Exploring Faculty Perceptions Campus Climate Before and After a Consolidation

Exploring Faculty Perceptions Campus Climate

Before and After a Consolidation

Section 1: The Problem

Mergers and acquisitions, although primarily thought as native to businesses,

have been common in higher education and ten related to nation-wide economic

challenges (Ribando & Evans, 2015). Leslie, Abu-Rahma, and Jaleel (2018) posited that

as costs increase and pressures arise, institutional leaders have chosen to adapt by

merging as a means surviving. As a result wars, landmark court cases, and energy crises,

in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, financial alarm and decreased spending on education

caused widespread panic and institutional mergers and rebranding became commonplace

(Platt, Chesnut, McGee, & Song, 2017). In 1862, for example, the Morrill Act resulted in

an increase in agricultural and mechanical institutions, and in 1887, as a result the Hatch

Act and higher education growth, public funding for higher education increased

(Fitzgerald, Bruns, Sonka, Furco, & Swanson, 2016). In 1929 the stock market crashed

and funding for higher education decreased; consequently, colleges were forced to close,

merge, or rebrand to adapt to the economic conditions (Platt et al., 2017). In fact, Platt et

al. attested that archived records showed over 4,000 American colleges and universities

closed, merged, or rebranded between the years 1741 and 2015.

Although many institutions survived the 19th and 20th century challenges by

adapting to remain relevant, the 21st century continued the trend toward merging and

rebranding higher education institutions to address financial challenges. For instance, the

dot-com bubble, terrorist attacks, high unemployment rates, increases in defense

spending, debt crises, and the housing bubble led to a decrease in funding for higher

education early in the 21st century (Platt et al., 2017). Institutional leaders had to find

ways to adapt and increase revenue. Although federal and state budgets for higher

education institutions were decreasing, public demand for higher education was

increasing (Platt et al., 2017). Funding to support institutions shifted from the

government to students by way tuition and fee increases. Therefore, institutions

continued to merge as competition amongst institutions increased (Leslie et al., 2018). In

fact, on average, approximately 11 institutions per year, between 1741 and 2016, merged

or rebranded to remain competitive (Platt et al., 2017).

Surprisingly, mergers are not limited to private higher education institutions. The

trend toward merging public intuitions increased for some state systems because

decreased funding and an increased demand for higher education (Ribando & Evans,

2015). In fact, more than 10 the institutions in the study site’s university system had

consolidated by 2011 (Gardner, 2017). When small private universities faced financial

difficulties or challenges expanding, they succumbed to acquisitions by larger institutions

with high stock prices and sustainable capital portfolios to continue to provide

educational opportunities for students (Borrego, 2001). Public colleges and universities,

although partially funded by the government, consolidated with other public institutions

to meet the needs students and the communities they serve (Azziz, 2013). However,

these consolidations ten result in alienation constituents, diminished lines authority,

branding challenges, and cultural disparities (Azziz, 2013).

In November 2015, the chancellor a state university system in the United States

announced the consolidation a Historically Black College or University (HBCU), which

fered 4-year and graduate degrees, with a non-HBCU (NHBCU), which fered technical

certificates and 2-year degrees. The two institutions were non-complementary in their

operating philosophies, and the resulting institution, CSU (pseudonym), fered certificates,

2-year degrees, 4-year degrees, and graduate degrees on two campuses. The old state

college access mission pursuing students with lower admissions standards in search

certificates and 2-year degrees was combined with the HBCU access mission recruiting

minority students with more stringent admissions standards for upper-level degrees. Most

the students who were enrolled in 2-year degree programs or less attend the NHBCU

campus. Students seeking a 4-year degree or higher attended the HBCU campus.

The goal the consolidation was to combine the staff, services, degree ferings, and

missions each institution in an effort to strengthen public higher education in the region

(, 2016). However, faculty, staff, and students continued to operate as if there were two

separate institutions. In addition to the separate campus operations, the race distribution

each campus' staff remained unequal. According to the 2016 National Center for

Education Statistics, the HBCU had a population 3,041 students, which over 90% were

African American. The staff members were representative the students as over 80% the

full-time staff were African American (University System , 2016). The NHBCU had

4,120 students, which 47% were White, and 46% were African American (National

Center for Education, 2016). The NHBCU’s staff members, however, were 75% White

(University System , 2016). The individual culture and unequal racial distribution

faculty, staff, and students remained despite consolidation efforts.

Although all department leaders were charged with combining the fices from both

campuses to serve all the students, many departments continued to operate in silos. For

instance, due to the number admissions staff on the NHBCU campus that resigned,

HBCU admissions staff were tasked with enrolling NHBCU students. The Director

Admissions on the HBCU campus reported that the HBCU staff were unfamiliar with the

recruiting process for the NHBCU students and that they had not received any training

(personal communication, January 4, 2018). A nursing faculty member from the NHBCU

campus agreed with the HBCU admissions staff because she stated that the HBCU

admissions staff had recruiting practices that focused solely on recruiting African

American students, which was believed to have had a negative impact on enrollment

(personal communication, November 17, 2017). Downward trends in enrollment resulted

in additional budget deficits that necessitated action.

Irrespective the reasons for the consolidation, to be successful, leaders must be

intentional at motivating human resources, communicating expected outcomes, managing

the stages employee behavior and encouraging the development a climate that is

supportive the combined group (Kenefick & DeVito, 2015). When unsupported

consolidations occur, the resulting institution faces scrutiny from both the media and

alumni about combining cultures, athletic teams, and staff. According to Gardner (2017),

the overarching goals each consolidation were to combine the missions, visions, and

guiding principles and to develop a new strategic direction that was representative the

new institution. The challenges arose, however, when each institution’s stakeholders

looked to preserve their original identity (Gardner, 2017), with consolidations ten

resulting in a myriad complaints from students, faculty, staff, and alumni.

This project study evolved as an outcome the consolidation a HBCU with a

NHBCU in the southern region the United States. After the institutional consolidation

process at CSU concluded, a gap existed between the intended result one smoothly

functioning, culturally diverse, institution and the possibility racial division and a

tumultuous climate on each the campuses (, 2016). The goal the consolidation was to

combine the faculty, staff, services, degree ferings, missions, and cultures each

institution in an effort to strengthen public higher education in the region because both

schools had experienced five years enrollment decline (, 2016). The challenges arose

once the consolidation was finalized (Gardner, 2017). The problem I addressed in this

study was the ongoing issues related to inclusion, campus interactions, and the treatment

diverse groups on campus after the consolidation between a HBCU and NHBCU.

Rationale

Once the institutions became one, listening sessions and staff meetings were held

to allow faculty and staff to voice their concerns. During one the sessions, a faculty

member from the NHBCU campus voiced concerns over the admissions process, stating

that she believed that the HBCU admissions staff had recruiting practices that focused

solely on recruiting African American students, which had a negative impact on White

student enrollment (personal communication, November 17, 2017). In another meeting, a

faculty member on the HBCU campus communicated that she felt the White faculty

members wanted to remove the HBCU mission (personal communication, April 3, 2018).

The faculty members continued to operate separately, and the race distribution each

campuses faculty remained unequal with approximately 80% the White faculty on the

NHBCU campus and only 20% on the HBCU campus (University System ,

2016). In a leadership meeting, the Chief Enrollment ficer stated that less than 20

nonAfrican American freshman students enrolled during the Fall 2018 term (personal

communication, August 20, 2018). The staff expressed concern about the perceived racial

inequities.

As noted in the local newspaper (, 2017), in addition to the racial challenges and

division campuses, staff and administrators left the institution. One year prior to

finalizing the consolidation, the appointed all executive leaders. The leader who was not

chosen for the consolidated institution was terminated or given the opportunity to resign.

The president, provost, vice president enrollment management, and associate vice

president academic advising the combined state university (CSU), however, all

announced their resignations within 3 months the consolidation (, 2017; , 2017). An

interim president and several interim vice presidents were selected to fill the vacancies.

The uncertainties the institution’s future and mandatory reductions in staff and faculty

caused a shifted the campus climate.

Consolidations have historically led to challenges and discontent among staff.

Ribando and Evans (2015) examined the sociocultural aspects consolidating

postsecondary institutions. The results the study indicated that the consolidation led to an

increase in employee stress levels and a decrease in person-organization fit resulting in

higher levels turnover. Likewise, Evans (2017) studied the effect that a merger between

two French higher education institutions had on the lives the staff affected by the change.

The results the study revealed that the staff felt negatively about the merger and the

leadership after the merger. Additionally, the staff disclosed that leaders had broken

promises and been inattentive to their coping needs, resulting in the need for strategies to

improve organizational climate. Similarly, Love (2014) used qualitative research to

explore the impact the merger two nursing programs on the resulting organizational

culture. The researcher found that the faculty who were involved in the merger expressed

dissatisfaction in the process and the post-merger climate; subsequently, resulting in the

need for an intervention to rebuild the culture and positively change the climate.

Consolidating a HBCU and a non-HBCU results in an immediate shift in the

racial diversity students, faculty, and staff. According to Michalski, Cunningham, and

Henry (2017), pround changes in the diversity an institution can lead to problems with

climate, enrollment, and employee retention. African American faculty, students, and

staff members at HBCUs have argued that increasing non-Black student enrollment

creates tension and threatens the history and legacy the HBCU (Palmer, Arroyo, &

Maramba, 2016). To overcome barriers and prevent exclusion, institutional leaders must

commit to developing a welcoming and inclusive environment (Michalski et al., 2017).

As the population students, staff, and faculty becomes more diverse, the importance

having a positive climate increases. The purpose this study was to explore faculty

perceptions the campus climate before and after the CSU consolidation in order to gain a

better understanding the ongoing issues related to inclusion, campus interactions, and

diverse groups on campus following the consolidation.

Definitions

Campus climate and organizational climate: Used interchangeably for the

purposes this study, the campus or organizational climate refers to the on-campus

environment for learning and social interaction that encourages the intellectual and social

development students, faculty, and staff (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen,

1998). In a socially responsible climate, diversity is valued and fairness is exhibited in

day-to-day activities (Canen & Ivenicki, 2015).

Consolidations and mergers: Used interchangeably, consolidations or mergers

take place when two organizations join together to form a third organization (Azziz,

2013). It is a transformational strategy used by higher educational leaders to address

fiscal challenges (Ribando & Evans, 2015).

Historically Black College and Universities: HBCUs are colleges or universities

that were established beginning in the late 1800s to provide a place for African

Americans to obtain a higher education during times racial segregation (Bracey, 2017).

HBCUs are known for supporting African American students, however, are also seen as

culturally inclusive (Bracey, 2017). HBCUs are thought to be innovative with social

change and black culture and identity are held sacred (Mobley, 2017).

Non- Historically Black College and Universities: Non-HBCUs are sometimes

characterized as predominantly white institutions (PWIs). PWIs, or non-HBCUs, have a

large percentage White faculty, staff, and ten students (McCoy, 2014). Historically,

PWIs have processes that exclude African American students, ultimately, making the

attainment a degree in higher education more challenging (McCoy, 2014).

Students color: Defined as a non-White student who identifies with an

underrepresented population college students (Museus, Yi, & Saelua, 2018). For the

purposes this study, a student color is an African American college student.

Significance

This study addressed an understudied area higher education, the consolidation

two types institutions with fundamentally different visions, missions, and cultures. For a

consolidation to be successful, leaders must foster a climate that is indicative the vision,

values, and core beliefs for the new institution (Love, 2014), especially since diversity

agendas that lead to changing organizational culture have high failure rates (Adserias,

Charleston, & Jackson, 2017). A shift in campus climate is imperative to the development

and implementation the changes needed to move consolidations from perception to

reality. The significance this study is that a research-based approach to understanding the

campus climate after significant organizational change could be instrumental in helping

leaders shape the racial campus climate the consolidated institution and to serve as a

guide to others undergoing transformational change between two distinctively different

institutions.

Research Questions

To address the research problem and purpose the study, the following openended

research questions were posed:

RQ1: Regarding issues inclusion, campus interactions, and diverse groups on

campus, what were faculty perceptions the racial campus climate on the former HBCU

campus before the consolidation?

RQ2: Regarding issues inclusion, campus interactions, and diverse groups on

campus, what were faculty perceptions the racial campus climate on the former

NHBCU campus before the consolidation?

RQ3: Regarding issues inclusion, campus interactions, and diverse groups on

campus, what are faculty perceptions the racial campus climate after the consolidation?

Review Literature

Conceptual Framework

Hurtado et al. (1998) provided a four-dimensional framework for practitioners to

use when examining campus climate. The four dimensions (a) historical legacy inclusion

or exclusion certain groups, (b) impact structural diversity, (c) psychological climate,

and (d) behavioral dimension climate are interrelated and provide a context for higher

education leaders to use when attempting to garner an understanding campus climate

(Hurtado et al., 1998).

Hurtado et al. (1998) wrote that the first two dimensions inclusion or exclusion

certain groups and structural diversity are factors that impact the overall campus climate.

The historical legacy inclusion or exclusion refers to the patterns limited access,

resistance to desegregation, and historical hostility toward people from diverse

backgrounds (Hurtado et al., 1998). Campus climates where faculty and staff members

experience ostracism because their race or ethnicity can cause an increase in stress and

contribute to poor overall psychological health (Zimmerman, Carter-Sowell, & Xu,

2016). Those who identify with the minority racial group may be subjected to an

additional layer stigmatism. The second dimension, impact structural diversity, refers to

the number people from diverse racial/ethnic groups on campus. The presence diversity

on campus, according to Hurtado et al., encourages interaction between faculty, staff, and

students from different races and ethnicities.

The third and fourth dimensions explain how members the campus perceive and

interact with diverse populations. Specifically, Hurtado et al. (1998) stated that the

psychological dimension climate involves individual views diversity, perceptions others

from different racial/ethnic backgrounds, and racial conflict or discrimination.

Perceptions discrimination may stem from faculty, students, and staff feeling devalued

and disconnected from the institution (Hurtado et al., 1998). The final dimension,

behavioral dimension climate, is concerned with the social interactions between

individuals from different backgrounds (Hurtado et al., 1998). Negative interactions

between those from different backgrounds, according to Hurtado et al., may signal a lack

institutional commitment to diversity and result in negative perceptions the campus

climate.

I used this conceptual framework to explore faculty perceptions inclusion,

campus interactions, and diverse groups that impact the racial campus climate CSU.

Specifically, the framework served as the lens to guide the interview questions in order to

garner an understanding the racial campus climate, from faculty perceptions, about

inclusion, campus interactions, and diverse groups on campus both before and after the

consolidation a HBCU and a non-HBCU. The research questions were broad enough to

address the campus climate from all stakeholder perceptions. However, the participants

focused on the campus climate among faculty, which narrowed the original purpose.

Review the Broader Problem

The following databases were used to review current literature in the field in

relation to the problem under study: Education Research Complete, Academic Search

Complete, Education Source, Education for SAGE, and ERIC. The following search

terms were used to find scholarly literature: consolidations, mergers, campus climate,

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Predominately White Institutions

(PWIs), colleges, universities, and change management. Many studies were reviewed in

preparation for this literature review. However, I selected 37 relevant studies to be

included in this literature review.

Consolidations and mergers. Although institutional mergers and consolidations

have been around for many years, recent consolidations have increased the need for more

research on successful strategies. The trend in higher education institutional mergers and

consolidations is expected to continue into the foreseeable future because consolidations

are predicted to double, and institutional closures are predicted to triple (Azziz, 2013;

Evans, Hess, Abdelhamid, & Stepleman, 2017). The lack success in achieving the

desired outcomes, however, poses alarm as Boling, Mayo, and Helms (2017) found that

many mergers fail to add value, have leaders who refuse to communicate properly, and

begin with inadequate implementation plans. Researchers agreed that mergers are used as

an instrument to address challenges in higher education; however, implementation may

not add the intended amount value to the institution (Evans et al., 2017; Leslie et.al.,

2018; Pinheiro, Geschwind & Aarrevaara, 2016). Several studies seeking to establish a

relationship between mergers and improved rankings were inconclusive in finding a

correlation (Evans, 2017; Ripoll-Soler & de-Miguel-Molina, 2014;). In fact, researchers

posited that many institutions show no improvement at all after a merger (Ripoll-Soler &

de-Miguel-Molina, 2014). In contrast, however, Bolbanabad, Mosadeghrad, Arab, and

Majdzadeh (2017) revealed that an academic merger in Iran resulted in an improved

academic position. The overall merger, conversely, had a negative impact on leadership

and staff.

Lack communication by leaders during a merger poses challenges and ten results

in an increase in employee stress (Bolbanabad et al., 2017; Cai, Pinheiro, Geschwind &

Aarrevaara, 2016; Senior, Fearon, Mclaughlin, & Manalsuren, 2017). In a study

conducted by Leslie et al. (2018) faculty, staff, and student resistance to the consolidation

increased because disappointment with the lack communication by leadership.

Researchers agreed that clear communication is necessary for consolidation success

because doing so reduces employee stress levels and conveys respect and concern (Cai et

al., 2016; Pinheiro et al., 2016). Effective communication is essential to the consolidation

process; therefore, consistent communication may decrease resistance and increase the

chances for success.

Leaders higher education institutions are implementing mergers during times

crisis as a means increasing financial acumen and gaining a competitive academic

advantage (Evans et al., 2017; Platt et al., 2017). The study sites reported multiple years

enrolment decline and the resulting financial difficulties as the number one reason for the

consolidation (University System , 2016). According to Boling et al.

(2017), institutions pursue consolidations to reduce costs and increase financial position.

Combining two or more universities together and decreasing staff increases financial

resources and geographic positioning. Although financial benefits were cited as the

number one reason for consolidations, Bolbanabad et al. (2017) added that higher

educational mergers increase access, strengthen and diversify academic ferings, and

improve teaching and research excellence. Reduced expenditures, elimination

redundancies, and improved access to a quality education for students comes at a price

(Evans et al., 2017; Leslie et al., 2018; Pinheiro, et.al., 2016; Platt et al., 2017) because

mergers can be laborious and challenging for the faculty, staff, and leaders involved in

the process (Cai et al., 2016; Edwards, Lipponen, Edwards, & Hakonen, 2017; Evans,

2017).

Consolidations can have a negative impact on the lives those involved in the

consolidation process (Evans, 2017; Leslie et al., 2018; Ribando & Evans, 2015). During

mergers, sociocultural issues are ten overlooked and faculty and staff may develop

feelings disengagement from the institution, intentions to resign, perceptions low

person-organization fit, and a lack commitment to the organization (Edwards et al.,

2017; Ribando & Evans, 2015; Ripoll-Soler & de-Miguel-Molina, 2014). The fear job

loss and losing their perceived identity may result in resentment toward leadership

(Boling et al., 2017; Edwards et al., 2017). Consolidating institutions with different

missions and cultures increases the immensity challenges; therefore, attention to the

human resource is necessary for success (Leslie et al., 2018; Pinheiro et al., 2016;

Ribando & Evans, 2015). Ribando, Slade, and Fortner (2017) explored the relationship

between consolidations and the impact on faculty members’ intent on leaving an

institution. The authors posited that consolidations bring about cultural domination by the

high-status institution which could negatively impact human capital by causing turnover

and decreased faculty performance (Ribando et al., 2017). Evans (2017) concurred,

adding that mergers “radically” change the lives the staff and ten resulted in staff and

faculty losing faith in leadership. Sociocultural issues, if not managed successfully, can

result in a failed consolidation and human capital cost (Leslie et al., 2018; Ribando et al.,

2017; Ripoll-Soler & de-Miguel-Molina, 2014)

The study’s sites underwent several major leadership changes since after the

initial announcement the consolidation. Faculty and staff members mentioned that they

did not have faith in the leadership. Research showed that effective leadership is

necessary to ensure the success mergers (Azziz, 2013; Platt et al., 2017). Consolidations

are considered major organizational change that requires strategic implementation. Azziz

(2013) suggested six essential and critical elements to position a consolidation or merger

for success: (a) a compelling unifying vision, (b) the right sense urgency, (c) a

committed and understanding governing body, (d) the right leadership on the ground, (e)

a robust project management system, and (f) sufficient dedicated resources. Evans et al.

(2017) agreed that the six elements presented by Azziz are critical to the success

consolidation, citing that a leadership program grounded in authentic leadership will help

develop leaders who possess the requisite skills to communicate a clear vision and ensure

the success consolidations. Researchers concurred that consolidations result in a high

level uncertainty and complexity and consequently require leaders who have the ability

to enact change with a sense urgency and attentiveness to the human resource (Boling et

al., 2017; Platt et al., 2017). The success or failure a consolidation can be attributed to

the ability leaders to manage the change process and the systems involved (Cai et al.,

2016; Leslie et al., 2018; Pinheiro et al., 2016).

Researchers have found that mergers might have integration challenges (Azziz,

2013; Evans et al., 2017; Platt et al., 2017; Ribando & Evans, 2015). Possible barriers to

success include poor quality faculty or program ferings (Boling et al., 2017; Puusa &

Kekale, 2013; Senior et al., 2017). Due to the stress caused by the consolidation, faculty

and staff turnover may increase (Pinheiro et al., 2016; Ribando & Evans, 2015). Those

who remain may not be the most qualified or have a genuine commitment to the

consolidated institution. One institution’s course ferings may not align with those the

other consolidating institution; therefore, academic programs may suffer during a

consolidation. Challenges may arise if the remaining faculty and staff are less qualified

than those who resigned during the merger (Puusa & Kekale, 2013; Ribando & Evans,

2015).

Consolidations are ten cited as a way to transform or innovate in higher education,

and the decision to consolidate is attributed to external pressures, internal conflict, or

strategic initiatives (Cai et al., 2016; Edwards et al., 2017). However, many

consolidations have resulted in the same, if not worse, performance (Puusa & Kekale,

2013; Ripoll-Soler & de-Miguel-Molina, 2014). The best mergers are those between

complementary institutions because non-complementary institutional consolidations

require research-based strategies and transformational leaders who will be attentive to the

human capital (Boling et. al., 2017; Ribando & Evans, 2015; Ripoll-Soler & de-

MiguelMolina, 2014). CSU evolved from the noncomplementary consolidation an

HBCU and non-HBCU.

Leading organizational change. The higher education landscape is a

progressively comprehensive market economy that is facing an uncertain future and

unprecedented challenges that ten result in large-scale change (Jones & Harvey, 2017;

Lamm, Sapp, & Lamm, 2018; Smulowitz, 2015). Today’s leader must possess the ability

to implement transformative change while being attentive to the needs the human

resource (Bolbanabad et al., 2017; Puusa & Kekale, 2015). Humans crave stability and

have a natural tendency to resist organizational change because it leads to uncertainty and

an inability to predict the effect the outcomes (Agote, Aramburu, & Lines, 2016; van der

Voet; 2015). The president, and several vice presidents CSU who led the consolidation,

resigned. The large turnover in leadership added to the uncertainty and employee

resistance. Puusa and Kekale (2015) found that during a university change process top-

down management resulted in staff feeling powerless and uncertain their future.

Likewise, McGrath, Barman, Stenfors-Hayes, Roxa, Silen, and Laksov (2016) found that

staff resisted change because they were comfortable doing things the way they were

always done. Additionally, the authors noted that underprepared leaders increase the

likelihood resistance during organizational change. Change is inevitable; however,

effective implementation requires leaders who possess the skills necessary to negotiate

resistance among employees (Smulowitz, 2015; van der Voet, 2016).

Change initiatives should be well planned and implemented by leaders who are

adept at managing change and communicating (McGrath et al., 2016; Puusa & Kekale,

2015. Staff ten view change negatively, so employing research-based strategic change

that is implemented by effective leadership increases the chances success (Cai et al.,

2016; Kamarudin & Starr, 2014; Puusa & Kekale, 2015). Researchers agreed that leaders

must take on the role change agents who acknowledge the need for the change and can

help others embrace and adapt to the change (Lamm et al., 2018; McGrath et al., 2016).

To assist with managing the process, McGrath et al. (2016) posited that change strategies

and potential challenges must be communicated to the entire group prior to

implementation to minimize backlash and maximize support for the change initiative.

Other researchers concurred that effective communication minimizes resistance and

increases employee trust in leadership (Agote et al., 2016; Leslie et al., 2018). In essence,

higher education institutional leaders must learn to navigate the change process by being

attuned to their own beliefs about change and learning how to increase their knowledge

capacity in relation to leading humans through the change process (Evans et al., 2017;

Lamm et al., 2018).

Implementing organizational change is challenging for public organizations

because perceptions change and a reliance on leadership style can impede progress and

success (Smulowitz, 2015; van der Voet, 2016). Attention to recipients’ attitudes and

beliefs about leaders and change should be an important part the planning process

(Lamm et al., 2017; van der Voet, 2016) because leadership and trust are fundamental to

the organizational change process (Agote et al., 2016; Evans, 2017; Pinheiro et al., 2016).

Recipients’ perceptions leadership can influence trust and emotions during the change

process (Agote et al., 2016; Smulowitz, 2015). To ensure that perceptions are positive,

leaders must provide opportunities to stimulate employee participation in the change

process (Evans, 2017; Puusa & Kekale, 2015; van der Voet, 2016). Many leadership

studies focus solely on the attributes the leader or the follower as the deciding factor

success in change initiatives (Lamm et al., 2018; Puusa & Kekale, 2015). Hughes and

Ford (2016) attested, however, that organizational change should take many forms and

collectively involve many different individuals and groups in the entire process.

Higher educational change initiatives have historically led to unattainable goals

and marginal outcomes (Evans, 2017; Jones & Harvey, 2017). Consolidations are

arduous and challenging change processes that have the potential to fail if implemented

haphazardly (Puusa & Kekale, 2015; Ripoll-Soler & de-Miguel-Molina, 2014).

Uncertainties with the process or outcomes ignite fear in faculty and staff and potentially

lead to organizational instability (Evans, 2017; Pinheiro et al., 2015; Puusa & Kekale,

2015). The stress organizational change can lead to disdain between leaders, faculty,

staff, and other stakeholders; therefore, to be successful, changes such as mergers and

consolidations require planned strategy, strong leadership, and attentiveness to the overall

environment (Jones & Harvey, 2017; Kamarudin & Starr, 2014; Lamm et al., 2018).

Campus climate at HBCUs and at PWIs. HBCUs are diverse institutions with

missions, visions, and climates that differ from many non-HBCUs (Gasman, Nguyen, &

Commodore, 2017; Preston & Palmer, 2018). The traditional HBCU supported the

education African American students during a time segregation; however, after

segregation ended HBCUs continued to primarily educate African American students

(Gates, Quinn, & Phillips, 2017; Shappie & Debb, 2017). HBCUs have diverse climates

that encourage the persistence and success students color (Shappie & Debb, 2017;

Winkle-Wagner & McCoy, 2018). In fact, Palmer et al. (2016) attested that historically

Black colleges and universities are (a) known for cultivating a supportive, nurturing,

family-oriented environment that fosters the psychosocial development African

American students, (b) noted for admitting and graduating underprepared students, (c)

respected for being effective at promoting African American student success, and (d)

known to be open to ethnically diverse populations. Similarly, Preston and Palmer (2018)

asserted that HBCUs graduate more African American students who overcome adversity

because the nurturing environment and assistance provided to help students navigate the

college environment and build a social network that will assist them in the future. Several

researchers postulated that African American students who attend HBCUs have higher

GPAs and engage more with the campus after graduation because the social networks

that are created during enrollment (Mwangi, 2016: Preston & Palmer, 2018). Overall,

researchers agreed that African American students at HBCUs experienced a campus

climate that is sensitive to their unique needs and culture (Gasman et al., 2017;

Shappie & Debb, 2017).

In contrast, non-HBCUs, or PWIs, have a perceived history racial exclusion that

can influence feelings isolation in African American students (Gasman et al., 2017;

Preston & Palmer, 2018; Winkle-Wagner & McCoy, 2018). African Americans attending

PWIs are ten coming from oppressed backgrounds with perceived knowledge, skills, and

abilities that are lower than those other ethnicities (Lucas, 2018; Palmer et al., 2016).

Research has shown that African Americans attending PWIs graduate at rates lower than

those who attend HBCUs and PWIs are failing to implement programs or provide support

to help students confront historical challenges (Arroyo,

Palmer, Maramba, & Louis, 2017; Lucas, 2018; Shappie & Debb, 2017). The climate at

PWIs supports the dominant culture students and forces underrepresented students to fit

in, assimilate, and potentially withdraw socially (Bourke, 2016). To overcome these

challenges and encourage a positive racial climate for all students, faculty and staff

leaders at PWIs must be intentional at understanding the true meaning diversity and

shaping the way different races experience the campus (Bourke, 2016).

HBCUs have historically welcomed students from all races and ethnicities

(Arroyo et al., 2017). Although many HBCU leaders support racial diversification, they

also fear losing the historical mission the HBCU (Palmer et al., 2016). The HBCU and

non-HBCU have consolidated to welcome students and staff from all ethnicities;

however, leaders have not been able to prove that the campuses are fully diversified.

Research has shown that non-African American staff and students have challenges when

attempting to assimilate at HBCUs (Morris, 2015; Shorette & Arroyo, 2015). Similarly,

when African American students attend PWIs, evidence revealed that they ten experience

alienation and isolation (Museus et al., 2018; Winkle-Wagner & McCoy, 2018). When

diversifying HBCUs, specifically after a consolidation, leaders must be attentive to the

campus climate for non-African Americans to ensure a more inclusive environment

(Palmer et al., 2016).

Implications

Higher education consolidations and mergers are expected to continue as the

market economy continues to shift towards increased completion and decreased funding

Azziz, 2013). A positive campus climate can evoke a sense belonging among students,

faculty, and staff, which ultimately increases student persistence, and decreases staff

turnover (Museus et al., 2018; Piheiro et al., 2016). Consolidating a HBCU and a

nonHBCU results in a drastic shift in climate that may cause some stakeholders to resist

the change. Consequently, leaders must be attentive to the climate that develops because

overlooking it could cause the consolidation to fail (Leslie et al., 2018). Since faculty

members the consolidated institution are instrumental in ensuring that students

successfully matriculate and graduate, focusing on their perceptions campus climate

informed leaders potential challenges that needed to be addressed. A comprehensive

examination the data resulted in the development a project to assist stakeholders in

examining their views about the current environment and provide them with some

strategies to help them overcome racial biases and move toward a cultivating an inclusive

environment for all faculty.

Summary

Consolidations and mergers have become commonplace as a means overcoming

financial challenges and increasing academic ferings in colleges and universities (Evans

et al., 2017; Platt et al., 2017). Although consolidations are expected to increase in the

future, researchers have determined that leadership inefficiencies and a lack

communication may lead to failed implementations (Evans et al., 2017; Leslie et al.,

2018; Pinheiro et al., 2016; Ribando & Evans, 2015). Consolidations can result in worse

performance and have a negative impact on the human resource (Evans, 2017; Leslie et

al., 2018; Puusa & Kekale, 2013; Ribando & Evans, 2015). Faculty and staff have

reported feelings fear and uncertainty that resulted in intentions to resign from the

consolidated institution. Therefore, to be successful, attention to the human resource is a

necessity.

Mergers between two complementary institutions are the most successful (Boling

et al., 2017). When the two institutions are noncomplementary, employee resistance

increases and the opportunities for success decrease (Ribando & Evans, 2015). A

consolidation between a HBCU and a non-HBCU may be considered non-complementary

because the variances in markets, processes, and resources (Boling et al., 2017). The vast

difference in the climate and propensity towards diversity each institution creates

additional challenges during a consolidation. HBCUs are known for having a culture

acceptance for African American students (Arroyo et al., 2017). PWIs, however, have a

perceived history racial exclusion and practices that evoke feelings isolation for

African American students, faculty and staff (Gasman et al., 2017; Preston & Palmer,

2018; Winkle-Wagner & McCoy, 2018). Diversifying the campus after a consolidation

between a HBCU and a non-HBCU requires leaders who have the ability to create a

racially inclusive climate for all students, faculty, and staff.

Lack a clearly defined, positive, institutional climate can be blamed for the

difference between successful and unsuccessful consolidated institutions (Ribando &

Evans, 2015). To remain competitive, higher education institutions must have a quality

climate that fosters positive growth and development for staff, faculty, and students.

Consequently, understanding the faculty perceptions campus climate is important, as

they are ten responsible for promoting diversity and reshaping the climate (Garcia, 2016).

CSU faculty members have expressed concerns about the racial campus climate and the

overall success the institution after the consolidation. Understanding the campus racial

climate before and after the consolidation will assist leaders in creating an inclusive

environment and in developing a plan to improve the perceptions the faculty and staff.

The literature review consisted the conceptual framework and a critical review

current literature related to consolidations, leading organizational change, and climate

differences between HBCUs and non-HBCUs. The second section the study, the

methodology, will include an explanation and rationale for the research design, the

participant selection criteria and technique used to invite participants, data collection

strategy and procedure, and the data analysis format.

Section 2: The Methodology

Qualitative Research Design and Approach

Qualitative researchers use inductive reasoning to make sense how people

construct their worlds and interpret experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). According to

Creswell and Creswell (2018), qualitative research studies are realistic, descriptive,

process driven, and concerned with constructing meaning. Qualitative researchers write

narratives that provide rich descriptive data to illustrate participants’ perspectives through

the use observations and personal interviews (Lodico, Spaulding, & Voegtle, 2010).

Qualitative research is chosen as the methodology for research studies that explore

individual perceptions or garner insight into a social phenomenon in an environment

where social contexts are examined systematically (Yin, 2009). Basic qualitative research

is used when the researcher seeks to understand the meaning an experience has for those

involved rather than focusing on culture or building theories (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

Caelli, Ray, and Mill (2003) defined basic qualitative research as research that is not

“guided by an explicit or established set philosophic assumptions in the form one the

known qualitative methodologies” (p. 19). The problem addressed in this qualitative

study was the ongoing issues related to inclusion, campus interactions, and the treatment

diverse groups on campus after the consolidation between a HBCU and NHBCU. I used

basic qualitative research to garner the CSU faculty members’ perceptions campus

climate before and after the consolidation regarding issues inclusion, campus

interactions, and diverse groups on campus because it was the most appropriate

methodology to address the research questions.

The most commonly used qualitative research designs include basic qualitative

research, ethnography, case study, phenomenology, and grounded theory (Merriam &

Tisdell, 2016). The first research design, ethnography, was not well suited for this study

because it proposed that the researcher would become immersed in the environment the

participants to discover how they made meaning their lives (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

Typically, ethnographic researchers aim to illustrate a complete understanding the

culture and consequential intricacies as perceived by study participants. Ethnographic

researchers become immersed in the participants’ culture to provide rich, descriptive,

narratives about the culture being studied (Lodico et al., 2010). The next research design,

case study research could not be used to address the research questions this study as the

phenomenon study is not a bounded case. Case study researchers seek to explain

processes and gain an understanding a bounded system, with the research limited to a

detailed examination a single setting, subject, set documents, or event (Merriam &

Tisdell, 2016). The third research design, phenomenology, was not a reasonable research

option for this study because I did not seek to uncover the essence the participants’ point

view. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) attested that phenomenological researchers seek to

uncover the essence or basic structure participants’ experiences. Finally, grounded

theory researchers collect and analyze data at the same time in hopes developing a theory

that is grounded in sound research. This study did not involve developing a theory;

therefore, grounded theory was not a viable research option.

In contrast to qualitative research, quantitative researchers employ deductive

reasoning to determine causation, predict occurrence, generalize facts and report findings

numerically (Lodico et al., 2010; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Quantitative researchers use

scientific inquiry to identify variables, form hypotheses, collect data, test hypotheses, and

formulate new inquiries (Lodico et al., 2010; Salkind, 2009). Collecting quantitative

survey data may have been useful in researching campus climate. Additionally, survey

data may have yielded a larger participant pool and more perceptions in relation to the

broader campus climate. However, as noted by Miriam and Tisdell (2016, p. 24),

researchers who conduct a basic qualitative study want to explore how participants

construct their realities and perceive and understand their experiences. With these goals, I

chose a basic qualitative design using interviews with two groups faculty members. Even

though the use interviews as the only data collection tool is common in qualitative

studies, the use interview data alone may be a limitation with regard to methodology.

Participants

Qualitative researchers use sampling procedures that are less rigid than those used

by quantitative researchers. Qualitative researchers identify a problem and use

nonprobability sampling to purposefully select a group participants to interview,

observe, or survey (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Most qualitative researchers use typical,

unique, maximum variation, convenience, and snowball sampling techniques (Merriam &

Tisdell, 2016). For this study, I used criterion-based sampling to select faculty who were

employed at the HBCU or NHBCU before and after the consolidation. In criterion-based

sampling, the researcher selects participants based on a predetermined set attributes

(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

In the 2016 fiscal year, the HBCU had 154 faculty members who held the title

pressor, associate pressor, assistant pressor, or lecturer (University System , 2016). In the

same fiscal year, the NHBCU had 253 faculty members who held the title pressor,

associate pressor, assistant pressor, or lecturer (University System , 2016) To identify

participants for this study, I compared the 2016 list faculty members from both

institutions to the current directory faculty members. All faculty members who were on

both the 2016 directories and the current directory were selected as potential participants.

The CSU directory had 107 remaining HBCU faculty members and 129 remaining

NHBCU faculty members. The directory also included the email addresses for all CSU

faculty and staff, so I used the directory information to compile a list participants and

their email contact information.

According to Creswell (2012), garnering permission from participants ensures

that they will cooperate. However, prior to approaching participants, I had to gain

permission from both Walden and the study site’s IRB. The study site required that I have

Walden IRB approval prior to providing a letter cooperation. Therefore, I began the

process completing and submitting my Walden IRB application. Once I received my

conditional Walden IRB approval, I submitted my Walden IRB application material and

conditional approval to the study site’s IRB fice. The study site’s IRB expedited my

request and provided me with an approval letter. I submitted the study site’s letter

approval to Walden’s IRB and subsequently received my Walden IRB approval number

12-12-19-0290588. I sent the faculty members an introductory email (Appendix B) that

explained my role as the researcher and their rights to confidentiality. I attached the

consent form to the email with instructions on how participants should consent to

participate. I used the blind carbon copy (BCC) feature when sending the emails to

protect the privacy all potential participants. Additionally, I provided participants with

my contact information and fered them an opportunity them to contact me with questions

or concerns. The first group participants responded immediately to the email indicating

their consent to participate. I responded to their email with potential interview dates and

asked them to choose a day and time that would not interfere with their schedule. Once I

received the responses, I scheduled the interviews. Some researchers warn against

attempting to define the sample size in qualitative studies prior to the collection data

(Sim, Saunders, Waterfield, & Kingstone, 2018). In contrast, others use statistical

analysis to estimate that a sample size between 10 and 15 will result in data saturation

(Turner-Bowker et al., 2018). To ensure that I had enough participants to generate rich,

thick data, I sent a subsequent email 2 weeks later (Appendix C). The second set

participants responded with consent and subsequent interviews were scheduled. I had a

total 11 participants respond to the email invitations with consent to participate.

However, only eight faculty members were interviewed. Once faculty member tearfully

rescinded her consent when I arrived at the school during her scheduled interview time.

She stated that she feared that she would lose her job if she told the truth about how she

felt. Two additional faculty members responded with consent but did not respond to

schedule their interview.

According to Creswell (2012), ethical researchers ensure that participants are

protected. The following measures were implemented to ensure participant

confidentiality and protection from harm. Participants were given pseudonyms to protect

their identity. The pseudonym is used in all published documentation. Confidential

information about the participants’ identity was not disclosed to anyone. In the informed

consent form, I notified participants that their participation in the study was voluntary and

that they could withdraw from the study at any time during the process without any

penalty.

All data were stored on my personal computer and a detachable USB flash drive.

Each document was password protected without any personally identifiable information

that would link the participant to the response. Protecting the identity each participant

ensures individual privacy and ethical data collection (Creswell, 2012). I saved the

emailed consents as password protected PDF files that were stored on my password

protected personal computer. The recorded interviews and transcriptions were password

protected and stored on my personal computer and USB Flash drive as well. When the

USB flash drive was not in use, it was stored in firepro, locked, file cabinet in my home.

All data were to be kept for a period five years from the date the study is published.

Data Collection

Most qualitative researchers collect data through interviews (Merriam & Tisdell,

2016). Interviews are purposeful conversations between a researcher and a research

participant where the researcher seeks to obtain information from the participant about

the phenomena being studied (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

Researchers use interviews as either the only method data collection or combined with

observations (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). For this study, I used semi-structured interviews

to collect data from seven the eight participants. Six the participants were interviewed

face-to-face. The seventh participant was interviewed by phone. The final participant

submitted answers to the interview questions by secure email. Semi-structured interviews

allow flexibility and provide respondents with an opportunity to elaborate on their

individual perspectives on the topic study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In contrast to the

structured interview, the researcher using a semi-structured interview is afforded an

opportunity to respond to the emerging views or concepts from each participant (Merriam

& Tisdell, 2016). The interviews consisted 13 researcher-developed questions for the

HBCU faculty (Appendix B) and 13 researcher-developed questions for the NHBCU

faculty (Appendix C). Each the face-to-face and phone interviews lasted between 3045

minutes. Three the face-to-face interviews were conducted in a private meeting room on

the HBCU campus. The other three face-to-face interviews were conducted on the

NHBCU campus. All face-to-face interviews were scheduled during a time and on the

campus location that was most beneficial for the participant. I used a Sony digital audio

recording device to record the phone and face-to-face interviews, always assuring the

participants their right to revoke their agreement or ask questions at any point in the

process. All interviews were conducted within 2 weeks. During data analysis, I noticed

that the participants only discussed the campus climate in relation to the faculty. If I had

noticed the trend during the interviews, I would have asked additional questions, focusing

on students and staff members. However, I did not ask probing questions, which is a

limitation this study.

I had not been in a supervisory role over any the potential participants.

However, I was well known on campus and most the participants recognized me. During

the interview, I assured the participants that all their information would be kept

confidential and that they could be open and honest without fear judgement,

misrepresentation, or retaliation. As a previous staff member the HBCU, NHBCU, and

CSU, I had to work diligently to avoid researcher bias and to ensure that the data I

collected were objective. According to Bogdan and Biklen (2007), researcher bias must

be controlled, but not to the point that it immobilizes the researcher. I added to the

knowledge base by collecting data objectively and refraining from passing judgment.

According to Lodico et al. (2010), studying participants objectively, spending a

considerable amount time with the data and in the setting, avoiding judgment, using

member checking, and writing in a journal to reflect on fieldwork assists researchers with

minimizing biases during data collection and analysis.

Data Analysis

Interpretation refers to developing perspectives about outcomes and connecting

those viewpoints to the literature (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Data analysis involves

manipulating, organizing, synthesizing, and looking for themes and patterns in the data to

assist the researcher with making sense the data (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Researchers

constantly compare the data collected to ensure accuracy in interpretation and analysis.

Analyzing and interpreting the data involves preparing and organizing the data, coding to

develop patterns and themes, presenting data using narratives and visuals, interpreting

meaning from the data, and employing a comprehensive approach to assess the accuracy

findings (Creswell, 2012). This six-step process ensures that the researcher understands

the data and that the research questions are answered (Creswell, 2012).

At the conclusion each interview, I downloaded the audio file to a password

protected folder on my password protected personal computer. Once all interviews

concluded I signed up for Rev’s audio transcription service and requested that a

confidentiality form be completed. Upon receipt the non-disclosure agreement (NDA), I

uploaded seven files for transcription. All transcriptions were returned to me within one

day. I reviewed each transcription while listening to the audio file to ensure accuracy.

Once the transcribed files were reviewed for accuracy, I emailed each participant their

portion the transcribed interviews and asked them to check the transcriptions for

accuracy. I received emails back from the participants confirming the accuracy the

transcriptions. No changes were suggested. Member checking, the process soliciting

feedback from interviewees, helps ensure accuracy and credibility (Merriam & Tisdell,

2016). To ensure reliability, data reported are accurate representations the population

under study, consistent, and reproducible (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Once I received

confirmation transcription accuracy from each participant, I downloaded NVivo12 to

organize the data and begin the coding process. Coding is the process determining

patterns and regularities in the transcribed data to assist the researcher with answering the

research questions (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).

I used NVivo to identify blocks text and to assign themes and categories. To

ensure that answers to the research questions originated naturally from the data, I coded

the data, reevaluated the codes, and grouped like codes into themes. As suggested by

Creswell (2012), the themes were analyzed in relation to the research questions and the

findings were presented using tables and narrative text. The process presenting data and

reporting findings assures that the data collected are analyzed correctly and provide

answers to the research questions.

Procedures for Dealing with Discrepant Cases

Qualitative research is subjective (Shelton & Roulston, 2015). Subjectivity in

research leads to biases that researchers must make overt to themselves and others

(Shelton & Roulston, 2015). Lodico et al. (2010) and Salkind (2009) agreed that

comparing and confirming discrepant cases the phenomenon being studied ensures that

researcher biases are minimized and participants’ experiences are reported accurately. To

ensure that all participants’ experiences were reported accurately, I included discrepant

cases in the data analysis results discussions. This information showed that not all

participants experienced the consolidation the same. However, they all had an experience

to share.

Data Analysis Results

At the beginning the interview, in questions 1-5, participants were asked to share

demographic information and details relating to the consolidation’s impact on each them

as faculty members. The study included eight diverse participants who had been

employed for a number years before and after the consolidation (Table 1). Most the

participants were female. African American females outnumbered all other demographic

groups. Four the participants were originally employed by the HBCU. The other four

participants were originally employed by the NHBCU. All participants were still

employed by the CSU and had or would have considered employment at the other

institution prior to the consolidation.

Table 1

Participant Demographics

Pseudonym

Gender Race Years

Employed

Campus

Amina F African American 1-10 NHBCU

Danica

F African American 11-20 HBCU

Deja F African American 1-10 HBCU

Mark

M White 21-30 HBCU

Royce

M White 21-30 NHBCU

Shane

M White 1-10 NHBCU

Sia F White 11-20 NHBCU

Symone F African American 11-20 HBCU

In response to the interview question that asked what impact the consolidation had

on each participant as a faculty member, those who received promotions or other

favorable outcomes felt that the consolidation’s impact in relation to their career goals

and objectives was positive. The African American female participants with the shortest

employment history, between 1 and 10 years, both attested to the positive impact the

consolidation had on their career as both received promotions or additional research

opportunities after the consolidation. For example, Amina, an African American female

who was a NHBCU faculty member prior to the consolidation shared the following:

Oh, man. It opened up so many more opportunities for me because I was working

at a state college, which was fine. If you look at my career, I went from a

technical college and I went up to state college and then now I'm at university, so

I get to meet some really cool people. [I also] got some mentors that have

propelled me into publishing.

The White male participant with a similar employment history revealed that the

consolidation impacted him negatively. He did not mention any changes in his faculty

position but was concerned about navigational challenges after being forced to relocate

campuses after the consolidation. The participants with the longest employment history

were both White males. They both had over 21 years employment and both thought that

the consolidation increased academic freedom and provided more academic program

ferings. For example, Mark, a White male from the HBCU, stated that the consolidation

made him proud to be “fering more to many.” The three participants who were employed

between 11 and 20 years were all females who felt negatively about the consolidation’s

impact on them personally as faulty members. For example, Danica, an African

American female faculty member from the HBCU, shared this:

Well, getting to know a whole new group people [was challenging] and that was

one the things [that we had to adjust to] because most us here at [the HBCU]

have at least master's and PhDs. A lot other people at [The NHBCU], there were

a lot more people who [only] had their master’s. That was a little trying to

navigate because you have a master’s, but you'll have 20 years experience which

I think is an equivalent to a PhD, but not a lot people view it that way. So, it was

just [challenging]. It's also trying to overcome the stereotype that because we're

an HBCU, the school is predominantly African American while [the NHBCU]

was viewed as predominantly White although that's in the local media here, at

least.

All three participants cited a lack degree program cohesiveness between the two

campuses, negative community relations, and racial challenges as having an impact.

As noted in Table 1 above, five study participants were female and three were

male. Half the eight faculty members felt that the consolidation had a positive impact on

them personally. However, the other half felt negatively about the consolidation’s impact

on them as faculty members. Overall, two the three males viewed the consolidation

positively, and two the four females had a positive view the consolidation, which

indicates that the males’ perceptions the consolidation were slightly more positive than

were the females. The number participants from each campus who thought the

consolidation’s impact was positive was split evenly. Additionally, there were two

participants from each campus who felt that the consolidation impacted them negatively.

The information gleaned from such a small sample size may not reflect demographics or

experiences the stakeholders included in the broader campus climate. Additional

research should be conducted to uncover additional patterns and a more robust analysis

the overall CSU campus climate. Interview questions 6-9 were aligned with RQ1and

RQ2: Regarding issues inclusion, campus interactions, and diverse groups on campus,

what were faculty perceptions the racial campus climate on the former HBCU before the

consolidation?

And regarding issues inclusion, campus interactions, and diverse groups on campus,

what were faculty perceptions the racial campus climate on the former NHBCU before

the consolidation? The purpose the study was to gain a better understanding issues

related to inclusion, campus interactions, and diverse campus groups following the

consolidation. The conceptual framework, literature review, and definitions included

faculty, staff, and students when referring to the broader campus climate. Although the

research questions were broad enough to focus on all campus populations, the faculty

focused on the climate among faculty and did not address the campus racial climate

related to other stakeholders, such as staff and/or students. Comments were made by

faculty regarding the diversity the student body rather than the racial climate among the

student population. For example, Danica stated that “even though about 70% the

[NHBCU] students were Black, the media perception was that the [HBCU was the] Black

school.” She added that she “had white students [and] Asian students before the

consolidation” and that she saw “more non-Black students, more Asian, more Caucasian,

more Latino, and even Muslim students.” Royce agreed, stating that he saw an increase in

foreign students after the consolidation. However, since there were not any comments

about the campus climate among students and staff, data in relation to the campus climate

among students and staff are not a part this study. Additional probing questions may

have provided information about the climate among students and staff. However, I did

not realize that the focus was solely on faculty until after the interviews concluded and

data were analyzed. This is a limitation this study. Additionally, several the research

questions specifically asked about the impact the consolidation had on the faculty. As a

result, the faculty’s focus may have inadvertently shifted to consider their perceptions

regarding the consolidation’s impact on faculty rather than on the broader racial campus

climate.

HBCU Pre-Consolidation Diversity, Interactions, and Climate

RQ1: Regarding issues inclusion, campus interactions, and diverse groups on

campus, what were faculty perceptions the racial campus climate on the former HBCU

campus before the consolidation?

HBCU Theme 1: Presence compositional diversity among faculty before

consolidation. The participants at the HBCU all agreed on the compositional diversity

faculty prior to the consolidation. Deja shared, “We had someone, I would say, from

every ethnicity, even some international individuals.” Danica agreed by adding “We had

global faculty.” She also mentioned that the focus on remaining diverse was an important

part the international program on campus. She reminisced about programs where

minorities were invited on campus to “give talks, and [participate in] panels.” Deja

mentioned the diversity leadership, stating that “I would say it was a good mix people,

diversity.” Although the HBCU faculty members believed that the HBCU had a diverse

presence on campus that was nurtured with on campus programming, one the

HBCU faculty members felt that it was important to mention that in her opinion the

NHBCU worked hard to keep minority faculty members out. Deja, in response to

considering employment at the NHBCU stated:

When applying for a full-time [nursing] faculty [position], well, you got that

response, we chose someone that was more qualified. Okay, she's more qualified

with a bachelor's degree. I have a bachelor's degree. She's more qualified and

never worked in the hospital. Then it was, well…if you get your master's degree,

then you will be a better fit. So, I got my master's degree. Okay, try it again. Well,

if you had a doctorate degree that would be best. So, I like to tell people the Lord

hit me upside my head and told me it was time for a change, so I applied at the

HBCU, got hired, got accepted, fit right in.

All the minority participants mentioned a globally diverse faculty; however, no one

mentioned the presence non-minority faculty on campus. Mark, the White participant

who was employed at the HCBU stated that the population faculty were “global/black.”

The HBCU faculty were perceived to be diverse; however, the compositional diversity

did not include the population White faculty. All faculty perceived diversity to equate to

a large population ethnic minority faculty. They all, however, missed the fact that they

excluded Whites in their definition diversity.

Discrepant cases. Mark, a White HBCU faculty member, disagreed with the

other participants about the HBCU climate among faculty before consolidation. Although

all other participants attested to a positive and diverse environment for faculty, he did not

believe that the climate among faculty for non-minorities was positive. He stated, “We

talked a good game at [the] HBCU but never focused energy on creating inclusive

culture. We had disparities regarding pay, faculty [were] put down and [we] provided

poor service to anyone but [African American] people.” Mark was proud to work at a

HBCU because he identified as a “self-proclaimed anti-racist [who] sought [to work at a]

diverse university.” However, he felt that more should have been done to improve the

climate for non-minority faculty. This information reveals that not all faculty members

experienced the consolidation the same. However, it confirms that every faculty member

had an experience worth sharing.

HBCU Theme 2: Presence positive interactions and climate among faculty

before consolidation. Three the HBCU faculty believed that the interactions between

leaders and faculty were positive. Deja stated, “In my opinion, it was a better dynamic.

We had a different, a completely different culture over there [at the HBCU]. It was, I

almost want to equate it to the '70s, the hippie love.” Symone agreed stating, “I think

across the it was okay. I would say on a scale 1 to 10, I would give it about a 7.” All

four HBCU faculty agreed that there was a global and diverse population faculty prior to

consolidation. They do not agree, however, on how leaders interacted with people from

all races. Three the faculty HBCU members believed that leaders were supportive all

races and encouraged diversity. Yet one HBCU faculty member felt that all the attention

was given to African American faculty and that non-African American faculty were not

treated equally. The African American faculty members perceived the oncampus

interactions among faculty and leaders to be positive. However, the White faculty

member felt that more could have been done to improve on-campus interactions between

White and minority faculty and leaders.

The minority participants perceived the campus climate prior to the consolidation

to be positive for faculty members. When asked about her perceptions the climate, Deja

indicated, “[It was] nice. It was positive. I guess it was nurturing...You knew you were

different, but there weren't any differences.” In agreement with Deja, Danica shared,

“Well, I think there was definitely mutual respect for the most part, and that's regardless

the race or ancestry.” All the minority HBCU faculty asserted that the racial campus

climate among faculty was positive and nurturing prior to the consolidation. It was

apparent, however, that the perceived satisfaction with the HBCU climate was based on

the race the individual faculty member. Minority faculty members perceived the climate

to be positive and inclusive, yet White faculty members perceived the climate to be

exclusive.

NHBCU Pre-Consolidation Diversity, Interactions, and Climate

RQ2: Regarding issues inclusion, campus interactions, and diverse groups on

campus, what were faculty perceptions the racial campus climate on the former NHBCU

campus before the consolidation?

NHBCU Theme 1: Lack compositional diversity among faculty before

consolidation. Participants who were originally employed by the NHBCU all agreed that

the NHBCU had a population faculty and leaders who were predominantly White.

Royce shared, “In the beginning when I first got here and saw mostly Whites, I wondered

about that.” Shane agreed that the faculty were mostly White and added that “I don't think

they made great efforts to promote diversity in terms hiring. It just really wasn't an issue

on our agenda as far as I can remember.” In contrast, several participants remember a

hiring committee being charged with increasing faculty diversity. However, women were

chosen as the minority to fill most vacancies. Royce proclaimed, “They always made sure

that we had either a woman or African American or Latino or somebody that was a

minority in the pool that was down to the last four or five people.” He added, “If you

count women as a minority, we definitely had a lot minorities. But not in terms racial

minorities.” There were, however, a few minority faculty members in the nursing

department. According to Amina, a nursing faculty member, “We were considered a

predominantly White institution, but we were not really in the nursing department, a

predominantly White institution.”

The NHBCU faculty perceived that the majority the faculty were White. A white

male faculty member asserted that although efforts were made to include women as

minorities when hiring, no efforts were made to increase the compositional diversity

related to ethnic minorities on the NHBCU campus. The nursing department, however,

notably had a few more African American faculty members than other departments.

NHBCU Theme 2: Presence positive interactions and climate among faculty

before consolidation. Faculty agreed that the on the on-campus interactions between

diverse faculty and leaders, although very limited, were positive. The majority the

faculty were White males, so interactions with diverse groups faculty were limited.

Several NHBCU participants perceived that the faculty were primarily White males

because diversity was ignored. Shane stated, "I would say it was cordial and peaceful, but

[faculty and leaders] kind ignored [diversity] really.” He added, “It was just not an issue

that was really conscious, but I think people did get along.” Amina stated, “I don't think

there were a lot issues. I think that everybody just got along.” Royce agreed, adding,

“Maybe I was overly optimistic or overly positive, but I didn't see a whole lot overt

racism.” The leaders, although perceived to be predominantly White, interacted

positively with the faculty. Royce was reminded an African American president who

served prior to the consolidation. He stated, “I remember him convening luncheons with

the faculty.” Although the faculty and leaders were not considered diverse, everyone felt

positive about the on-campus interactions. When minorities interacted with non-

minorities, it resulted in a cordial exchange that did not leave either person feeling that

the campus racial climate was negative.

Although diversity was ignored, there was an understanding that everyone should

work well together. Royce proclaimed, “We were raised [not to discriminate], and by the

time the consolidation happened it was obviously illegal to discriminate.” Shane agreed,

attesting that “The administrators that I've dealt with I think were sensitive to the needs

our student population. But it was never expressed in a way that was racial.” Realizing

that his perception may not be the perception others because the population White male

faculty exceeded that any other race or gender, Shane added, “I wonder what my African

American colleagues felt like. Maybe it was more an issue for them that they were in

such a small minority, but if so, it was never really discussed.” The faculty from the

NHBCU unanimously agreed that the racial climate among the faculty prior to the

consolidation was positive. Although the faculty were primarily White, no one described

feeling uncomfortable because their race. They all agreed that more should have been

done to increase the presence minority faculty members. However, they felt that leaders

interacted well with all faculty regardless their race.

CSU Post-Consolidation Diversity, Interactions, and Climate

RQ3: Regarding issues inclusion, campus interactions, and diverse groups on campus,

what are faculty perceptions the racial campus climate after the consolidation?

CSU Theme 1: Presence compositional diversity among faculty after

consolidation. After the consolidation, all but one participant alluded to a major shift in

the compositional diversity among faculty and leaders. Sia asserted that after the

consolidation there were only a few White administrators in the population and only one

White dean. She stated:

I firmly believe that it doesn't matter what color your skin is, as long as you fit

the qualifications and you meet the needs for the job. That's the way we should

look at it. But looking from the outside in, as a person from the community or

anything like that, if you look at it, we've done a complete 180.

Symone agreed with Sia, stating that “It is different. I do see some Caucasians

[and] we have a larger percent Africans.” Shane asserted that “Nearly all the high

leadership the [CSU] is African American.” He added, “It seems to me that the

administration is predominantly African American, and I see that as basically fitting with

an HBCU.” Amina agreed with the other faculty by stating, that “I think it's more African

American faculty. I'm pretty sure there's more us, [African Americans], [and] we got

more African American leaders too.” Royce agreed that the number African Americans

in faculty, staff, and leadership positions had increased. He was surprised, given that the

school was an HBCU, that there were any Whites in leadership positions. He stated, “I’m

surprised that we have so many White people in top administrative positions. I know

we’ve got a few chairs that are White and a few administrators that are

White.”

The majority the faculty all agreed that the diversity the faculty and leadership

changed significantly after the consolidation. CSU’s faculty became more diverse. This

diversity differed in that it was not all White or all minority; it was a combination White,

African American, and international faculty. The leadership, too, changed regarding

compositional diversity. The leadership was now primarily African American, which was

similar to the leadership the HBCU, but significantly different from the predominately

White leadership the NHBCU.

Discrepant cases. Danica, an HBCU faculty member, asserted that the diverse

population faculty and staff remained the same after the consolidation. She stated “We've

always had a lot people from different countries, so I really haven't seen that much a

change. It's just a few more different regions. You know? That's how I see it.” She

admitted that her experiences may have resulted from her lack interaction with the

faculty from the other campus before and after the consolidation.

CSU Theme 2: Feelings hostility and mistrust among faculty after

consolidation. Overall, both groups were pleased with the interactions among faculty in

their respective institutions prior to the consolidation. However, there were differences in

their feelings about both leadership and faculty on campus interactions after the

consolidation. Mark stated that the “White leaders [were] oblivious to their own racist

policies, and racist ideas.” He also stated that there was a “sense supremacy and no focus

on leadership-directed culture change.” He added that there was “an overall lack trust

[by NHBCU] faculty who looked down on [African Americans]. [And there were] some

close relationships building within certain [faculty] groups, [but] water cooler back biting

about others who can’t be trusted [still exists].” Although the consolidation had

concluded, there was an HBCU against NHBCU undertone that permeated many the

responses. The faculty from both sides seemed to have negative feelings about the

consolidation and the faculty and leaders from the opposite campus.

Deja stated the following:

[The consolidation] was hell on wheels. It was really stringent. It was really

strained. It was paranoia. It was, I don't think if you had a strong mind, you would

be able to survive it because it was like, why are you looking at me like that? Did

you really fix your mouth to say such a thing?

Annica added, in reference to on-campus interactions between faculty from

different races after the consolidation, that “Because we live in Southwest , sometimes

people have trouble following leaders who don't look like them, and [the

NHBCU faculty] just were not used to the diverse group leaders [like those at the

CSU].” Shane attested that he was blindsided by “the depth suspicion and hostility that

both institutions had for each other.” He added that:

There was this idea that [the NHBCU] wanted to come in and take over [the

HBCU] and I think there was a lot resistance. [When] in fact, it was the who

ordered us both to get into bed together as it were, and we had no choice. Nobody

had any choice in the matter.

Royce mentioned that he was aware a White faculty member who had filed a

racial discrimination claim against the CSU leaders since the consolidation. Symone, in

reference to faculty interactions and collaboration after the consolidation, stated that “We

just got the kind faculty that’s just going to come and do what they need to do, and

they're gone. If they don't have to participate, it's almost like you're begging.” She stated

that the leaders, however, have done a good job at interacting on campus. In contrast,

Mark stated that leaders were:

Friendly on the surface. [Their] lack trust means fear conflict. And fear conflict

means real thoughts or ideas are not put forth, so the benefits diversity are not

realized. Leaders [are] not confident their capabilities, fear being rejected, and

thus are not true to themselves, and thus not true to others and ‘can’t we all just

get along’ pretend we are friends, being nice, sweet, and hold the status quo.

It was apparent that the participants were unhappy with the interactions between

diverse faculty on campus. Race was ten cited as the reason for the challenges. The

former NHBCU faculty, according to Mark, held a “sense supremacy” and looked down

on Blacks, Black culture.” The HBCU faculty, according to Shane and Sia, were reluctant

to help non-minority faculty and perceived to be engaging in “reverse racism.”

There appeared to be a pattern the HBCU campus against the NHBCU campus

and vice versa. The faculty members repeatedly talked about the way in which they used

to do things at one campus and how it was better than what was being done on the other

campus. For instance, Deja spoke about the NHBCU faculty not having the same level

education as the HBCU faculty. She stated, “We came with our papers in hand. They're

trying to catch up.” In another instance, Danica spoke about the formality names on the

HBCU campus prior to the consolidation. She stated that “When I first came down here it

was doctor this, pressor that, and we were business casual.” She added, “Now, there is no

dress code for pressors and most us call each other by our first name because not all the

pressors have PhDs.” Shane stated that the NHBCU faculty complain about “feeling that

[they]don't have a lot input and [that their] ideas are not really taken seriously a lot the

time by the administration.” He added that “It's partly because there are things that we did

at [the NHBCU] that we don't do at [the CSU] and people have wanted to bring those

things back.” The majority the faculty agreed that the consolidation increased the on-

campus faculty diversity and the presence negative interactions. They all rationalized

that their feelings mistrust and hostility were directly related to the faculty from the other

campus. It was also apparent that their feelings were based on their differences, race and

otherwise. The answers to the questions were always themed HBCU against NHBCU,

with each response revealing the participant’s feelings superiority with regard to the pre-

consolidation home campus.

CSU Theme 3: Presence racial biases among faculty after consolidation. The

faculty agreed that the consolidation caused a shift in the campus climate that they were

not prepared to deploy. The positive climate that the faculty perceived they once had was

gone, and they were not certain about navigating their new environment. Amina stated

that “It wasn’t a consolidation; it was a takeover.” She also stated that “The people who

were not [African American] had more an issue with the consolidation than the people

who were [African American].” She mentioned that a few her coworkers indicated

“They [felt] discriminated against because they [were] White, and that I got more

opportunities because I was African American.” She mentioned that they were calling it

“reverse discrimination.” Sia attested:

I feel like we've gone back to the 1920s and the 1930s. I feel like we're even back

at a time before our parents. We're in a climate now where I feel like we have

people that are talking about, we're going back to the slaves’ time. And I think

that's what bothers me so much, is we have come so far, we have done so many

things, but we keep going backwards. We keep going back and it's bad from the

Whites, it's bad from the African Americans. It's both sides. It's not one side at all.

It's not. And I think that's what surprised me the most about this merger, is

because you hear all the time people say White people are prejudiced. All the

time. You hear that. It goes both ways. And I've never been a part that until this

merger.

When asked what she meant by “we're going back to the slaves time,” Sia added,

“African American faculty and staff were saying that they were being treated like slaves.

They were saying that White people were taking over their school and forcing them to do

things they did not want to do. This caused hostility.”

Shane was reminded a time when he felt racial discrimination. He stated: When I

first came over to [the HBCU] campus and moved my fice over a couple years

ago, I felt at first as if I were in a very hostile environment…I really didn't feel

welcomed. Staff members would be reluctant to help me if I asked. I would go to

them seeking something that I needed, and I felt like they were reluctant to help,

and I just couldn't help but wonder if it was because I'm White.

He went on to mention a time when a secretary gave donuts to every African American

person who walked by her fice but never fered him a donut although he walked by an

excessive number times. He felt that her failure to fer him a donut was because he was

White. Deja reminisced about a time when she went home in tears asking her husband if

he would be able to support their family if she resigned. She stated, “I mean, it was a few

tears, seriously. What you going to do, baby? I can't do it no more.” She joked about the

environment reminding her the movie The Help. She stated, in reference to the White

staff from the NHBCU, “They had that mindset that, no, you're not supposed to be equal

to me.” The faculty all agreed that they were ill-prepared for the challenges they faced as

a result the consolidation. However, they were optimistic about the future. Although the

faculty members did not believe that the racial climate issues were resolved, they felt that

after 3 years they were learning to tolerate each other more. Annica stated

“A lot people left [and those who remain] stay in our little silos, our departments.” She

added that “a consolidation is a hard thing to go through. Only the strong survive. I don't

think it's resolved. I think that it's just, maybe it is what it is.” Deja agreed with Annica,

adding that she believes “it's slowly coming into acceptance, I think. It's kind like lead,

follow, or get the hell out the way. The ones that absolutely could not tolerate [the

consolidation] under any shape, form, or whatever, they left.” She attested that the first

group White faculty who refused to work for an HBCU resigned. Shane stated that after

years frustration, he feels “there's a polite kind formality that exists.” He added, “It's

almost like a truce [has] been made between the two groups. But I would not say real

integration has happened. And I think that [integration] should be the goal rather than just

coexistence.” The faculty have succumbed to their own biases, colorblindness, and

microaggressions in an effort to survive after the consolidation.

Interpretation the Results

The research questions sought to understand the perceptions, regarding issues

inclusion, campus interactions, and diverse groups on campus, the racial campus climate

on the former HBCU and NHBCU campus before the consolidation and the CSU after

the consolidation. Hurtado et al. (1998) suggested that the four-dimensions (a) historical

legacy inclusion or exclusion certain groups, (b) impact structural diversity, (c)

psychological climate, and (d) behavioral dimension be used to assess the campus climate

from the prospective faculty, staff, students, and administrators. However, the results

this study were limited to the perceptions participants in relation to the interactions

among faculty only. The faculty stated early in the interviews that the student

composition changed little after the consolidation because a diverse population students

existed before and after the consolidation. The faculty agreed, however, that the HBCU

faculty were primarily faculty color and the NHBCU faculty were primarily White.

Because the faculty did not perceive the student composition to be an issue, they may not

have thought to answer any the interview questions in relation to the broader campus

climate. Therefore, the faculty perceptions interactions and racial campus climate were

limited to the interactions and climate among faculty, with some comments about the

leadership. Although students were not mentioned, the results this study align with the

research on consolidations and the negative impact on employee health and campus

climate (Evans, 2017; Michalski et.al, 2017; Ribando & Evans, 2015). The faculty only

represent a fraction the stakeholders who could have been impacted by the consolidation.

However, the results this study are related to the perceptions interactions and racial

climate among faculty before and after the consolidation because the answers provided

by the participants focused only on faculty interactions.

Increasing compositional diversity without being intentional at mitigating racial

conflict can lead to microaggressions that plague micro and macroclimates (Garcia,

2016). Historically, higher education institutions perpetuate oppressive environments that

lead to discomfort, injury, and torment in relation to racial climates (Garcia, 2016; Kohli,

2018; Williams, 2019). Attention must be given to the racial interactions among faculty

when compositional diversity changes rapidly. Hurtado et al. (1998) noted that college

and university administrators ten assume that people will automatically work out their

interactions without external interference. This appears to be the approach taken by

leaders during the CSU consolidation as the participants mentioned that they were just

coexisting or attempting to work out a truce among faculty. The resulting challenge was

that faculty relations were riddled with biases, feelings mistrust, and hostility.

Although the framework mentions climate in relation to diverse populations

students at higher education institutions, the information proved to be true for the faculty

as well. Prior to the consolidation, the faculty on the HBCU were primarily faculty color

and the faculty on the NHBCU were primarily White. After the consolidation, the

compositional diversity the faculty changed to 43.5% White and 56.5% faculty color.

Prior to the consolidation, when the compositional diversity was primarily White on the

NHBCU campus or faculty color on the HBCU campus, the faculty perceived their

interactions to be positive or neutral. However, when the compositional diversity the

faculty shifted, the majority the faculty felt negatively about their interactions. The

negativity resulted in feelings hostility and mistrust related to implicit biases held about

faculty from the opposing pre-consolidation campus. Increasing compositional diversity

is an important part improving the campus racial climate (Hurtado et al., 1998).

However, increasing compositional diversity without attention to potential racial conflict

and social interactions can lead to problems as shown in the post consolidation

perceptions the CSU faculty.

Consolidations are considered major changes that must be implemented with

protecting the human resource as a priority (Ribando & Evans, 2015). Humans crave

stability and are ten resistant to change. Strategic implementation is paramount to the

successful outcome change efforts. When institutions are noncomplementary, additional

attention to the racial climate and culture is required for success (Boling et. al., 2017;

Ribando & Evans, 2015; Ripoll-Soler & de-Miguel-Molina, 2014). Initially, the problem

addressed in this study was the ongoing issue related to inclusion, campus interactions,

and the treatment diverse groups on campus after the consolidation between a HBCU

and NHBCU. However, the data analysis resulted in seven emerging themes related to

inclusion, campus interactions, and treatment among faculty only.

HBCU Theme 1 revealed a presence compositional diversity among faculty prior to the

consolidation that included faculty color but excluded White faculty. NHBCU Theme 1

revealed a lack compositional diversity among faculty that was normalized and accepted.

CSU Theme 1 revealed a shift in compositional diversity to include a balance between

faculty color and White faculty. This shift in compositional diversity resulted in a shift in

faculty perceptions interactions and racial climate after the consolidation. Both the

HBCU Theme 2 and the NHBCU Theme 2 indicated the presence positive interactions

and climate among faculty prior to the consolidation. However, the CSU Theme 2

revealed the participants’ feelings hostility and mistrust among faculty after the

consolidation. The CSU Theme 3 revealed that there was a presence racial bias among

faculty after the consolidation that was thought to be related to the shift in compositional

diversity. From the analysis this theme, it can be suggested that because careful attention

was not given to the racial climate the institution during and after the consolidation,

faculty developed feelings hostility and mistrust and succumbed to racial biases instead

integration and acceptance.

Regardless race or gender, most the faculty participants felt that the

consolidation led to an increase in compositional diversity that resulted in hostility,

mistrust, and racial bias among faculty. The results the study, however, are limited to the

faculty and not the broader campus community. Additional research should be conducted

to determine if other campus stakeholders had similar experiences after the consolidation.

The faculty’s perceptions hostility, mistrust, and bias were used to develop a pressional

development (PD) project that can also be used with the broader campus community if

needed. The PD project provides strategies for addressing the current racial climate

among faculty and assisting faculty with approaches to use when examining cultural

lenses, recognizing biases, expanding world views, and building capacity for inclusion.

Table 2 shows the alignment between the themes that emerged from data analysis and the

PD topics.

Table 2

Alignment Data Analysis Themes and Pressional Development Topics

Data Analysis Themes Pressional Development Topics

HBCU Theme 1: Presence compositional

diversity among faculty before

consolidation.

HBCU Theme 2: Presence positive

interactions and climate among faculty

before consolidation.

NHBCU Theme 1: Lack compositional

diversity among faculty before

consolidation.

NHBCU Theme 2: Presence positive

interactions and climate among faculty

before consolidation

CSU Theme 1: Presence compositional

diversity among faculty

Study results: Perceptions diversity

among faculty at the HBCU before the

consolidation

Study results: Perceptions interactions

and racial climate among faculty at the

HBCU before the consolidation

Study results: Perceptions diversity,

among faculty at the NHBCU before the

consolidation

Study results: Perceptions interactions

and racial climate among faculty at the

NHBCU before the consolidation

Study results: Faculty perceptions

diversity, interactions, and racial climate

among faculty after the consolidation

CSU Theme 2: Feelings hostility and

mistrust among faculty

Lens for diversity

Schemas

Biases

CSU Theme 3: Presence racial bias among

faculty

Cleaning the lens

Expanding world views Building

capacity

Conclusion

This section provided support for the selection a research design and approach,

participant selection, and data collection. After careful review other methodologies, I

provided the rationale as to why the basic qualitative design was chosen to explore

faculty perceptions racial campus climate before and after consolidating a HBCU and

non-HBUC. I used purposeful participant selection to conduct face-to-face, phone, and

email interviews with eight faculty members who were employed by the HBCU or

NHBCU prior to the consolidation and still employed at the CSU after the consolidation.

I used open-ended questions to garner descriptive information and to explore the meaning

the consolidation had on those involved (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I reviewed the

procedures used to collect, analyze, and validate the data. I presented the results in

relation to the conceptual framework and research questions and summarized the

findings.

The research questions sought to uncover the faculty perceptions, regarding issues

inclusion, campus interactions, and diverse groups on campus, the racial campus climate

on the former HBCU and NHBCU campus before the consolidation and the CSU after

the consolidation. The results were limited to the participants’ perceptions in relation to

the faculty only and not the broader campus community. Data analysis revealed that prior

to the consolidation the participants perceived the HBCU and NHBCU faculty to be

primarily faculty color or primarily White, respectively. Additionally, the data analysis

revealed that prior to the consolidation, the participants believed the campus interactions

and climate among faculty were positive. After the consolidation, however, the

participants discussed the presence racial bias and feelings hostility and mistrust among

faculty. To overcome the challenges associated with compositional diversity, racial bias,

and feelings hostility and mistrust, I developed a PD project. The next section, Section 3,

will provide an overview the components the project, the literature review as it relates to

the project, a projected timeline for the implementation the project, and the project

evaluation plan.

Section 3: The Project

Introduction

This doctoral study was conducted to explore faculty perceptions the campus

climate before and after the CSU consolidation in order to gain a better understanding

the ongoing issues related to inclusion, campus interactions, and diverse groups on

campus following the consolidation. Eight faculty members participated in

semistructured interviews to answer research questions to explore their perceptions the

racial campus climate on the former HBCU and NHBCU campuses before the

consolidation, and the (CSU) campus after the consolidation. Data analysis results

indicated that the faculty members experienced turmoil after the consolidation. The

faculty members felt that the HBCU and NHBCU prior to the consolidation had positive

racial campus climates. The racial climate among faculty at the CSU, however, was

challenging to navigate.

The findings suggested that after the consolidation the compositional diversity

the faculty leaders changed which led to feelings hostility, mistrust, and racial biases

among faculty. PD training is a good approach to use when the expectation is for

stakeholders to participate in acquiring new knowledge and open themselves up to

examining new world views (McCray, 2018; (Watson, Rogers, Watson, & Liau, 2019).

This project will assist stakeholders in examining their views about the current

environment and provide them with some strategies to help them overcome racial biases

and move toward a cultivating an inclusive environment for all faculty. To improve racial

campus climate, leaders must ensure that institutional policies and practices evidence a

commitment to inclusion and diversity (Dickerson, 2019). Leaders who are proactive at

examining the campus racial climate and embracing the change necessary to foster a

racially diverse and inclusive institution can be successful at transforming racially toxic

environments (Karkouti, 2016). Including campus leaders in the training ensures that the

requisite ongoing process developing a diverse and inclusive environment will continue

after the PD concludes. Conducting PD training affords me the opportunity to bring

institutional stakeholders together to share ideas and work together towards improving

the racial campus climate among faculty. The 3-day training will provide the results the

study in addition to strategies for assisting faculty with approaches to use when

examining cultural lenses and expanding world views.

Rationale

During the data collection process, faculty members concurred that the CSU

campus had a greater presence diversity among faculty after the consolidation. In fact,

prior to the consolidation, in fall 2016, the NHBCU faculty were 79.5% White and

20.5% faculty color (University System , 2019). During the fall the same year, the

HBCU faculty were 80.6% faculty color and 19.4% White (University System , 2019).

The consolidation resulted in a shift for the NHBCU faculty members from majority

White to majority minority. The first year, after the consolidation, the CSU faculty were

43.5% White and 56.5% faculty color (University

System , 2019). By the second year, post consolidation, the percentage White faculty had

dropped to 39.6% (University System , 2019). The compositional diversity among faculty

changed drastically. However, the historical policies and procedures that led to the

exclusion those from other races by each institution were not changed. During the

interviews, the faculty members affirmed that the campus climate among faculty after the

consolidation caused feelings hostility and mistrust and racial bias. As such, the faculty’s

perceptions the racial campus climate among faculty will be used to guide the curricula

for the PD program that will provide the results the study and strategies to assist

stakeholders with examining their cultural lens and expanding their world views.

Policies that increase compositional diversity are ten the only efforts used by

institutional leaders to assist with historical racism (Karkouti, 2016). The challenges

occur when diverse faculty are hired into hostile campus climates where racial

microaggressions permeate the campus community (Garcia, 2016). Macro- and micro-

level racism have been a challenge in higher education for years as schools were

historically created to maintain racial inequality (Kohli, 2018). Increasing compositional

diversity does not automatically ensure an inclusive environment where cross-racial

interactions and relationships are nurtured (Slay, Reyes, & Posselt, 2019). As the findings

in this research showed, increasing compositional diversity, without additional efforts to

improve the overall climate, can result in negative perceptions campus climate. To

improve campus racial climate, institutional leaders will need to implement a PD

program aimed at alleviating racial tensions, overhauling policies and procedures to

encourage inclusion, and revamping curriculum to ensure cultural sensitivity and

diversity education (Karkouti, 2016).

When choosing PD as the project genre to convey the results the study, I

considered other options. Other plausible project options included an evaluation report,

curriculum plan, or position paper. The first project genre, evaluation report, was not a

viable option because this study did not involve the review a specific program.

Therefore, the results would not lead to program specific assessment. The second project

genre, curriculum plan, was also not feasible because curriculum plans should be

developed collaboratively using feedback from multiple stakeholders. This project does

not include the development a curriculum plan. The final genre, position paper, was

considered as a potential project option. However, the results the data analysis revealed

that the faculty are experiencing distress from the campus racial climate. The faculty and

leadership need to come together to explore research-based options for transforming the

campus climate among the faculty to ensure inclusion and acceptance for all. A position

paper may not have resulted in the action orientated learning and resulting change that the

problem necessitates.

Review the Literature

I examined books and peer-reviewed journals in preparation for this thematic

literature review. I used the following databases: Education Research Complete,

Education Source, Education for SAGE, Academic Search Complete, and ERIC. The

following search terms were used to find scholarly literature: andragogy, adult learning,

active learning, colleges, universities, pressional development, effective pressional

development, ineffective pressional development, inclusive campus climates, diversity,

diversity initiatives, compositional diversity, and structural diversity.

Pressional Development

Pressional development is a term used in higher education in relation to training

and education. Although there are many definitions, most involve comprehensive training

and developing faculty, staff, and leaders as well as the cure for all that ails the education

system (Brown & Militello, 2016; Kennedy, 2016; McChesney & Aldridge, 2019; Naim

& Lenkla, 2016; Perry & Boylan, 2017). Researchers provide evidence both successful

and unsuccessful PD initiatives that include coaching and collaborative relationships,

workshops, seminars, college level courses, and online training modules (Brown &

Militello, 2016; Desimone & Pak, 2017; Kennedy, 2016; McCray, 2018). The overall

goals and outcomes are numerous, including but not limited to, improving student

learning, improving employee performance, improving campus climate, and integrating

new stware systems, and curricula (Desimone & Garet, 2015; Kennedy, 2016; McCray,

2018; Voogt et al., 2015; Xu, 2016). Although PD opportunities are plentiful, researchers

disagree on what determines an effective or ineffective approach to PD.

Desimone and Garet (2015) attested that to be effective, PD must (a) be content

focused, (b) provide opportunities for active learning, (c) have goals and objectives that

align with the institutional mission, (d) allow collective participation and learning

communities, and (e) ensure that training includes 20 or more hours and sustained

duration throughout the year. Xu (2016) quoted Bayer (2014) who added teacher

involvement in the planning process and high-quality instructors to the list requirements

for effective PD. Additionally, Xu found that teachers’ attitudes towards PD increased

success, therefore, suggested adding reflection on personal practice to the criteria

effective PD.

In contrast, Kennedy (2016) stated that very little agreement exists among

researchers about what makes PD effective. Kennedy also stated that many the design

features mentioned above could not be used consistently to predict program success and

that focusing on content knowledge and collective participation both had negative

impacts on student learning. Other researchers agreed, adding that adopting a universal

approach to training and rushing to cover a large amount content is also ineffective (Fox,

Muccio, White, & Tian, 2015; Minor, Desimone, Lee, & Hochberg, 2016). Furthermore,

researchers attested that the use mentors and coaches and a lack training for facilitators

all proved to a have negative impact on PD outcomes (Kennedy, 2016; Perry & Boylan,

2018). McChesney and Aldridge (2019) added that PD is not always successful but that

improving the quality the assessment outcomes can lead to an increase in PD value and

impact.

PD involves facilitators and learners working together to improve the overall

learning environment (McCray, 2018). The overall criteria for effectiveness and pitfalls

to avoid are numerous, with each researcher providing evidence to support a particular

theory. What remains constant is that PD is essential, and when done correctly, assists

participants in their construction knowledge (Brown & Militello, 2016; Kennedy, 2016;

McChesney & Aldridge, 2019). The PD in this study will provide an opportunity for the

faculty, staff, and leaders the CSU to come together to learn about the results the

research in addition to strategies for assisting faculty and staff with approaches to use

when examining cultural lenses and expanding world views. This will afford the leaders

CSU an opportunity to become familiar with the faculty members’ perceptions the CSU

racial campus climate and strategies to use to build the institutional capacity to cultivate a

diverse and inclusive environment.

Adult Learning

As society and higher education institutions become more diverse, leaders will

need to employ PD to cultivate inclusive environments and invest in resources that will

aid in reducing racial inequities, tension, and negative campus climates (Dickerson, 2019;

Slay et al., 2019; Williams, 2019). PD adults should follow the principles adult learning

as the learning needs adults differ from those children in most circumstances (Hagen &

Park, 2016; Henschke, 2016; Smith, 2017). Although there are multiple adult learning

theories and principals, andragogy is one that has been successfully used. The term

andragogy was first introduced in the 19th century in reference to lifelong learning in the

book “Platon’s Erziehungslehre” which was written by a German teacher named

Alexander Kapp (Henschke, 2016; Loeng, 2017; Mews).

There are other references to the term andragogy being used between 1833 and 1967.

However, Knowles and andragogy are used synonymously because his development the

four original principles adult learning in 1970 (Giannoukos, Besas, Galiropoulos,

& Hioctour, 2015; Hagen & Park, 2016; Henschke, 2016; Knowles, 1968; Loeng, 2017;

Mews, 2020; Ozuah, 2016). Andragogy as a theory has been debated (Hagen & Park,

2016; Henschke, 2016). However, most researchers can agree that the six assumptions

made by Knowles’ after extensive work in relation to adult learning have been proven to

result in an increase in learning (Giannoukos et al., 2015; Henschke, 2016; Loeng, 2017;

Mews, 2020; Ozuah, 2016; Wang, & Storey, 2015).

Knowles’ andragogy framework was initially coined as the theory adult learning,

but later became a set learner-centered assumptions after criticisms (Hagen &

Park, 2016). In contrast to pedagogy, “the art and science teaching children”, andragogy

assumes that adult learners are self-directed and that teachers should act as facilitators

learning (Loeng, 2017; Mews, 2020; Ozuah, 2016). Knowles’ (1970) andragogy was

based on four original assumptions about adult learners: (a) adults have a self-directing

and autonomous self-concept, (b) adults bring prior experiences to the learning process,

orient towards problem-centered learning that can be applied immediately (Hagen &

Park, 2016; Knowles, Swanson, & Holton, 2005; Mews, 2020; Ozuah, 2016). In an

attempt to respond to criticism, Knowles added 2 additional assumptions: (a) adults need

to know why they are learning the concepts or material being presented, and (b) adults

are intrinsically motivated to learn (Hagen & Park, 2016; Mews, 2020; Ozuah, 2016).

Knowles did not assume that andragogy was the only approach to adult learning or that it

would be a one-size fits all approach (Mews, 2020). Andragogy core principles, however,

have been used in the PD adults for years (Hagen & Park, 2016; Mews,

2020).

The principles andragogy align to create a framework that is conducive to fully

engaging adults in the learning process (Hagen & Park, 2016; Mews, 2020; Ozuah,

2016). Hagen and Park suggested that adult learners who are engaged in PD that uses

role-play, mentoring, active or participative learning, class presentations, and

problembased learning realize improvement in encoding, retention and recall which

correlates with committing knowledge to long-term memory. It is rare to find one PD

plan that includes all the educational techniques suggested by Hagen and Park. However,

researchers agree that PD that actively engages adult learners increases motivation to

learn (Giannoukos et al., 2015; Hagen & Park, 2016; Loeng, 2017; Mews, 2020; Ozuah,

2016; Wang, & Storey, 2015). The faculty perceptions the racial campus climate at the

CSU were negative. To ensure that the faculty, staff, and leaders the CSU understand the

results the study and the impact that the negative campus climate perceptions are having

on the faculty members, active engagement with the data and an understanding why the

PD was chosen is necessary.

Active Learning

Active learning is considered a 21st century competency that calls for self-directed

and self-regulated learning (Arik & Yilmaz, 2020; Virtanen, Niemi, & Nevgi, 2017). PD

that employs the use active learning techniques has been shown to positively affect adult

learning (Desimone & Pak, 2017; Virtanen et al., 2017). Active learning has been defined

as any method instruction that engages the learner as the agent learning that is facilitated

by an instructor, ensures that the learner is an active participant in the learning process,

and includes collaborative problem solving and cooperative action for deeper learning.

(Arik & Yilmaz, 2020; Hartikainen, Rintala, Pylväs, & Nokelainen, 2019; Virtanen et al.,

2017). Virtanen et al. (2017) stated that active learning has a positive effect on the

learning experience by (a) promoting knowledge acquisition, (b) affecting positive

engagement in learning, (c) initiating the process lifelong learning, (d) improving

pressional competency development, (e) improving pressional identity, and (f)

strengthening the ownership learning. Participation in active learning ensures that the

learner is engaged, critical, and reflective with the information (Arik & Yilmaz, 2020).

Engaging adult learners in the active learning process results in enhanced learning

(Diep et al., 2019; Streveler & Menekse, 2017). Adults bring prior experiences to the PD

activity that will influence their ability to learn or engage in the learning environment

(Arik & Yilmaz, 2020; Diep et al., 2019; Roberts, 2018). Active learning transforms the

learning environment from a focus on rote memorization and information-transfer from a

teacher-centered perspective to a focus on collaboration and higher order thinking and

processing from a learner-centered prospective (Ebert-May et al., 2015; Jaiswal, 2019).

Active learning results in learners learning with and from each other through the use

constructive activities including concept mapping, problem solving, strategic decision

making, generating self-explanations, comparing and contrasting, and roleplaying

(Jaiswal, 2019; Streveler & Menekse, 2017; Virtanen et al., 2017). Researchers agree that

the greatest amount learning occurs when adults are working together to construct

knowledge, in groups two or more, while engaged in active learning activities (Diep et

al., 2019; Streveler & Menekse, 2017).

Understanding Compositional Diversity

As society and higher education institutions become more diverse, leaders will

need to cultivate inclusive environments and invest in resources that will aid in reducing

racial inequities, tension, and negative campus climates (Dickerson, 2019; Slay et al.,

2019; Williams, 2019). In opposition mistreatment, students are organizing and

demanding that institutional leaders address systemic racism (Dickerson, 2019; Williams,

2019). In response, leaders are increasing the compositional diversity on campus

(Dickerson, 2019; van Knippenberg & Mell, 2016). However, increasing the

compositional diversity the campus by recruiting a greater percentage minorities does

not improve the quality relationships and interactions among groups people from

different races (Franco & Hernandez, 2018; Slay et al., 2019; Williams, 2019). In fact,

recruiting minority faculty, staff, and students into an environment where implicit bias

and racial macro and microaggressions are commonplace is akin to a “bait and switch”

(Slay et al., 2019). Garcia (2016) found that despite the compositional diversity students,

faculty, and staff, racial microaggressions continue to plague microclimates on campuses

where diversity was used as a selling point to increase minority representation on

campus. Williams (2019) concurred, stating that increasing compositional diversity is not

enough if the climate is inadequate. The unfortunate reality is that the historical structures

higher education institutions perpetuate oppressive environments that lead to discomfort,

injury, and torment for people color (Garcia, 2016; Kohli, 2018; Williams, 2019).

Schools claim to value diversity and ten use it as a selling point (Kohli, 2018;

Slay et al., 2019). In recruitment and interview processes, faculty, staff, and students are

promised an environment where diversity is valued, and everyone is treated equally

(Kilburn, Hill, Porter, & Pell, 2019). However, when they arrive on campus they are met

with covert racism and hostility (Sanchez, 2019; Slay et al., 2019). When this happens,

retention students, faculty, and staff decreases (Finkel, 2019).

Although some states have banned affirmative action, Slay et al. (2019) posited

that institutions are effectively employing a variety methods to recruit a diverse group

faculty, staff, and students. Promotional materials that are available in multiple languages

and have imagery racially diverse students and staff are appealing to underrepresented

populations and have the appearance a positive climate for diversity (Slay et al., 2019).

However, historical patterns exclusion and a lack attention to improving the campus

climate results in a contradiction between the inclusive, racially diverse, environment that

was promised during the pre-enrollment or pre-employment phase and the day to day

reality racial segregation and discriminatory practices after hire or enrollment (Franco &

Hernandez, 2018; Sanchez, 2019; Slay et al., 2019). Without effective mentorship

opportunities, coping strategies, and safe spaces to communicate openly about racism,

students, faculty, and staff find themselves emotionally drained and psychologically

burdened (Dickerson, 2019; Kilburn et al., 2019; Slay et al., 2019). In addition, many

those who are impacted do not seek assistance for fear retaliation and wrongful

termination (Karkouti, 2016; Kohli, 2018). Campus leaders who are not committed to

diversity contribute to the negative climate and perpetuate the negative social behaviors

faculty, staff, and students (Karkouti, 2016). Research has shown that most the

complaints from faculty, staff, and students about racism on compositionally diverse

institutions results from colorblindness and racial microaggressions (Karkouti, 2016;

Kohli, 2018; Williams, 2019). Colorblindness refers to the practice ignoring that there

are differences in race and differences in historical experiences by those from

underrepresented minorities (Apfelbaum, Grunberg, Halevy, & Kang, 2017; Kohli,

2018). Colorblindness on campus is seen in a curriculum that normalizes one race,

silencing those from the minority race (Apfelbaum et al., 2017; Celeste, Phalet, &

Kende, 2019; Kohli, 2018). Kohli denoted that faculty members color who were exposed

to colorblind racist practices on campus admitted that their wellbeing, pressional growth,

and retention were negatively impacted. Consequently, faculty members color leave the

field at a rate 24% higher than White faculty members (Kohli, 2018).

With the implementation laws against racism in the workplace and educational

system, overt racism diminished drastically (Williams, 2019). However, covert racism, or

microaggressions, increased. Microaggressions are subtle insults or assaults that are

directed at faculty, staff, and students who represent the minority on campus (Apfelbaum

et al., 2017; Koli, 2018). Although microaggressions may seem meaningless or be

difficult to pinpoint in isolation, repeated instances have psychological, physical, and

relational consequences (Ellis, Powell, Demetriou, Huerta-Bapat, & Panter, 2019;

TorresHarding, Torres, & Yeo, 2020; Williams, 2019). Kohli (2018) attested that racial

microaggressions may be portrayed as innocent mistakes. However, recurring instances

resulted in the victim feeling invisible, isolated from peers, and ultimately created a

hostile work environment that impacted the victim’s sustainability in the pression (Ellis et

al., 2019; Kohli, 2018; Torres-Harding et al., 2020).

Diversity must go beyond admission practices and an increased presence diverse

populations on campus as compositional diversity does not equal inclusion (Franco &

Hernandez, 2018; Slay et al., 2019; Williams, 2019). In fact, the greater the population

diverse individuals on campus, the greater the need is for an inclusive environment. To

thrive in a globally diverse society, higher education institutions must nurture their ability

to interact pressionally and respectfully with people from all races and ethnicities

(Karkouti, 2016). However, simply increasing the number faculty, staff, or students from

diverse backgrounds without working to improve the campus racial climate will lead to a

hostile environment for the minority group (Dickerson, 2019; Garcia, 2016). Careful

attention must be given to changing discriminatory policies, improving collaboration

between faculty members from all races, and cultivating an inclusive environment. To

achieve an inclusive environment, leaders should engage in pressional development

programming that assists them in overcoming feelings mistrust, biases, and hostility so

that they can engage strategies for building capacity.

Strategies for Improving Race Relations

Conflicts that arise from cross-cultural collaboration between faculty who are ten

rewarded for working independently can result in an unhealthy climate (Watson et al.,

2019). To ensure that social justice and inclusion are at the forefront institutional

initiatives, faculty and leaders should engage in activities that assist them in seeing the

benefit change (Watson et al., 2019). The initial steps in addressing biases and racial

tension are recognizing that the problem exists and educating the institutional

stakeholders on the history racism (Alabi, 2018: Dickerson, 2019). Furthermore, leaders

should provide pressional development that will assist stakeholders with defining and

identifying implicit biases, changing their cultural lenses, moving away from

colorblindness, and reducing micro and macroaggressions (Alabi, 2018;

Applebaum, 2019; Dickerson, 2019; Williams, 2013).

Implicit bias and its impact on behavior and decision making has gained attention

in higher education (Capers, McDougle, Clinchot, 2018; Sanchez, 2019). When left

unchecked, implicit bias leads to racial conflicts and disruptive campus climates

(Applebaum, 2019; Capers et al., 2018). Implicit bias is linked to the brain’s automatic

functions and previous experiences (Applebaum, 2019; De Houwer, 2019; Vuletich &

Payne, 2019). The brain uses schemas, or mental maps, to process everyday activities that

lead to implicit biases as associations strengthen (Bilotta, Corrington, Mendoza, Watson,

& King, 2019). Marsh (2009) attested that the brain’s shortcuts help people remember

how to react in everyday situations. Activities that require memory and automation can

be used to show how the brain categorizes information from memory (Hinton, 2017).

Simple activities that require unconscious and automatic processing such as writing and

following directions can also be used to show how the brain uses automation to complete

a task that may not have been written down (Hinton, 2017). For example, making a

sandwich requires opening the bread and the condiment containers; however, most people

will forgo writing down those steps as they occur unconsciously due to past experiences

making sandwiches (Hinton, 2017). Another example, the Lens = Filter activity, explains

how personal lenses filter information to determine how individuals react and process the

information received (De Jesus, Hogan, Martinez, Adams, & Lacy, 2016; Marsh, 2009).

Participants are asked to read multi-colored words that also identify the name a color.

When asked to read the word, the brain works effortlessly. When asked to identify the

color, the brain responds much slower. This activity starts the conversation about

processing and reacting to information that is received and how that reaction can be

biased if the individual’s personal filter has bias (De Jesus et al., 2016; Marsh, 2009).

Coupled with the video How to adjust your lens for diversity and the steps for cleaning

the lens, which include (a) awareness bias, (b) mindfulness differences, (c) exposure to

diverse populations, (d) debiasing, and (e) examining assumptions, (f) peer support, (g)

counter-stereotypic training, and (h) moral motivation, these activities provide strategies

to use when cleaning lenses and shifting world views (Ayub, 2020; Marsh, 2009;

Williams, 2018).

Engaging in training can assist with neutralizing the impact implicit bias on the

campus racial climate (Applebaum, 2019; McDowell, Goldhammer, Potter, &

Keuroghlian, 2020). Strategies like the implicit association test (IAT) can be used to

assist higher education stakeholders with understanding and minimizing the impact

implicit bias on their behaviors and decisions (Capers et al., 2018; De Houwer, 2019;

Vuletich & Payne, 2019). The IAT, an assessment created by Greenwald, McGhee, and

Schwartz (1998), reveals possible implicit attitudes towards certain stereotypes. The

assessment measures reaction times to various word associations such as “White-good”

or “Black-bad” (Capers et al., 2018; De Houwer, 2019; Greenwald et al., 1998; Vuletich

& Payne, 2019). An increase in reaction time for the stereotypical attribute is indicative

implicit bias. Another strategy, the Tag Game, can assist participants in gaining an

awareness potential biases to begin the conversation about benefits diversity (Marshalls

ELearning, 2019). The Tag game is used to identify social categorizations and the

presence groups bias (Marshalls ELearning, 2019). Participants are asked to place a

variety colored and shaped adhesive paper on their body and to form groups without

talking. The discussion that ensues after the activity is completed assists participants in

identifying how the criteria used to form groups may have been biased and discussing the

importance diversity. Trusted 10 is another activity that can be used to help participants

determine if unconscious bias exists in their selection close friends (Marshalls

ELearning, 2019). Identifying patterns implicit bias in personal relationships can lead to

discussions about shifting lenses and world views.

Videos can also be used to improve learning and bring awareness to situations by

providing case studies that can be used to facilitate open discussions about racial bias

(Christ, Arya, Chiu, 2017; Fuciarelli, 2018; Funchess, 2014). For example, Implicit Bias

Explained and When Implicit Bias becomes Explicit videos can be used to define and

provide examples implicit and explicit biases using real word examples and scenarios to

engage auditory and visual learners in the material. The What Would You Do (2019)

video that shows a White woman threatening to call the police on an African American

man who is having dinner with White children can be used as a case study to discuss the

implications biases and alternatives to stereotyping. Additionally, initiatives that focus

on addressing microaggressions and building institutional capacity can support the

campus community in overcoming racial unrest (Applebaum, 2019; Karkouti, 2016;

Kezar, Fries-Britt, Kurban, McGuire, & Wheaton, 2018). Missouri University (MU)

experienced historical patterns exclusion underrepresented populations faculty, staff,

and students that eventually led to a widely publicized campus racial crisis in 2015

(Kezar et al., 2018). After evaluating where the leaders went wrong, MU implemented a

framework, developed by Kezar et al, for capacity building to help other institutions

overcome racial chaos that includes (a) strategic planning, mission, and values, (b)

leadership, (c) building trust, (d) investment in learning, and (e) ongoing assessment and

evaluation (Kezar et al., 2018). This framework and case study can be used to help

institutional leaders overcome racial chaos.

Pressional development that infuses equity, diversity, and inclusion training may

prevent microaggressions and identity disaffirming behaviors (Garcia, 2016; Perez,

Robbins, Harris, & Montgomery, 2020; Sanchez, 2019). Furthermore, including

strategies that assist in changing the lenses or world views can lead to intercultural

competency (Casebeer, 2016; Williams, 2013). Strategies that result in reflection,

advocacy, and inquiry create a solid foundation for evaluating biases (McDowell et al.,

2020; Williams, 2013). Examining cultural lenses and biases that impact the way people

view people, events, and incidents can lead to awareness and a shift in behavior

(Casebeer, 2016; Williams, 2013). Shifts in behavior coupled with institutional policies

that enhance the organizational climate for diversity are essential in creating an

environment for social change (Dickerson, 2019; Franco & Hernandez, 2018; Karkouti,

2016).

Project Description

PD is an effective method to use to present the results the study and strategies for

the future. Interactive learning experiences ensure that the information is received and

relatable for adult learners. The participants reported an increase in compositional

diversity among faculty but a decrease in both on-campus relations between faculty and

satisfaction with the campus racial climate among faculty. To ensure that the needs the

CSU adult learners are met, active learning approaches will be used to reveal the results

the study and to provide strategies for examining cultural lenses and expanding world

views. The PD will eventually be delivered to 236 CSU faculty members and the senior

leadership team. Multiple 3-day sessions will be needed. The overall goal for the 3-day

PD is to provide faculty and leaders the results the study and to share strategies that will

assist them as they begin communicating about improving racial interactions to achieve

an inclusive among faculty.

Each the 3 days training will last approximately 8 hours and include a 1hour

break for lunch. The goal for day 1 is for the CSU stakeholders to garner an

understanding the need for the PD and the participant perceptions the racial campus

climate among faculty before and after the consolidation an HBCU and non-HBCU. The

results this research will be shared with CSU faculty and leaders. Additionally, activities

like the Tag Game (Marshalls ELearning, 2019) that introduce participants to their

potential biases and videos that show biases in everyday situations are included to

facilitate the conversation between faculty and leaders about implicit and explicit biases

(Fuciarelli, 2018; Funchess, 2014). The goal for day 2 is for stakeholders to examine their

cultural lens and how it impacts their perceptions , and interactions with, other faculty

and leaders. Activities and videos that explain filters, schemas, recognizing biases, and

cleaning cultural lenses are included to help faculty and leaders describe bias and how it

surfaces in their daily lives. The goal for the final day training, day 3, is to provide CSU

stakeholders with strategies for cleaning their lenses, expanding world views, and

building capacity for cultivating diversity and inclusion among faculty. A case study on

confronting racial climate will be used to assist CSU leaders and faculty with developing

a framework for building the campus capacity for inclusion (Kezar et al., 2018).

Potential Resources and Existing Supports

To conduct the PD at the CSU, I will seek permission from the institutional

president. PD is a component the annual review process for faculty, so I will work with

institutional leaders to fer the PD during the semiannual faculty conferences. Because the

faculty and leaders will already be on campus, no additional salaries will need to be paid.

The training rooms on campus are already set up with podiums, microphones, projectors,

and screens. Faculty, staff, and administrators have laptops with docking stations on their

desks. They will be asked to bring their laptops to the training for use. I will also ask IT

to prepare the mobile lab for delivery as a backup. I will work with institutional leaders to

provide pens, notebooks, sticky notes, chart paper, and copies any handouts or

worksheets that are required. However, the agenda and copies the presentation will be

sent to the participants electronically when they arrive on day 1. I will provide the

workshop at no cost. Therefore, no additional financial resources will be required.

Potential Barriers and Potential Solutions

Race relations are ten difficult for people to speak about. The topic the PD may

make some faculty and staff uncomfortable. To create excitement leading up to the event,

I will work with the university’s communication team to send out email and social media

commercials and teasers to engage faculty and staff prior to the event. Additionally, I will

provide my contact information as a safe place for those who are concerned to call and

speak with me about the training. I will also work with the leadership team to ensure that

they promote the PD as a safe place to discuss issues without fear retribution.

Although attendance at the faculty and staff conference is required, there are

multiple sessions fered. If other sessions are held in conjunction with the PD, attendance

will be voluntary and could result in lower participation. To overcome this potential

challenge, I will ask the leadership team to fer the PD in isolation for a group faculty and

leaders. Another potential barrier could be a lack support from leadership. If the leaders

are not willing to address the issues or do not support the PD, I will be unable to conduct

the training. To overcome this potential barrier, I will schedule a meeting with the

president the university to discuss the findings and research on possible solutions. It is

my hope that an awareness the faculty perceptions racial campus climate at the CSU

after the consolidation will elicit an urgent need for change.

Implementation

Given the nature this subject and the level urgency, this PD should be

implemented as soon as possible. The CSU has faculty and staff conferences at the

beginning each term, so I will submit the proposed training to the president prior to the

proposed deadline for the next conference. After approval is garnered, I will submit a

request for additional resources to ensure that everything is ready well in advance the

PD. Two months prior to the PD, I will work with the university’s communication team

to begin sending out emails and social media commercials and teasers. I will include a

link to an online portal for faculty, staff, and leaders to sign up for attendance. One month

prior to the PD, I will send a communication to all registered participants thanking them

for their registration and letting them know that I am available to address questions or

concerns. At this time, I will also ask the communication team to do another push for

registration. One week prior to the PD, I will email the participants the agenda and ask

them to bring their laptops on the day training. On the morning the training, I will email

all other pertinent materials.

Roles Participants and Facilitator

As the facilitator, I will ensure that the PD is delivered as scheduled and that all

materials are readily available. The faculty, staff, and leaders will need to commit to the

full three days training as well as engage with others and be open to learning new

concepts. Additionally, they will need to be prepared to share and learn from each other

as these activities will assist them with examining their cultural lens and how it impacts

their perceptions , and interactions with, diverse groups people and expanding their

world views in an effort to build the capacity for cultivating a diverse and inclusive

campus climate among faculty.

Project Evaluation Plan

The project was developed to provide CSU faculty, staff, and leaders with the

outcomes from the research concerning faculty perceptions racial campus climate after

the CSU consolidation. To determine the effectiveness the PD, an evaluation must be

implemented. Prior to deciding on an evaluation approach, I reviewed both formative and

summative evaluation. Formative evaluation is an on-going process evaluating the day-

to-day operations organizations and systems (Aziz, Mahmood, & Rehman, 2018; van

Groen & Eggen, 2020). The information should be timely and used immediately to make

improvements. Summative evaluation is used to evaluate a finished product (Dixson &

Worrell, 2016; van Groen & Eggen, 2020). Both formative and summative evaluation

were considered as viable options. Therefore, formative evaluation will be used as the

end each day and summative evaluation will be used to assess participant satisfaction

with the PD at the end day 3. The Likert scale assessment will be administered

anonymously using Google Forms. Additionally, participants will engage in reflective

journaling at the end each day. The daily questions are embedded in the project

presentation. The journals will be collected at the end each day and returned the next

day.

Project Implications

This project may contribute to positive social change as it engages faculty, staff,

and leaders in conversations about the racial campus climate after the consolidation

between a HBCU and non-HBCU. Additionally, leaders, faculty, and staff will be given

strategies to use as they begin having conversations about examining their lenses and

expanding their world views. HBCUs were established to provide a place for African

Americans to obtain a higher education during times racial segregation (Bracey, 2017).

HBCUs are known for supporting African American students but are also seen as

culturally inclusive (Bracey, 2017). Non-HBCUs, especially those that are PWIs, ten

have processes that exclude African Americans. The systemic racism and historical

legacies exclusion make degree attainment more challenging for students color (McCoy,

2014).

Consolidating the two schools was a step in the right direction towards removing

racial barriers as the schools were less than 10 miles apart but still segregated by race.

The underlying racial tensions, however, still exist. Improving the racial campus climate

requires leaders who are willing to champion the change as well as allocate resources.

Campus leaders who are not committed to diversity contribute to the negative climate and

perpetuate the negative social behaviors faculty, staff, and students (Karkouti, 2016).

The students, faculty, and staff the CSU deserve to experience a campus climate that is

supportive all differences.

Conclusion

Section 3 included details about the PD project deliverable, the literature review

in relation to the project, resources needed to implement the project, potential barriers

and solutions, the implementation and evaluation plan, and implications for social

change. Data analysis revealed that the faculty had negative perceptions the racial

campus climate among faculty after the CSU consolidation. Therefore, PD was warranted

to provide stakeholders with an overview the research, details regarding participant

perceptions the racial campus climate among faculty after the consolidation, information

on examining their cultural lens and how it impacts their perceptions and interactions

with each other, and strategies for expanding world views and building capacity for

cultivating a diverse and inclusive climate in which all faculty can thrive. In section 4, I

will present the project’s strengths and limitations as well as a reflective view my

journey as a scholar, practitioner, and project developer.

Section 4: Reflections and Conclusions

Project Strengths and Limitations

Researchers agree that PD, when implemented correctly, has been proven to assist

participants in their construction knowledge (Desimone & Garet, 2015; Kennedy, 2016;

McCray, 2018; Voogt et al., 2015; Xu, 2016). One the strengths this PD on campus

climate is that it is designed specifically for the unique needs the CSU after

consolidation. The active learning opportunities provide faculty and leaders with

numerous instances to engage each other in identifying and understanding implicit and

explicit bias, evaluating and cleaning their lenses, and developing a plan for building

institutional capacity.

The format the PD is another strength as it is tailored to the audience and allows

interaction, reflection, and discussion, and responsiveness to the current calls for social

reform. Stakeholders who attend the training may engage in opportunities to reframe their

lens and become more aware implicit biases previously held. Leaders will be made

aware the perceptions the faculty in relation to the campus climate. This information

will hopefully be the gateway to additional campus communication about the racial

climate after the consolidation.

PD opportunities are numerous, and participation is ten forced. If faculty and

leaders fail to see the value provided by this PD, attendance may be limited. Another

limitation associated with this PD is that true climate change takes time. A 3-day training

is not long enough to guarantee lasting change at the CSU. Although there are project

limitations, they pale in comparison to the potential benefits starting conversations about

the racial climate after the CSU consolidation.

Recommendations for Alternative Approaches

The CSU is a large, 2-campus university with a large population employees. To

determine perceptions racial campus climate before and after the consolidation, leaders

could conduct a campus-wide climate survey. Additionally, given that the majority the

participants communicated that the racial climate among faculty after the consolidation

was negative, leaders could assemble a team on campus to review policies, procedures,

and on-campus activities to promote inclusion and awareness biases and differences

among faculty. A final recommendation would be the development an fice where

faculty, staff, and leaders can safely communicate with colleagues about their

experiences, learn more about biases, and work through their differences.

Scholarship, Project Development and Evaluation, and Leadership and Change

Scholarship

I started the doctoral program for personal gratification. I have always been able

to write priciently, but scholarly writing was a skill that I needed to learn. I also wanted

to make a change in higher education but did not know where to begin. My passion for

change and helping others overcome stereotypes led to my transformation as a scholar,

practitioner, researcher, and ally for social justice. Unlike any other degree I have

pursued, this was a slow and steady journey that evolved over time. When I was at the

point choosing a topic for my dissertation, I was immediately drawn to the possibly

finding out how faculty and staff were coping with the consolidation between a HBCU

and non-HBCU. Although consolidations are ten challenging and result in climate and

culture shifts, the CSU consolidation was plagued with underlying racial tensions. Once I

was able to define the problem and purpose, the literature justified the need for additional

research. Upon completion the proposal, I was able to hone my skills as a true researcher

through the IRB application process and eventual data collection. While collecting data, I

learned to plan for the unexpected and how to ask follow-up questions to ensure that the

data collected was useful. Once I completed the data collection, I was once again

challenged to code and analyze the data so that my findings would lead to the

development a research-based project. Pursing the doctoral degree caused me to

transform from a student to a scholar. I am confident that I now have the skills to

continue my journey as a higher education administrator.

Project Development and Evaluation

The project developed naturally from the results the study. I looked at other

genres but found PD to be the most pricient way to communicate the results the study

and to actively engage faculty, staff, and leaders in strategies to assist them in changing

their world views. The development the project was a slow and steady process as I

wanted to be sure that the information I was providing would contribute to positive social

change at the CSU. After several revisions and additions, I had a project that I felt excited

about sharing with the CSU. As I developed the project and researched the information

about cultural lenses and implicit bias, I was challenged to think critically about my own

implicit biases. This project can be used in any setting to assist participants with

evaluating the lenses they use to view the world and the impact it has on their interactions

with others.

Leadership and Change

As an enrollment management pressional, I understand the importance

maintaining a positive campus climate. If students, faculty, and staff are dissatisfied with

the campus climate, employee turnover will increase, and enrollment will decrease. The

development the project taught me valuable skills that I will be able to incorporate into

my job as a future leader a higher education institution. I have always had pride in my

ability to lead and develop my team employees. This project has helped me to expound

on the level development that is needed to ensure that employees feel valued and

respected regardless their race or ethnicity. I want to be a part the change that is needed

to ensure that higher education institutions are prepared for the diverse group

21st century staff, faculty, and students.

Reflection as a Scholar

Throughout the doctoral process I had to overcome procrastination. I learned a lot

about grit and time management skills. I spent hours reading, writing, and revising and

became frustrated at times, but never gave up. I learned to be patient with the process and

to look at my chair’s comments as suggestions for improvement rather than punitive

comments about my work. I have been humbled throughout this process and it has made

me more inquisitive. I seek answers in the research to help me improve processes at work

and to help me become a better leader. The doctoral journey has not been easy. However,

I am the scholar I am today because the rigor the course work and consistent guidance

and support I have received.

Reflection as a Practitioner

I love working in higher education. Every student who graduates has a chance at

changing the life his or her family. Twenty-first century faculty, staff, and students

demand administrators with 21st century skills. This project study led to my development

21st century skills as a practitioner. I learned how to evaluate interview transcripts to

make data-based decisions. Additionally, I learned that employees institutions with

perceived negative racial climates experience high stress and eventually leave the

company. This doctoral study has provided me with the tools necessary to implement PD

opportunities at my current institution. Throughout the process I was able to use my

strengths to help me overcome my weaknesses. I am a lifelong learner. I will use the

knowledge I have acquired to help others pursue their dreams obtaining a higher

education.

Reflection as a Project Developer

It was easy to decide on PD as the appropriate genre for the project as neither the

executive summary, evaluation report, nor position paper were appropriate project

choices. The development the project was not easy. There were days when I felt like

giving up. I had a difficult time determining what information to include in the PD as I

needed it to be meaningful and to hopefully bring about social change. Once I developed

a strategy, the ideas began to flow more easily. The challenges I experienced are

overshadowed by the potential benefit this research and project execution. The faculty,

staff, and leaders the CSU will have an opportunity to explore faculty perceptions racial

campus climate before and after consolidation. The PD will provide them with strategies

to use as they work together to shift their cultural lenses and worldviews.

Reflections on Importance Work

Racial conflict is prevalent on college and university campuses all over the United

States (Williams, 2019). Increasing the structural diversity the campus to include a

greater percentage minorities does not improve the quality relationships and interactions

among groups people from different races (Slay et al., 2019; Williams, 2019).

Stakeholders are calling for campus leaders to respond to acts racism with prejudice as

systemic racism ten goes unaddressed (Williams, 2019). Students, faculty, and staff are

no longer silent in their quest for equality. Protests are happening all over the world

because underrepresented groups have become weary the unequal treatment and

senseless deaths. The consolidation between a HBCU and non-HBCU led to racial

tensions on the CSU campus that must be addressed. Researchers agree that addressing

racial tensions has an immediate and long-term benefit from both a public health and

social justice perspective (Williams, 2019). PD is a common response for remediating

racial tensions on campus (Apfelbaum, 2019). However, overcoming systemic racism can

be challenging and takes time. Deliberate action is required to dismantle racial tensions

on campus (Apfelbaum, 2019). This project will assist CSU faculty, staff, and campus

leaders in starting the conversation about race and inclusion.

Implications, Applications, and Directions for Future Research

Transformative social change requires consistent, deliberate action. The results

this study will help stakeholders begin the process discussing the type change that is

needed at the CSU. The findings revealed that the participants perceived the racial

campus climate among faculty to be hostile after the consolidation. As a result, the PD

was designed to provide the faculty and leaders with the participants’ perceptions as well

as strategies for examining their lenses and worldviews and next steps. News headlines

are filled with protests and statements from people who are fighting for justice for

underrepresented populations. Higher education institutions are not immune to the racial

challenges that are impacting society. Leaders must be willing to honestly examine the

campus racial climate and proactively prioritize social justice (Apfelbaum, 2019). This

study focused on faculty perceptions the racial campus climate among faculty before and

after the consolidation. Future research should study the student perceptions racial

campus climate before and after the consolidation between a HBCU and NHBCU. Future

research should also focus on efforts to improve campus climate. Evaluation research can

be conducted to ensure that efforts to reshape the climate are successful. Additionally,

research could seek the perceptions the faculty, staff, and students who resigned from the

institution shortly after the consolidation. Understanding why they left could assist

leaders in the development on-campus programs to increase retention and support

diversity.

Conclusion

In the final section this research study, I included the strengths and limitations

the project as well as my reflections as a scholar, practitioner, and project developer.

The evidence supports the need to reduce racial tensions in higher education institutions.

The eight participants who were interviewed revealed that the experienced feelings

hostility, mistrust, and racial biases after the consolidation. Without effective mentorship

opportunities, coping strategies, and safe spaces to communicate openly about racism,

faculty will continue to be emotionally drained and psychologically burdened (Slay et al.,

2019). Careful attention must be given to changing discriminatory policies, improving

collaboration between faculty members from all races, and cultivating an inclusive

environment. To overcome challenges related to compositional diversity, feelings

hostility, mistrust, and racial bias among faculty after consolidating a HBCU and

NHBCU, leaders should engage in PD programming that provides them with strategies to

use to build the institutional capacity to cultivate a diverse and inclusive environment.

The PD will assist faculty and leaders in beginning the conversation about the changes

needed to move the CSU forward without racial tensions.

Exploring Faculty Perceptions Campus Climate Before and After a Consolidation

Students also viewed