Abstract
This essay describes a learning experience that utilized participatory action research to improve the racial climate of a sociology department at a predominantly White institution. Through systematic inquiry, we developed initiatives and proposed recommendations to create more welcoming, supportive, and affirming environments for students of color and students from other historically oppressed communities. We see our work as a model that develops applied research skills, elevates the expertise of students, and lays the groundwork for meaningful institutional action.
Introduction
Events during the summer of 2020 initiated a wave of critical reflection within many organizations. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic and following the murder of George Floyd, rising anti-Asian violence, and sweeping protest movements, institutional leaders asked how their practices perpetuated racism, and made parallel commitments to anti-racism. As students and faculty in the sociology department at Tufts University, we observed such questions circulating within our community, and we sought to employ our disciplinary perspective and training as researchers to take concrete steps toward improving the racial climate of our department.
Attention to the production of social differences and inequalities has been central to our education as sociologists; we recognize that these same processes can play out in classrooms and across campus. At predominately White institutions (PWIs), students of color, including those who are low-income, can encounter barriers to equitable resource access, acts of bias and discrimination, and a campus climate that neglects their full personhood (Harper and Hurtado 2007). Our department is embedded in the institutional context of a PWI, and we recognized the need for ongoing work to create a more welcoming, supportive, and affirming environment for students from historically oppressed groups.
In the fall of 2021, we convened as a working group of 14 students and one faculty member to evaluate the sociology department and to make recommendations for enhancing diversity, equity, and inclusion. Our group included members of varied gender identities, and members who identify as Black, Latine, Asian American, multiracial, and White; some members also identify as coming from working-class backgrounds. All students had extensive experience in the department through previous coursework. The faculty member in the group is a multiracial Asian American woman, and an assistant professor with previous experience in several programs aimed at enhancing diversity and inclusion at a large public PWI and at Tufts.
Our working group used participatory action research (PAR) that built upon our expertise in navigating the department as sociology majors and minors, and as a faculty instructor and advisor. Over the course of the semester, we designed and implemented several initiatives and research projects with the explicit goal of producing knowledge that would lead to institutional change (Fahlberg 2022). Below, we situate our analysis in previous research on the racial climate of PWIs and we provide an overview of PAR. We then describe how our work unfolded and offer examples of specific projects. We suggest that the structures and processes of our course provide a useful model for developing research skills through applied work, elevating the experiences of students of color and first-generation students, and creating meaningful change within academia.
The Racial Climate of Pwis and the Origins of Our Group
Previous research on PWIs identifies organizational and cultural dynamics that negatively impact students of color on campus. PWIs nurture an exclusive physical and cultural environment that systemically reproduces White supremacy (Corces-Zimmerman, Thomas, and Cabrera et al. 2021). Students of color face racial microaggressions from peers and faculty, as well as the constant pressure to disprove racist stereotypes (Feagin, Vera, and Imani 1996; Harwood et al. 2012). Students’ education is often centered around White scholars and taught by White faculty, reflecting broader patterns of epistemic exclusion of faculty of color (Settles et al. 2021). Outside of identity-based centers, institutions can fail to create other spaces on campus where students of color experience shared cultural ownership (Harper and Hurtado 2007). For many students of color—some of whom are also low-income or first-generation students—PWIs promote a feeling of “otherness.” Oppressive experiences on campus create academic and social alienation, and students of color must create counterspaces of resistance in response (Harwood et al. 2018). As critical race theorists argue, these dynamics reflect the context and history of the United States, where racism and White supremacy are not aberrations, but organizing features of both macro-level structures and micro-level interactions (Delgado and Stefancic 1997; Gillborn 2006).
While many PWIs point to improving diversity numbers, quantification can obscure complexity and variation in qualitative experiences of campus (Byrd 2021). Tufts University has become increasingly racially diverse, particularly among its undergraduate student population. 1 However, past research on campus climate found that graduating seniors from historically underrepresented groups had the lowest levels of satisfaction with their educational experience (Tufts University 2013). 2 Students reported disproportionate experiences of marginalization inside and outside the classroom, as well as incidents of bias. The study also identified several disparities in educational experiences and outcomes: Black and Hispanic students had fewer opportunities to participate in faculty research and study abroad; more than twice the proportion of Black students reported working for pay during their first year compared to White students, and the six-year graduation rate was 84 percent for Black students and 83 percent for Hispanic students, compared to 94 percent for White students (Tufts University 2013). These findings point to lingering barriers to full inclusion for students of color.
The widespread institutional reckoning during the summer of 2020 amplified self-reflection within the Tufts sociology department. To center the perspectives of students in work around diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ), the appointed faculty chair of the department’s DEIJ committee proposed a course that would operate as a hybrid research practicum and working group focused on studying the sociology department itself. This self-study would lead to recommendations and initiatives to improve the racial climate of the department. Students were recruited through an application process and based on the recommendations of faculty. Though all interested students were able to participate, recruitment explicitly prioritized elevating the perspectives of students of color. In alignment with tenets of critical race theory, the course sought to recognize and embrace “the experiential knowledge of historically marginalized people” (Ledesma and Calderón 2015:217). Formalizing the working group as a course for credit was important. Diversity work is simultaneously undervalued compared to other kinds of academic labor, and disproportionately undertaken by students and faculty of color (Ahmed and Swan 2006). Often, diversity work unfolds without meaningful redistribution of university resources and power (Thomas 2020). Recognizing and compensating student and faculty contributions through course credit offered a tangible benefit by elevating our work to the level of other formally valued teaching and learning experiences.
Par As our Approach
Our working group was guided by the principles of PAR. PAR proposes the participation of members of researched communities in study design, data collection, and interpretation, with the goals of promoting co-learning between researchers and participants and creating positive social change for participants and their broader communities (Fahlberg 2022). This approach seeks to promote equity through “an orientation that is community-based, and often community-directed, rather than merely community placed” (Wallerstein et al. 2018:3). PAR is informed by community cultural wealth theory, which argues that communities of color possess numerous forms of knowledge that should be recognized in the research process (Yosso 2005). Thus, PAR identifies and leverages communal strengths and resources—such as relationships, traditions, and practices—to address community concerns.
In alignment with PAR, we see students of color, first-generation students, and students from other historically marginalized backgrounds as possessing critical knowledge about their departments and universities. For Yosso (2005), such knowledge can be understood as forms of capital—aspirational, linguistic, familial, social, navigational, and resistance—that capture the talents, experiences, and strengths of students of color and first-generation students. In trying to understand this population’s experiences, it is helpful to home in on these students’ usage of navigational capital, that is, their abilities to navigate social institutions, including academic spaces. For instance, through our committee’s discussions and data collection, we observed students who are Black, Indigenous, Latine, first-generation, and/or low-income often must turn to their social networks and on-campus identity centers to access crucial resources—from career and academic advice to textbooks—that would not otherwise be available to them. This practice stands in contrast with the experiences of White, upper-class students, who may—through family networks, wealth, and familiarity with elite spaces—more easily access employment and make connections with other students. Attending to minoritized students’ mobilization of navigational capital can help researchers and administrators identify gaps in access to resources, opportunities, and information, which uphold disparities in higher education and beyond. Moreover, highlighting how students work to thrive in systems that are not designed for them yields vital insight into these individuals’ agency, creativity, and other unique skills that can be used to positively transform academia.
Consistent with a PAR model, we designed our projects around students’ experiences and interests, rather than the research questions of faculty. We drew upon our collective strengths and resources in carrying out the projects; we tapped into our networks for data collection, recruited for events through social media, and envisioned new creative practices collaboratively. While our projects offered the opportunity to deepen our skills and training as social science researchers, they were fundamentally oriented toward concrete changes in policy and practice within the sociology department. In the remainder of this essay, we elaborate on our approach by describing how we created a community within our class, identified goals and projects, and carried out different models of PAR.
Creating Community and Identifying Goals
DEIJ work inevitably involves the discussion of sensitive topics such as racism, violence, and systemic inequality. Within our working group, many of these issues have affected individuals in different ways, and thus had the potential to be distressing. As a result, it was essential to promote trust and respect within our workspace to allow for honest and effective communication. We employed several strategies to create a comfortable space. Throughout the first few class sessions, we engaged in goal setting and laid out expectations for ourselves and for each other for the remainder of the semester. This was done formally by collaboratively designing participation rubrics, as well as informally through discussion about the dynamics that would create a space of openness, reflection, acknowledgment, and respect. Through these activities, we produced mechanisms to hold each other accountable for our actions within the space. At the same time, we recognized the emotionally draining nature of DEIJ work, and we sought to build a culture of mutual recognition and support. To maintain and grow our level of comfort and trust throughout the semester, we consistently engaged in check-ins at the start of each work session. This provided everyone with the opportunity to connect personally and decompress. These minor steps made a major difference in the atmosphere of our space and allowed for increased productivity.
To develop our projects, it was imperative to first define key orienting concepts. We engaged in an activity where we each independently defined “diversity,” “equity,” “inclusion,” and “justice,” drawing upon our learning from previous courses and personal experience. We also described what racial justice would look like in the context of higher education and at Tufts specifically. After individually writing, we reconvened, shared definitions, and sorted them into categories through a process of inductive analysis. We then used the categories to guide our project planning and brainstorm actionable steps. For instance, we defined “diversity” as having people that hail from different backgrounds of race, ethnicity, gender, class, sexuality, culture, ability, religion, age, body size, language, and immigration status. Our vision of what this would look like at Tufts included increasing the number of faculty and university administrators of minoritized identities, drawing from scholars of color and queer scholars, and centering different forms of knowledge and learning, to cite a few. Greater representation of scholars of color and queer scholars would combat histories of “epistemic exclusion,” which have delegitimized research on the experiences of marginalized groups, on one hand, and devalued the work of scholars on the basis of their identities, on the other, limiting their contributions to knowledge production even on “mainstream” topics (Settles et al. 2021).
After our initial brainstorming, we freely discussed various areas that we felt needed improvement in the sociology department based on our own experiences as students, as well as from what we may have heard from peers. We drew on a “self-assessment” tool designed to “support departments in identifying key strengths, gaps, and needs in relation to equity, inclusion, and diversity” (University of California Berkeley 2015:23). These ongoing conversations resulted in six overarching projects, represented in Table 1. After identifying these projects, we broke into groups of two to three to carry out the research over the semester.
Overview of the Six Projects.
Two Examples Of Projects and Process
Each project involved evaluating practices within the department or university through original research and proposing or initiating new practices. However, projects varied in their emphasis on evaluating current practices to make recommendations for the future versus implementing new initiatives and evaluating their impacts. In this section, we describe the process of conducting two projects to highlight different models of action research.
The “Diversifying and Decolonizing Syllabi” project focused on evaluating current practices with the goal of making evidence-based recommendations. The project reflected growing calls to recognize the colonial origins of sociology and to destabilize systems of knowledge production that privilege White, Western scholars and standpoints, while excluding those from the global South (Meghji 2021). Our work entailed three primary components. First, we conducted a content analysis of syllabi from core major requirement courses offered between fall 2018 and fall 2021. To gauge syllabi diversity and better understand what types of content mediums were being assigned to students, we extracted the following information from each assigned material: title of the work, year published, author’s name, author’s race, author’s gender, author’s age at time of publication, key words, medium, and length. 3 After collecting data for each syllabus, we utilized Google Sheets to make data visualizations and later synthesized them in a report. Second, we conducted a focus group with our peers in the course to better understand students’ motivations for becoming sociology majors and minors as well as their experiences within the classroom. Finally, we compiled a list of resources for potential future use in course syllabi. These resources include materials from authors of various racial identities, gender identities, and backgrounds. Furthermore, the materials include articles as well as other mediums such as podcasts and videos.
Overall, this project gave rise to several primary findings. We found that the authors and producers of content used within syllabi were primarily White. Most assigned materials were in text format. Students in the focus group expressed the desire for more hands-on research experience, community involvement, flexibility in assignment and reading choices, media and visual materials, and small group discussions. Based on these findings, we encouraged faculty to include more diverse authors and content mediums in future course material, as well as to cultivate more engaging classroom environments through participatory, community-based activities. These recommendations aimed to de-universalize “canonical” scholarship and Eurocentric systems of knowledge production through the inclusion of knowledge producers and modes of communication that have been undervalued through the discipline’s colonial history (Meghji 2021). In terms of process, this syllabi project highlighted the use of research to evaluate the current state of the department, with the goal of producing future changes.
In contrast, the “Mentoring” group focused on planning a new initiative, and then evaluating its impacts. This project was oriented around finding creative ways to produce community in the sociology department. Recognizing the absence of existing structures to facilitate peer-to-peer mentoring connections, we set out to create a space for current and prospective sociology majors and minors to meet and form relationships. To this end, we planned and hosted an event called “Highlighting POC in Sociology.” We invited students and faculty of color who were engaged in original research to briefly present their projects, and we advertised the event on social media and with flyers across campus. Importantly, we sought to create a relaxed environment because formal academic spaces can be intimidating. We catered the event and incorporated time before and after the presentations for students and faculty to meet and mingle over food. In total, two faculty members and four students presented their research; four faculty members and more than 25 students attended the event. Speakers showcased research on topics including African immigrant populations in Guangzhou, publishing hierarchies in sociology, and Latine identity formation in the context of punitive immigration enforcement. In addition to highlighting ongoing research, students learned about opportunities to get involved in research.
To evaluate the event, our group developed a survey tool for attendees. We sought to answer several questions including whether the event facilitated organic connections, whether it provided new information on research opportunities, and how accessible it was. In addition, we asked broader questions about the climate of the sociology department, and we sought to gauge interest in future mentoring programs or affinity spaces. Several respondents noted that they enjoyed learning about research, sharing food, and time to socialize. One suggested incorporating icebreaker questions at each table to facilitate meeting new people, and another suggested a Q&A component. Based on the event and our survey results, we offered several recommendations for the future, including creating a mentee program or a regular mixer where students could drop in and meet one another. We were heartened to hear that the department plans on hosting similar events in the future and has since supported a student-run mentoring program.
While we draw on these two projects to highlight pathways of action research, each of the six projects produced research reports and actionable recommendations. For instance, our “Outreach and Accessibility” project aimed to equitably distribute information on various opportunities to all students, and it resulted in a newsletter that regularly goes out to all sociology majors and minors. Our project on “Addressing Issues” drew on interviews with students to understand their perceptions of the Office of Equal Opportunity, and to propose new strategies for preventing acts of bias and discrimination within the department. Our hope is that faculty and administrators consider and adopt the proposals that stem from the course.
Conclusion
Our research and recommendations grew out of our experiences and insights as members of the sociology department at Tufts University. In this regard, they are specific to our context. Nevertheless, we see our substantive findings and participatory process as a model for other departments interested in making changes to enhance the experiences of students of color and other underrepresented students. Previous research makes it clear that patterns of racial marginalization and exclusion persist across many PWIs. Our research and initiatives around mentoring, advising, hiring, and other topics may identify leverage points for change within other universities.
Moreover, our approach of PAR could be translated. Training in social science prepares students both methodologically and substantively to study their home departments. Self-study further develops skills in research design, data collection, and analysis. In our case, we used focus groups, interviews, surveys, and content analysis to systematically gather data, which we then analyzed through a sociological lens attentive to institutional sources of inequity. This model of engaging students in participatory research could be applied to evaluations of and interventions within other programs across campus to interrogate biased institutional practices more broadly. PAR projects offer research-based recommendations that reflect the interests and myriad forms of capital of stakeholders most affected by exclusionary policies. Beyond their substantive findings, such projects create avenues to express power and voice; we see this as a means of fundamentally including, welcoming, accepting, and valuing students of color within PWIs.
While we believe our course can serve as a model, we recognize that it was facilitated by certain conditions. First, we convened in a moment of broad institutional support for anti-racist organizing. Universities would need to maintain a commitment to critical self-reflection and growth to be hospitable to this kind of project. The availability of resources—like funding for events, designated course credit, and faculty time—was also important to our success. Students and faculty were compensated for their work via a formalized course that counted toward major requirements, degree credits, and teaching load. Second, we convened within a department of faculty open to our data collection efforts and interested in our findings. Without access to information and a commitment to consider our recommendations, we could not have conducted research leading to meaningful evaluations and initiatives. We acknowledge that race-conscious teaching and advocacy may face backlash in more hostile climates. In these instances, increased responsibility may fall upon universities’ administrations to produce change from the top-down, or it may fall to collectives of students mobilizing to create spaces that recognize and enhance their experiences and communities. Students of color have long engaged in creating counterspaces of resistance and affirmation, and faculty and staff across institution types can support this work. Finally, we convened as a group that brought our varied lived experiences into our collaborations, and we worked together to create a community rooted in mutual respect and collective care. As these conditions highlight, departments that hope to implement similar models must ensure that robust institutional and normative supports are in place before they can effectively co-learn with and from their students.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
Foremost, we thank our collaborators, Matthew Cho, Nicholas Mui, Athena Nair, Hazel Ostrowski, Aneri Parikh, Donavan Payne, Des Porte, Nora Reavey-Gilbert, Rachel Wang, and Alexandra Ward. We are also grateful for the participation and support of the Tufts sociology department faculty. We thank Anjuli Fahlberg and the anonymous reviewers for constructive feedback on previous drafts of this manuscript.
