Meister UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research XVII (2014)

1

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse Diversity and Literacy Outcomes:
A Pilot Study into Assessing how Student Response to the Diversity
Statement Supports Inclusive Excellence in the Residence Halls

Philippe Meister

Darci Thoune, Ph.D., English Department


ABSTRACT
UW-L Inclusive Excellence initiatives have established multicultural resource centers on campus
such as the Pride Center, Office of Multicultural Student Services, Student Support Services,
Disability Resource Services, and etc. in concert with initiating academic and student life
programming to support a diverse student body and promote the values of multiculturalism,
diversity, and inclusion. Villalpando (2002) and Astin (1993) have researched the effect of
multiculturalism in higher education and have found that college campuses gain educational
benefits from a multiculturalism focus when it is both structured by the institution and engaged in
by the students. This project investigates how the Residence Life diversity statement directs
students to participate in activities that have been shown to achieve IE goals. This study prompted
students to use personal experience to describe how the representation of diversity and inclusion in
the diversity statement is enacted in the residence halls. The data has been collected with both an
online survey and in-person interviews.
Keywords: Inclusive Excellence, Diversity, Inclusion, Multicultural, Student Affairs, Campus,
Culture, Statement, Publicity, Critical Discourse, Discourse Analysis,

INTRODUTION: INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE AT UW-L
The University of Wisconsin-La Crosse is a public, mid-sized regional, four-year university. It has initiated the
Inclusive Excellence program to promote inquisitive, multicultural student leaning and support the values of
diversity, inclusion, and multiculturalism on campus in order to establish UW-L [a]s a regional academic and
cultural center that prepares students to take their place in a constantly changing world community (University of
Wisconsin-La Crosse). Inclusive Excellence (IE) initiatives have bolstered the general education curriculum and
diversified the Student Life Department by establishing multicultural student support offices and expanding
multicultural programming. The Student Life subgroup, the Office of Residence Life (ORL), regulates the on-
campus residence hall communities by staffing the facilities and programming student development activities. ORL
represents their participation in IE initiatives in their Diversity Statement, which is publicized on the departments
website, in the lobby of residence halls, and in various other small publications.

REVIEW OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH
IE (diversity, inclusion, and multiculturalism) has been shown to affect campus cultures as well as student
learning and development. IE develops practical analytic thinking skills through student inquiry and analysis of
cultural concepts such as race, class, gender, sexuality, and etc. Villalapando (2002) and Astin (1993) find that IE
increases cognitive development in both majority and non-majority students when cultural complexity is
incorporated into student learning. Villalpando, in a national study of 365 U.S universities, finds that students report
an improved experience when IE entails (a) attending racial/cultural awareness workshops; (b) socializing with
Meister UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research XVII (2014)
2

students of different racial/ethnic groups; (c) taking courses from faculty who use instructional methodology with
content on ethnic/racial issues, research, or writing addressing women, ethnicity or race; and (d) campus policies and
practices that promote diversity initiatives (2012). A, b, c, and d benefit student learning, but Villalpando cautions
that IE is not beneficial when difference becomes the focus of curricular learning and public discourse on campus
(2002).
This study explores how diversity publicity influences how students experience IE. Diversity publicity is small,
but influential part of (d), campus policies and practices that promote diversity initiatives (Villalpando, 2002). IE
is promoted around the campus; on the website, in program publicity, in the course catalog, in the residence halls,
and in other forms of university publicity. Williams (1994), in a study carried out at Purdue University, explains that
diversity publicity can change students perceive the attractiveness of an organization. Williams indicates that
publicity with a specific diversity focus improves how raters perceive organizations. While the influence of
publicity on students perceptions is not inherently positive or negative, IE publicity should work to the benefit of IE
goals. Therefore the interactions around IE publicity should direct students toward the learning interactions
identified as a, b, c, and d (Villalpando, 2002).

RESEARCH QUESTION
The University of Wisconsin-La Crosse Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning IE Program
asks us to shift our thinking from diversity as a goal in itself (typically focused on numbers) to diversity as part of
the educational process, a real-world factor that helps everyone learn better when it is engaged deliberately.
Villalpando (2002) asserts that deliberate engagement with diversity necessitates both institutional programming and
student engagement. And Leeuwen (2008) writes, Representations can reallocate roles or rearrange the social
relations between the participants. This study investigates how students are interacting with the representation of IE
initiatives in the ORL diversity statement. More specifically, how do students interacting with the statement
participate in diversity and inclusion practices within the residence halls? And, do student interactions with the
representation of institutional diversity work toward cultural literacies that fulfill the UW-L IE education goals?

DATA COLLECTION METHODS
The data was collected in two stages. First, an online survey was sent to all students living in the residence
halls. The survey asked students to read the Residence Life Diversity Statement (see appendix A) and respond to
two prompts: 1. How does the excerpt represent actions taken to promote the values of diversity and inclusion in the
residence halls? You may use personal experience and/or knowledge of UW-L in your answer. 2. Do you think this
excerpt presents achievable diversity and inclusion goals in the residence halls? If so, how do you see these goals
currently being achieved? If not, what is preventing these goals from being achieved?
In the second stage I interviewed five students to gather contextual information about the online response. Five
students were chosen from a set of 20 students that volunteered their participation on the online survey. The students
were prompted with 12 questions about their involvement and experiences with IE initiatives in the residence halls
and on the campus in its entirety (see appendix B).

ANALYSIS METHOD
A discourse analysis was conducted on the online text responses. Discourse analysis is a method for analyzing
the ways that specific features of language contribute to the interpretation of texts in their various contexts is the
study of the ways that language is organized in texts and contexts; (Barton, 57). Discourse analysis views language
as a social object that has properties for the context in which it obtains; viewing language from a more broad social
perspective to account for what it means, how people are using it, and what it does between the people who use it.
Discourse analysis has been used to analyze power relations such as race, class, gender, sex, etc. because it can
uncover the foundations, orientations, ideologies and etc. that underlie the way people use language in specific
contexts. Moreover, it allows us to analyze specific instances of language use for how they participate in broader
cultural practices.
Meister UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research XVII (2014)
3

This study uses discourse analysis to identify measures of communicative competence (Saville-Troike, 1989,
Schiffrin, 1994) as students respond to the diversity statement. Studying communicative competence entails
focusing on how speakers know how to make choices and follow practices of using language appropriately in
various sociocultural contexts (Barton, 5). Communicative competence allows us to analyze how students use their
experiences and knowledge to describe IE. This study measured how students agree or disagree with the statement,
how they describe experiencing the promotion of IE, and what types of narratives or frames of speech they use (see
appendix C). The frames of speech that students use were the most complex measurement taken. After observing the
data, four categories were created to group the frames of speech that students were speaking about the statement.
These categories were:
Abstract: use of abstract concepts such as good, happy, welcomed, and etc. to describe the carrying out of
the statement.
Naturalization or Minimization: suggesting presence, or lack, of diversity is natural or inherently present in
initiatives and activities which have not historically supported diversity and inclusion or do not address IE
topics.
Critical view: synthesis of knowledge and/or actions that show an engagement in the topics of diversity.
Accountability: Citing a, b, c, or d (Villalpando, 2002) to place accountability for action in people, places,
or programs.

RESULTS
The discourse analysis identified and isolated three aspects of interaction. First: Do students affirm or deny the
accuracy of the statement? Second: How students perceived IE promotion? Third: How do students describe the
generation of IE?

Do students affirm or deny the accuracy of the statement?
84% of first-year-males affirmed the accuracy of the statement, decreasing to 69% in the second year.
(Figure 1)
5% of first-year-males disagreed with the accuracy of the statement, increasing to 15% in the second
year (Figure 1).
63% of first-year-females affirmed the accuracy of the statement, decreasing to 48% in the second
year. (Figure 2)
3% of first year females disagreed with the accuracy of the statement, increasing to 27% in the second
year (Figure 2).

Affirm
Affirm +
Expand
Disagree
Disagree +
Expand
First Year 0.63 0.34 0.03 0
Second Year 0.48 0.24 0.24 0.03
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Accuracy of Statement: Females
Affirm
Affirm +
Expand
Disagree
Disagree +
Expand
First Year 0.84 0.11 0.05 0
Second Year 0.69 0.15 0.15 0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Accuracy of Statement: Male
Figure 1 Figure 2
Meister UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research XVII (2014)
4

How do students perceive IE promotion?
13% of FYM were aware of an all campus promotion; increasing to 60% in the second year (Figure 3).
54% FYM reported not active promotion, decreasing to 27% in the second year (Figure 3).
62% of FYF were aware of all campus promotion; decreasing to 56% in the second year (Figure 4).
14% of FYF reported no active promotion, increasing to 28% in the second year (Figure 4).

How do students describe the generation of IE?
Naturalization frames of speech decreased from the first year to the second year in both males and
females. (Figure 5, Figure 6)
Both groups increased in Abstract and Accountability frames of speech (Figure 5, Figure 6).

DISCUSSION
Underlying this study is the need to analyze whether the diversity statement contributes positively to IE
learning. Williams (1994) demonstrates that diversity publicity influences a persons perception of an organization
and her work suggests that we question whether the effects of our IE publicity work in coordination with quality IE
Campus
Wide
Individual
Face to
Face
No Active
First Year 0.62 0.21 0.02 0.14
Second Year 0.56 0.14 0.03 0.28
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Presence of Promotion: Female
Campus
Wide
Individual
Face to
Face
No Active
First Year 0.13 0.24 0.09 0.54
Second Year 0.6 0.13 0 0.27
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Presence of Promotion: Male
Figure 3 Figure 4
Figure 5 Figure 6
Abstract
Naturalizat
ion
Critical
View
Accountabi
lity
First Year 0.22 0.31 0.34 0.13
Second Year 0.39 0.06 0.33 0.21
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Description of Promotion: Female
Abstract
Naturalizati
on
Critical
View
Accountabi
lity
First Year 0.02 0.89 0.07 0.02
Second Year 0.27 0.2 0.2 0.33
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Description of Promotion: Male
Meister UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research XVII (2014)
5

learning. This study focuses on the language used around this statement in order to view, in abstraction, the way that
students negotiate their positioned within institutional interactions and representations. The diversity statement is
most productive when it directs students toward IE learning activities; a, b, c, and d in Villalpando (2002). Publicity
can promote and coordinate IE learning; therefore the statements ability to represent and promote IE interaction
will be the focus of this analysis.

Male Response
First year males affirmed the representation; reported no active and individual promotion; and described
promotion with naturalizing frames of speech. Naturalizing fames of speech entail attributing diversity and inclusion
to a particular activity (i.e., playing basketball, eating dinner). These students supported the diversity statement, and
affirmed residence life programming, while simultaneously attributing the cause of diversity promotion to none of
the identified a, b, c, or d sources (Villalpando, 2002). These students were using language to affirm the statement,
but could not describe how diversity and inclusion was enacted.
Second year males generally affirmed the representation, but increasingly disagreed with the representation;
reported an increased amount of campus wide promotion; and drastically increased their use of accountability and
abstract frames of speech. Accountability frames of speech entail referring to departments, people, or activities that
are specifically multicultural of diversity oriented which is represented in a, b, c, and d (Villalpando, 2002). Abstract
frames of speech entail using non-committal descriptors such as good, happy, etc.
From first to second year, these students became increasingly aware of on-campus offices and their role in
generating a diverse and inclusive environment on campus. These students use of naturalizing frames of speech
decreased along with the amount of individual action that they considered to support IE. Their conception of IE on
campus expanded and they reported campus wide diversity promotion.

Female Response
First year females affirmed the statement; reported campus wide and individual promotion; and used an equal
distribution of the specified frames of speech to describe promotion. These students affirmed the diversity statement;
citing relevant departments and individuals as actors in support of IE goals. This group was concurrently the most
supportive of the statement and the most knowledgeable about IE programs.
Second year females increasingly disagreed with the representation; increasingly reported campus wide and no
active diversity promotion; and used a decreased amount of naturalization frames of speech and an increased amount
of abstract frames of speech.
From first to second year, these students began to disagree with the representation; they either found the
diversity statement to be a poor representation of diversity and inclusion in the residence halls, or they found that the
representation was not congruent with their experience. This group became polarized in believing that diversity was
promoted either campus wide or not at all.

All Student Response
The decrease of naturalization frames of speech and the increase in abstract and accountability frames of speech
indicate an increased awareness of campus-wide IE initiatives in second year male students. Second year female
students exhibit a similar trend although much less substantial because they had been using more abstract and
accountability frames of speech in their first year. Although students increase their use of accountability frames of
speech as they identify the diversity focused offices as actors in IE initiatives, they also increase their use of abstract
frames of speech. Students increase their use of abstract frames of speech in the second year which may suggest that
students interpretations or experiences of IE in the residence halls arent being well connected to larger cultural and
educational goals.
Second year students disagreed or challenged the representation of IE in the statement more often than first year
students. Twenty seven percept of second year females disagreed that the representation of IE in the statement. The
disagreement with the statement suggests that it is not a productive representation as students advance. More
importantly, this indicates that either these students experience with diversity and inclusion in the residence halls
Meister UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research XVII (2014)
6

hasnt matched the representation, or that they dont agree with the representation in the statement. Since many first
year students supported the statement, it is probably that the students experience isnt represented in the statement.

CONCLUSIONS AND CONTINUED INQUIRY
Some of the trends indicate ways that this statement can better supplement IE learning. Many first year students
affirmed the diversity statement without explaining how diversity and inclusion is enacted. Many second year
students began to disagree with the statement. Further, both male and female second year students increasingly cited
either campus-wide or no active promotion. Diversity publicity that fails to coordinate individual IE learning
interactions with institutional IE goals may produce language that does not support IE learning. It may, in some
cases such as first year males, work against student learning by producing a dissonance between the individual
perceptions of diversity and individual actions that support diversity (i.e. using naturalizing frames of speech).
Diversity publicity would benefit from a more accurate coordination of student and institutional action to
achieve IE programming goals. A more accurate depiction would direct students toward activities (a,b,c, and d) that
provide quality, multicultural leaning and development experiences. This depiction would also place more
accountability on the student to participate in creating a diverse and inclusive environment. It is important that the
amount of individual IE participation increases because a diverse and inclusive environment in the residence halls
cannot be realized unless student interactions participate in creating such an environment.
Further inquiry should examine how first year males can be exposed to IE programming sooner at UW-L. First
year male awareness must be done through programming and other learning interactions. Further inquiry should also
examine why second year females disengage with the statement. This may be an issue of creating a representation
that reflects the student experience, or it may be an issue of programming that necessitates an increase in learning
programs. Further inquiry must work in two directions, the first working to produce IE publicity that coordinates IE
leaning programs a,b,c, and d (Villalpando, 2002), and the second continuing to develop IE learning programs.
Further action in the residence halls must work toward generating more quality IE student interaction so that
diversity publicity and programs are working together to fulfill IE learning goals as well as supporting a diverse and
inclusive living environment.

Meister UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research XVII (2014)
7

REFERENCES
Astin, Alexander. Diversity and multiculturalism on the campus: How are students affected? Change, 25. 1993.
Barton, Ellen. Linguistic Discourse Analysis: How the Language in Texts Works. What writing does and how it
does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practice. Ed. Charles Bazerman, Paul Prior. Laurence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.New Jersey. 2003. 57-83. Print.
Bazerman, Charles. What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practice.
Ed. Charles Bazerman and Paul Prior Laurence Erlbaum Associates. Inc., Publishers. New Jersey. 2003. 83-97.
Print.
Center for Advanceing Teaching and Learning (CATL). Inclusive Excellence. Univeristy of Wisconsin-La Crosse.
Web. 1 February, 2014.
Department of Residence Life. Our Mission. University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, 11 October 2012. Web. 1
December 2013.
Leeuwen, Sydney Theo. Discourse and Practice: New Tools For Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford University
Press. 2008. Print.
Villalpando, Octavio. The Impact of Diversity and Multiculturalism on All Students: Findings from a National
Study. In Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice. 20012.
Williams, Margaret. The Effect of a Managing Diversity Policy on Organizational Attractiveness. Group &
Organizational Attractiveness. 19 September 1994. 295-308. Web.

Meister UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research XVII (2014)
8


Appendix

Appendix A
Residence Life Diversity Statement
The Residence Life program is committed to creating living learning environments that help all students feel
welcome and included. This means that we are dedicated to fostering an inclusive environment for students of all
racial/ethnic, cultural, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, ability/disability, and religious backgrounds.
We understand that learning to live in a residence hall community setting that is diverse can be a new and
challenging experience and we strive to offer a variety of programs and services where all students can engage in
understanding and interacting with others who are different than themselves. Our residence life staff, student
leaders, and residents work together to ensure that these values are reflected throughout the residence halls. We
work in concert with various departments across the campus to enhance compliance to these values.

Appendix B
Interview Questions
1. What is your year in school?
2. Have you been involved in a campus organization that has stressed the importance of diversity and
inclusivity? If so, which organizations? What did the inclusion of diversity and inclusivity entail for that
organization?
3. How would you describe the goals of inclusivity and diversity initiatives on campus?
4. Why do you think the concepts of inclusivity and diversity are campus initiatives?
5. How do you see inclusivity and diversity initiatives affecting the campus?
6. Do these initiatives show up in the residence halls? If so, how?
7. Do they also show up in your classes, if so how?
8. If not, why not? And where are the effects?
9. Have inclusivity and diversity initiatives affected you? If so, have these initiatives also affected your view of
diverse groups? If yes, in what ways?

10. If you have a discussion about inclusivity and diversity, what types of topics do you talk about?
11. How do you think your exposure to inclusivity and diversity at UW-L will follow you into your life outside
UW-L and after graduation?
12. I feel _____ about the inclusivity and diversity focus on campus.

Appendix C
Discourse Analysis Coding Criteria
Representation
1. Affirmative. The statement represents actions that promote diversity and inclusion.
2. Affirmative. The statement represents actions and reference program or action context.
3. Negative. The statement inaccurately represents actions to promote diversity and inclusion.
4. Negative. The statement inaccurately represents actions to promote diversity and reference program or action
context.
Promotion
1. There exists a promotion of diversity and inclusion, context of campus or cultural processes.
2. There exists a promotion of diversity and inclusion, context of individual actions.
3. There exists a promotion of diversity and inclusion, context of point-of contact promotion.
4. There exists no active promotion of diversity and inclusion.
Frame of Speech
1. Abstract: use of abstract concepts to describe the carrying out or the effects of the statement.
2. Naturalization or Minimization: suggesting presence, or lack, of diversity is natural or inherently present in
initiatives which have not historically supported diversity and inclusion.
3. Critical view: synthesis of knowledge and/or actions that show an engagement in the topics of diversity.
Meister UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research XVII (2014)
9

4. Accountability: Citing a, b, or c to produce accountability for statements and actions in support of diversity and
inclusion.