2011 Strategy Institute

1. 2011 Strategy Institute The Role of Institutional Research in Equitable Access and Success: Data, Power and Privilege Tonya Benton (Facilitator), IR Director Highline Community College, Des Moines, WA Cathy Almquist, Director of IR and Assessment Trident Technical College, Charleston, SC Mary Millikin, Director of Planning and IR Tulsa Community College, Tulsa, OK Wilma Dulin, VP, Instruction & Student Svcs Yakima Valley Community College, Yakima, WA

2. Presentation Format • Academic Context/ Brief Dialogue • Data stories from panelists • Audience Discussion of Stories/ Questions • Summary remarks from panelists

3. Learning Objectives • Identify colleagues for continued networking toward improved structural equity • Identify biases due to IR privilege in data collection, analysis and reporting • Discuss how individual biases can impact IR’s role in a college’s progress toward structural equity

4. Power, Privilege and Data • Sociology 101 • “Social constructions” vs. “natural constructions” • Power: unearned dominance • Privilege: unearned benefit • “Dominant Culture” • “Privileged member of society”

5. Proposed Process: How Privilege becomes Bias

6. Onewhite IR director’s story…

7. “further study is needed” • Does reporting these data perpetuate inequities? • What responsibility do I have in IR to effect change on these issues? • How have other CCs in “new Latino destinations” measured access? • What defines a “new Latino destination”? • WHO is doing the defining? Does it matter?

8. For Love of Numbers A Cautionary Tale About Bias

9. Attitude Counts • IR people are, by nature, number lovers. • Numerophiles.

10. Attitude Counts • Some folks at our colleges are not number lovers. • Numerophobes.

11. Attitude Counts • What attitudes and biases do numerophiles have about numerophobes? • Their capability? • Their competency? • Does that affect the way you look at results from their programs? • Isn’t that bias?

12. Example – Minority Mentoring MOMAHSMentoringOur Minority African American and Hispanic Males • 2007 - TTC had no significant difference in retention rates of white students and minority students. (Really.) • Retention Committee investigating “best practices” on campus. • MOMAHS reported a 90% annual retention rate. • But they only had 19 participants. • And no graduates. • How did they get a 90% retention rate?!?

13. Raw Data – What IR Would Do Starting Fall Cohort Following Fall 19 9 9/19 = 47.4%

14. Raw Data – What the Program Did Starting Fall Cohort Following Fall 19 – 9 = 10 9 9/10 = 90%

15. Attitude Counts • What attitude did I (a numerophile) have have of the numerophobes? • It did affect the way I looked at results from their program. • I was dismissive. • That IS bias!

16. Attitude Counts • Initial Reaction: They really don’t have a clue what they’re doing. • Realization: Yes, they made a mistake. But the result of that mistake is masking a real problem. • Time to take action: Look deeper at retention rates of minority males. • Are they equivalent to minority females? • Is there a problem here we haven’t uncovered yet? • What’s my role here?

17. Moving Forward • The retention rate of minority males is not equivalent to other groups. • We do have a problem. • My role: help the people who directly support students understand and interpret data.

18. Lessons in Unbiased Qualitative Data Collection Mary A. Millikin Director of Planning & Institutional Research Tulsa Community College

19. Qualitative Data Collection:Focus Groups • TCC trained in structured focus group facilitation by data coach, Dr. Ken Gonzalez • Focus group facilitators volunteered rather than were appointed • Year 1 of ATD: Persistence focus groups • All facilitators white females • Student participants representative of student body

20. Qualitative Data Collection:Focus Groups • In Year 3, TCC conducted persistence focus groups specifically of African American male students • Data Coach advised us to use African American male faculty and staff only. • Training ensued. • Although I didn’t hesitate to follow the advice of our data coach, I couldn’t help wondering if I couldn’t be just as effective • 20 years of conducting (unstructured) focus groups • Egocentrism?

21. What we found • Students relayed similar persistence barriers as we found in general focus groups • Except when a non-African American male (AA male) facilitated! • AA male students did NOT mention AA male-specific barriers with non-AA male focus group facilitator (Data Coach for training purposes and Year 1 focus groups) • Students mentioned AA male-specific barriers only when facilitators were AA males and when only AA male students were in the groups.

22. What were the barriers? (24 barriers) AA Male Experience (69 barriers) Managing College Life and Goals (17 barriers) Institutional Managing College Life and Goals: time management, work and family issues, transitioning to college

23. AA Male Experience • Negative Peer, Community, and Family Influences (12) • Not seeing others of the same race/gender (6) • Stereotyping (6) Institutional barriers: college resources such as navigating campuses and textbooks.

24. In Summary • AA male students more candid with AA male facilitators • Literature tells us this is true with other non-white groups (Guiffrida, D.A. , 2010; Padilla, R. V., Trevino, J., González, K. P., & Trevino, J.,1997) • Begs the question: What other data and information do I miss through a “one size fits all” approach to data collection, analysis, and reporting?

25. References • González , K.P. (2009) Using Data to Increase Student Success: A Focus on Diagnosis Principles and Practices of Student Success. Lumina Foundation for Education: Indianapolis, IN. • Guiffrida, D.A. & Douthit, K.Z. (2010) The Black Student Experience at Predominantly White Colleges: Implications for School and College Counselors. Journal of Counseling and Development, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-230150805.html • Padilla, R. V., Trevino, J., González, K. P., & Trevino, J. (1997). Developing local models of minority student success in college. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 125-135.

26. From Faculty to Research to Faculty Lessons learned about the power of data in changing the institution’s ability to have difficult conversations

27. Preface to Wilma Dulin’s Comments

28. What informed me?Bennett’s Intercultural Sensitivity Stages: Denial or parochialism Defense and assumptions of superiority Minimization or trivialization of acknowledged cultural differences Acceptance, respect for differences Adaptation or empathic understanding of others’ world views Integration, including contextual relativism

29. What informed me?Racial Identify Models Focused on changing how individuals perceive themselves with respect to race Some models focus on separating groups for training Other models assume that either or all groups are influenced by the same activities but that their cognitive explanations may differ

30. What I knew about faculty… I realized that my peers were not mean people I acknowledged that none of us had THE answer I knew that scholarly research was more likely to be tolerated I knew that numbers, data could be helpful

31. The Value of Drilling Deeper: Myth Busting

32. What’s changed as a result? • More open dialogue within the college • Students, Faculty, Staff, Administrators • How can we explain this finding? • More open dialogue with our communities • Stakeholders, concerned citizens, Board Members • What guidance do you have? • Let us show you what we are trying to do!

33. But I still need to be on guard, to change me… Dangers of researcher-ese and a White bias towards following research rules References to “small n’s” may imply negative importance References to “significance” in statistical findings may imply negative importance Preference for “data” over anecdotes may miss the point of the story as teacher