Appendix . 96Appendix 1- Interview Questionnaire . 96Appendix 2- Document analysis reference list . 97Appendix 3- meetings hosted by diversity office of San Jose State University . 98Appendix 4- Statistics on student performance gap of selected universities . 100Appendix 5. Interview Transcripts (The United States) . 103Appendix 5.1 . 104Appendix 5.2 . 125Appendix 5.3 . 132Appendix 5.4 . 143Appendix 6 Interview Transcripts (The Netherlands) . 154Appendix 6.1 . 155
Lai 3Appendix 6.2 . 172Appendix 6.3 . 191
Lai 4Chapter 1. IntroductionThis research aims to conduct a critical study on diversity policies for under-represented minoritystudents in public universities through the lens of investigating policy motivations, the actualpolicies implemented, and the consistency between the two. I believe that such an evaluation hashigh societal and theoretical relevance.Higher education has an emancipative role for underprivileged groups, in providingknowledge and social mobility. This mission is particularly prominent among public universitiesconsidering that they are state-funded, and their tuition fees are usually more affordable than theirprivate counterparts. Yet, very often, underprivileged minorities may encounter more difficultiesin higher education than their majority fellow classmates (Severiens & Wolff, 2008). A strongdisadvantage can be observed among ethnic minority students. Many researches have shown thatethnic minority students have been underperforming in higher education when compared to theethnic majority students. There is a tension between the emancipatory mission of higher educationinstitutions and the actual disadvantage found across under-represented minority students. This iswhere diversity management should step in, by providing help of different forms and allowingunder-represented minority students to exploit their full potential, in order to thrive in highereducation.The fact that all students have to go through certain examinations and selection processesto be admitted to universities, and passing these screening systems, to a very large extent, is alreadya recognition of students’ capacity from faculties and universities to which they were admitted.Yet, among these new students enrolling every year, there has been a constant performance gapbetween the ethnic majority and ethnic minority groups. Drawing on this phenomenon, I wouldsuggest that this performance gap may indicate some structural problems within the institution,which also explains the need to review existing diversity management in universities. It isimportant for diversity officers to be honest and critical towards the work they have been doing,to ask themselves what the potential problems are which cause the underperformance of thesecapable minority students and what can be improved regarding diversity management to help themthrive in the higher education setting.
Lai 5To critically review existing diversity management in higher education, I propose a threefold structure of analysis; by first looking at the motivation behind diversity management, secondregarding the actual policies implemented and third examining the extent to which they areconsistent with each other.Existing literature on diversity management has largely overlooked the importance ofmotivation. Across the literature referenced in this study, motivations behind diversitymanagement are often under-explained, being introduced as only some background introductoryknowledge in studies, or even omitted. In addition, there is a common presumption which assumesdiversity management in public organizations is driven by legal motivation while diversitymanagement in private organizations is driven by economic motivation. However, suchpresumptions overlook the complexity of diversity management. I would argue that motivationsor drivers behind diversity management are, indeed, of utter importance and deserve extensiveanalysis for practical reasons.Motivations inform universities on how to design and evaluate policies. Clearly definedmotivations can mark the beginning of a successful plan for a diversity initiative (Arredondo,1996). Failure to recognize underlying motivations can result in problems such as designing wrongpolicies, adopting inappropriate evaluation, failing to achieve desired outcomes, or settinginappropriate goals. I would suggest that higher education institutions are more susceptible to theseproblems for three reasons: size, bureaucracy and conflict of interests. Size refers to the size ofuniversities, in terms of staff and students. Universities are large organizations with hundreds ofemployees and students to consider and public organizations tend to be larger than privateorganizations in size. On top of this, public universities are funded by government and often havemore standardized and bureaucratic regulations to follow. In turn, this can impact a conflict ofinterest between school administrators, faculties, government and students. As a result, it becomeseasier for diversity management in public universities to get lost in bureaucracy and divergentinterests, overlooking the initial intention and becoming a machine which runs without a spirit,gradually deviating from its original course.The constant underperformance of minority students is a sign to remind educators of theneed to reflect upon their progress so far. It is possible that the diversity management approach
Lai 6adopted is not fully appropriate or effective. Thus, instead of evaluating the effectiveness ofindividual diversity policies, there is a need to take a step back, and review the starting point; toidentify the motivations of diversity management and to evaluate whether policies adoptedresonate with the motivations.There has been evidence suggesting that there may be a discrepancy between the surfacelevel motivations and the actual policies implemented. Literature in education management havepointed out that organizational hypocrisy may take place in education institutions when there isinconsistency between what is preached and what is done (Kılıçoğlu, 2017). It is conceivable thatdiversity management can be very susceptible to organizational hypocrisy, when dealing with theinterests of different parties in university. Some literature has assessed diversity management inhigher education and reflected upon the problem of universities using diversity as a marketingstrategy or as impression management. This raises an important concern of the genuine intentionof universities which engage in diversity management, and whether diversity policies are reallyable to help under-represented minority students on campus.This study aims to fill a gap in the existing literature by highlighting the role of motivationin diversity management in education institutions and critically evaluating the consistency inimplementation. This research will investigate diversity management in public universities byconducting a comparative case study of two vastly different countries; the United States and theNetherlands, to provide a bigger picture of possibilities and variations in university diversitymanagement.The main research question is to evaluate and compare the overall consistency betweenmotivation for diversity management and actual diversity policies implemented for underrepresented minority students in universities from the two countries. This inquiry will be unpackedby an in-depth analysis on the two major components in this analysis; motivations and policies.The two domains will each be evaluated against a new framework which I have developedspecifically for the analysis of diversity management in education institutions, which is drawnfrom relevant theories in business management and public administration disciplines. Theframework will be further explained in the next chapter.
Lai 7I believe that critically reviewing the consistency in diversity management can contributeto a starting point for diversity officers to review their existing diversity policies which help underrepresented minority student populations on campus, by reflecting upon whether their actualpolicies are consistent with their initial motivations.
Lai 8Chapter 2. Theoretical FrameworkTo examine the consistency between motivation and policies, this research builds upon twopotentially conflicting rationales proposed by scholars. The first rational explores diversitymanagement approaches from the perspective of private-public opposition of organizations. Thesecond approach focuses on the potential inconsistency, i.e. organizational hypocrisy, within anorganization.Private vs publicThe first rationale is founded upon diversity management literature which illustrates differentmotivations for diversity management and their corresponding policies. This rationale is primarilybased on two articles written by Sandra Groeneveld, van der Walle and Stijn Verbeek. The firstarticle is on representative bureaucracy by Groneveld and van der Walle (2010) while the secondone is a comparative research case study by Groenverbeek and Verbeek on diversity policies inpublic and private sectors (2012).Firstly, in the article on representative bureaucracy by Groeneveld and Van der Walle, theauthors proposed three dimensions of representative bureaucracy and corresponding measuresunder each dimension. ‘Representative bureaucracy is concerned with the demographiccomposition of public organizations in order to mediate tensions between democracy andbureaucracy’ (Groeneveld & Van de Walle, 2010). In short, representative bureaucracy can besimplified as the presence of diversity in a public organization. Among the three dimensions ofrepresentative bureaucracy suggested by Groeneveld and Van der Wall, two resonate withcommon concepts of diversity management in organizational management discipline, which arethe ‘equal opportunity’ and ‘diversity management’ dimensions. Characteristics of the two typesof representative bureaucracy can be summarized as follows:The equal opportunity dimension is driven by factors including ‘morality, legitimacy,democracy’, and to achieve representative bureaucracy of the equal opportunity dimension,measures can be adopted which include intake quotas, equal opportunities policies and targetrecruitment. While the diversity management dimension is driven by ‘performance, effectiveness,and efficiency’, measures commonly found include diversity trainings, mentorship and networkingprograms (Groeneveld & Van de Walle, 2010).
Lai 9Another article by Groeneveld and Verbeek is a research on the effectiveness of diversitypolicies in public and private sectors. Although effectiveness of policies is not a main focus of thisthesis, some ideas from the article are relevant. The research findings suggest that in regard topolicies concerned with increasing the influx of ethnic minorities into the organization, publicorganizations have a stronger emphasis on ‘hard’ policies such as, equal opportunity policies andaffirmative actions. Alternatively, private sectors adopt less formalized ‘managing diversity’initiatives with a focus on the ‘inner workings of organizations’ (Groeneveld & Verbeek, 2012).Drawing on the ideas suggested by the two articles, it is possible to identify two types ofmotivation diversity management and their corresponding diversity policies.Organization nature and motivationsCorresponding diversity policiesPublic organizations: diversity policies are Policies that are designed to improve the influxmotivated by morality, legality and social or representation of under-representedjustice arguments.minorities in an organization- Diversity definition grounded on group- e.g. quotas, target recruitment, affirmativebased identityaction, equal opportunity policies, etc.i.e. legitimacy founded upon equality andreflecting ethnic diversity of the population.Private organizations: diversity policies are Managing diversity policies focused on innermotivated by economic arguments.workings of organizations- Diversity definition grounded on individual e.g. diversity training, networkingidentityprogrammes, mentoring programmes,i.e. conceiving all individual organizationmembers as part of the diversity within theorganization and as human resourcecontributing to improving organizationperformance and added value to theorganization.(Groeneveld & Van de Walle, 2010; Groeneveld & Verbeek, 2012)Expectation 1: Public and private organizations are driven by different motivations and havedifferent diversity policies.
Lai 10Expectation 2: A consistent approach in diversity management of public universities is expectedto be driven by social justice or legal motivations, and show a strong emphasis on policies thatimprove the influx of under-represented minority students.The above rationales have illustrated a theoretically ideal situation when the motivationbehind diversity management is consistent with the actual implementation of policies. However,another rationale based on literature from education management suggested that inconsistency cantake place and lead to organizational hypocrisy (Kılıçoğlu, 2017). This implies that diversitymanagement of education institutions may not be as consistent as what diversity managementtheories suggest.Organizational inconsistencyThe second rationale is founded upon the concept of organization hypocrisy. Organizationhypocrisy is originally associated with political organizations, as suggested by Nils Brunsson whodefines it as a ‘fundamental type of behaviour in the political organization: to talk in a way thatsatisfies one demand, to decide in a way that satisfies another, and to supply products in a way thatsatisfies a third’ (Brunsson, 1989, p. 27) Developing this idea, Gökhan Kılıçoğlu suggested thateducation institutions are also susceptible to organization hypocrisy because conflicts of interestsand values between different stakeholders are conceivable. Kılıçoğlu defined this situation as“whenever decisions are easily taken and publicly announced, but not acted upon in practice”(Kılıçoğlu, 2017, p. 120). Kılıçoğlu pointed out that there is an emergence of organizationhypocrisy among schools caused by the raising emphasis on privatization of schools and neoliberal policies from government regarding education. He states; “Today, education is based dayby day on a market agenda and survival of the fittest” (Kılıçoğlu, 2017, p. 121).In addition to the discussion on organization hypocrisy by Kılıçoğlu, some other researcheshave also specifically referred to ethnic diversity itself as a means of organizational impressionmanagement or a marketing strategy by education institutions and other organizations. Avery andMcKay suggest that the presentation of ethnic diversity, regardless of the actual diversity levelwithin the organization, is often used by organizations to attract under-represented minorities tojoin the organization (Avery & McKay, 2006). In the particular context of higher education,Nguyen and LeBlanc pointed out that image and reputations are often used as a ‘positioninginstrument’ to influence the choices of students in education institutions in the decision to enroll
Lai 11or whether to continue their study in the same institution (Nguyen & LeBlanc, 2001). There isevidence showing that ethnic diversity is used as an impression management or self-presentationstrategy for universities (Boyer, Brunner, Charles, & Coleman, 2006). Boyer and Brunner citedSan Diego University as an example of the misrepresentation of ethnic diversity as a marketingtactic. The university was accused of presenting many ethnically diverse images in promotionalmaterials, while it was reported that students were disappointed by the actual level of ethnicdiversity after enrollment. These discussions further support the argument that diversitymanagement in universities are vulnerable to inconsistency, particularly when economicincentives or motivations relating to marketization of education and image building of the schoolare involved.In short, organizational hypocrisy, i.e. inconsistency, may take place when there is a gapbetween what is preached and what is practiced. Thus, it is important to identify the surface levelmotivations and underlying motivations behind diversity management for under-representedminority students and compare it with the actual policies practiced, to evaluate the level ofconsistency between the two components. In the case of public universities, despite beingconsidered of as public organizations, it is conceivable that they are also susceptible to economicincentives of promoting diversity management and ethnic diversity as a way of impressionmanagement or brand-building.Expectation 3: Diversity management in public universities are more susceptible to inconsistencywhen specific kinds of economic motivations can be identified.The above discussion has extensively discussed what a consistent diversity managementapproach between motivation and actual policy implementation should look like and suggestspossible conditions which may lead to inconsistency between the two components in the case of ahigher education setting. The following sections in this chapter will be devoted to further enquiryinto each of the two domains, i.e. motivations and diversity policies, separately with an aim tofine-tune existing theories on the two components to develop new frameworks particularly for theanalysis of motivations and diversity policies in public universities.
Lai 122.1 MotivationsAcross the literature on diversity management, there is numerous discussion on the motivationbehind diversity management, but the focus of these discussions vary with discipline.Most literature from organizational management and human resource disciplines, supportdiversity management with economic justifications, using examples such as; a diverse workforcecan increase company access to different markets, can increase creativity and can contribute toproblem solving the ability of teams (Cox, 1991;Cox & Blake, 1991;Roosevelt, 1992;Marquis,Lim, Scott, Harrell & Kavanagh, 2008). Cox listed six comparative advantages which diversitycan bring to an organization, which are: cost, resource, acquisition, marketing, creativity, problemsolving, and organizational flexibility (Cox, 1991). In addition to the business discipline,discussions on diversity management are also found in literature from the educational field. Otherthan general economic drivers suggested by the authors discussed above, Launcelot I. Brownattempted to provide a ‘corporate view of diversity’ to justify economic motivation with anargument that is absent in business management literatures in general. He pointed out that the trendof valuing diversity in private sectors indirectly encourages diversity management in universities.Considering private enterprises as employers of university graduates, their demand for workerswith ability to work in diverse environments, drives universities to allocate attention and resourcesin providing relevant education experience to their students. (Brown, 2004). However, businessmanagement approach alone, is not enough to justify the necessity of having diversity managementin universities (Gotsis & Kortezi, 2015).From business and human resources management literature, George Gotsis and ZoeKortezi suggested that there are three major motivations of diversity management: economic,moral and legal (Gotsis & Kortezi, 2015). From a moral perspective, diversity is seen as a matterof social justice; from a legal perspective, diversity is seen as a requirement that needed to befulfilled in compliance with laws; from an economic perspective, diversity is an asset toorganizations and brings economic benefits. A similar approach can be found in Corporate SocialResponsibility and Diversity Management by Hansen and Seisterstad. The authors suggest thatthere are two ‘lines of argument’ justifying diversity management, the social justice line rests onthe ‘principle of equity and an equal society, the utility line (i.e. economic perspective) is basedon ideas of business operation and human capital’. In addition to the two arguments, they suggest
Lai 13a third paradigm for diversity management, termed as ‘discrimination and fairness’, which is alegal paradigm. This paradigm proposed by Hansen and Seisterstad is defined as the ‘effort tocomply with legal requirements’.From the Public Administration field, articles contributed by Stijn Verbeek, SandraGroeneveld and Rinus Penninx, address diversity managem
diversity management can be very susceptible to organizational hypocrisy, when dealing with the interests of different parties in university. Some literature has assessed diversity management in higher education and reflected upon the problem of universities using diversity as a marketing strategy or as impression management.
tion diversity. Alpha diversity Dα measures the average per-particle diversity in the population, beta diversity Dβ mea-sures the inter-particle diversity, and gamma diversity Dγ measures the bulk population diversity. The bulk population diversity (Dγ) is the product of diversity on the per-particle
diversity within the system (Maassen & Vught, 1988, p. 66). The focus of our review lies on diversity between programs and higher education institutions. It builds on investigations of external diversity in higher education, i.e. the differences between higher education institutions (Birnbaum, 1983).
diversity of the other strata. Beta (β) Diversity: β diversity is the inter community diversity expressing the rate of species turnover per unit change in habitat. Gamma (γ) Diversity : Gamma diversity is the overall diversity at landscape level includes both α and β diversities. The relationship is as follows: γ
AFMC Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA) Training 2 2 Diversity in BusinessDiversity in Business 3 Minutes 3 The Importance of Diversity The Importance of Diversity3 Minutes 4 The Power of Diversity 4 Minutes The Power of Diversity 5 The Threat of Diversity 2 Minutes The Threat of Diversity 6 Diverse Teams Deliver Results 1 Minute Diverse Teams Deliver Results
The Council on Higher Education (CHE) is an independent body established by the Higher Education Act, No. 101 of 1997. The CHE is the Quality Council for Higher Education. It advises the Minister of Higher Education and Training on all higher education issues and is responsible for quality assurance and promotion through the Higher Education .
alpha, beta, and gamma diversity. Alpha (α) diversity is local diversity, the diversity of a forest stand, a grassland, or a stream. At the other extreme is gamma (γ) diversity, the total regional diversity of a large area that contains several communities, such as the eastern deciduous forests
Alpha, gamma and beta diversity are theoretical constructs that describe the hierarchical, multiscale nature of diversity. Phyto-chemical alpha diversity is the average diversity at the scale of a single sampling unit (i.e. ‘local’ diversity). Gamma diversity is
Abrasive water jet machining (AWJM) process is one of the most recent developed non-traditional machining processes used for machining of composite materials. In AWJM process, machining of work piece material takes place when a high speed water jet mixed with abrasives impinges on it. This process is suitable for heat sensitive materials especially composites because it produces almost no heat .
