E-EQ IIWIIWIUNIWWIHWUIHIUW!HHHHHHWIHHI

THS

   

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

DIVERSITY INITIATIVE OUTCOMES: AN INQUIRY INTO THE
CONSEQUENCES OF ADOPTING MRULE — A SOCIAL
INNOVATION AIMED AT BRIDGING THE RACIAL DIVIDE ON A
COLLEGE CAMPUS

presented by
Nithya Muthuswamy

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MA degree in Communication-Urban Studies

ZM £9.40,

Major Professor’s Signature

 

 

08/08/03

 

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY I
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

NOV 2 33311

\
I A!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRCJDatoDuop65—p. 15

 

DIVERSITY INITIATIVE OUTCOMES: AN INQUIRY INTO THE
CONSEQUENCES OF ADOPTING MRULE — A SOCIAL INNOVATIN AIMED AT
BRIDGING THE RACIAL DIVIDE ON A COLLEGE CAMPUS
By

Nithya Muthuswamy

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Communication-Urban Studies

2003

ABSTRACT
DIVERSITY INITIATIVE OUTCOMES: AN INQUIRY INTO THE
CONSEQUENCES OF ADOPTING MRULE — A SOCIAL INNOVATIN AIMED AT
BRIDGING THE RACIAL DIVIDE ON A COLLEGE CAMPUS
By

Nithya Muthuswamy

This paper views diffusion from the social change perspective and synthesizes literature
on diversity initiatives and diffusion by placing the problems associated with race
relations on campus into Fairweather’s experimental social innovation model. In light of
a lack of emphasis on the study of consequences in both diffusion and diversity
literatures, this paper reports an empirical study of the consequences of participating in
the Multi Racial Unity Living Experience (MRULE) program, an innovative race
relations program in Michigan State University that aims to promote integration among
students. Toward this end, 164 students comprising of participants in the program,
prospective participants of the program, and students who are not a part of the program
were administered a survey to determine differences between these groups in levels of
salience, knowledge, attitudes and overt behaviors related to race. Results suggest that
students in the MRULE program hold significantly more positive attitudes, express
greater interracial behaviors, and possess more accurate knowledge regarding issues
related to race, in comparison to the other two groups. The implications of these findings

are discussed.

COPyright by
NITHYA MUTHUSWAMY
2003

To Dr. Richard Thomas and Dr. Jeanne Gaze] whose contribution

to race relations continues to inspire me

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I could not have successfully completed my thesis without the instrumental
support and guidance of my advisor, Dr. Timothy Levine. I am very thankful to him for
providing me with timely support, direction and confidence that I needed in my very first
research endeavor. I thank Dr. Mary Bresnahan whose insightful comments made a
significant difference to the quality of my work. I am also grateful to Dr. Jeanne Gazel
for having introduced me to MRULE. I appreciate the innumerable hours of valuable
time that she spent with me on this thesis. Once again, I thank my committee for
providing me a wonderful learning experience. I am also grateful to the MRULE student
leaders whose feedback on the questionnaire helped me immensely.

Words alone are not enough to fully express my gratitude to my family — my
parents Geetha, and Muthuswamy, my husband Krishna, and my brother Karthik, who
are my source of comfort, strength and motivation. I thank my father for his keen interest
in all my work, and his critical feedback and insightful comments on my thesis. Our
lengthy discussions on this topic are still fresh in my mind. I am also grateful to my
husband who not just assisted me in data collection, but also encouraged me throughout

the research experience.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................... vii

Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................... 1
Diffusion-A social change perspective ............................................... 3
The social problem: Issue of diversity in higher education ........................ 4
What is racial/ethnic diversity? ........................................................ 6
The creation of innovative models to solve the social problem .................. 9
MRULE - a social innovation in bridging the racial divide ...................... 9

A scientifically credible evaluation of the effectiveness of the innovation.....12
Rogers’s framework for the study of consequences — evaluating MRULE.....14

Chapter 2: Method ............................................................................... 17
Participants ............................................................................... 17
Design ..................................................................................... 18
Procedure ................................................................................. 19
Measures .................................................................................. 20
Chapter 3: Results ................................................................................ 22
Substantive finding ..................................................................... 22
Attitude .......................................................................... 22
Salience ........................................................................... 23
Behavior .......................................................................... 23
Knowledge ....................................................................... 24
Supplemental analysis ................................................................... 25
Chapter 4: Discussion. ........................................................................... 28
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Tables .............................................................................. 40
Appendix B: Survey ............................................................................... 44
REFERENCES .................................................................................... 59

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Demographic Characteristic of Participants
in the Quazi-Experiment ............................................................ 41

Table 2. Mean differences of participants’
Demographics between the three groups .......................................... 42

Table 3. Mean Differences in Dependent
Measures between the Three Groups .............................................. 43

vii

Chapter 1
Introduction
“Invention and diffusion are but means to an ultimate end; the consequences of adoption
of an innovation” (Rogers 1995, p.405).

The diffusion of innovation from a social change perspective aims at the creation
of positive change through the intentional spread of programs or policies aimed at a
solution to a social problem (Mayer & Davidson, 2000). While diffusion research has
focused extensively on attributes of innovations and variables related to the degrees of
innovativeness that explain why individuals adopt an idea or policy, the consequences
accompanying these innovations have received little attention (Rogers, 1995). Thus
research on diffusion of innovations has been predominantly concerned with events prior
to, and including the adoption decision (Blakely et al., 1987). This lack of emphasis on
the post adoption stages of innovations and their consequences blurs the understanding of
the utility of programs and policies in addressing the social problem, and provides little
insight into the advantages and disadvantages experienced by the adopters of the
innovation.

The lack of emphasis on consequences is particularly true within the context of
diversity and multiculturalism, an issue that constitutes one of the most controversial
topics in higher education (Astin, 1993). Institutes of higher learning have been
concerned with the goal of achieving diversity for a long time, but have wrestled with the
means of achieving it. This concern has led to a generation of considerable body of
research that has unearthed the merits associated with numerically racial/ethnic diverse

student and faculty bodies (Alger et al., 2001; Orfield & Miller, 1998). There has also

been a tremendous growth of diversity training workshops and programs that are aimed at
positively influencing the minds of students such that a diverse racial climate on campus
can be created and sustained (Gazel, 2001). Little attention has however been paid to the
assessment of the consequences that participants experience as a result of being involved
in such programs (Neville & Furlong, 1994). This paper presents an empirical study of
the consequences of participating in the Multi Racial Living Unity Experience (MRULE)
program, a social innovation that addresses the issue of racial diversity at Michigan State
University. Specifically, the study focuses on the effects of adopting/participating in
MRULE, on the level of salience, knowledge, implicit attitude and overt behaviors
associated with racial issues.

Towards this end, diffusion is placed in the context of social change, and the stage
model of experimental social innovations is introduced. Based on the framework of this
model, first, the issue of diversity in higher education and the ambiguity in the definition
and operationalization of the term is discussed. Second, race related initiatives that have
been experimented with, on campuses are outlined, and MRULE is introduced as a social
innovation in the field of race relations. Third, the lack of emphasis on consequences of
innovations, the factors responsible for this and the need for such an emphasis are
described. Fourth, Rogers’s paradigm of analyzing consequences is presented and the
research question guiding the evaluation of the MRULE program is introduced. Fifih, the
methodology of the study is outlined and results of this study are presented. This is
followed by a discussion of findings, their implications, and a discussion of the

contribution of these data to diffusion and diversity literature.

Diffusion — A social charge perspective.

Diffusion is defined as the “ acceptance, over time, of some specific item - an idea or
practice, by individuals, groups, or other adopting units, linked by specific channels of
communication, to a social structure, and to a given system of values, or culture” (Katz,
Levin & Hamilton, 1963, p.240). From the social change perspective, this ‘idea’ or
‘practice’ seeks to improve status quo by bringing about modification or changes in the
existing state of affairs. According to this view, the impetus for creation and
implementation of innovations emanate from a basic dissatisfaction with a current
practice, policy or program (Barnett, 1953; Lapiere, 1965).

Dissatisfaction with status quo alone might however, be an insufficient condition
for the creation of desirable/positive change. Since change is often met with resistance by
practitioners, clients, communities who grapple with the uncertainties associated with the
change process a planned and systematic approach that is designed to achieve the goal of
desirable social change is required (Yin, 1978). This approach typically involves the
implementation of “action oriented steps” that facilitate the adoption and execution of
social innovations. The systematic design and implementation of these Sequential steps
geared towards addressing a particular problem through the intentional spread of social
programs have become critical to the process of diffusion (Ettlie, 1980; Mayer &
Davidson, 2000).

Stage models offer one way of understanding the sequences involved in
implementing such diffusive efforts (Fairweather & Tomatzky, 1977). Fairweather’s
framework of experimental social innovation is one such model (Fairweather &

Davidson, 1986). The model explains how diffiision of innovations fit within a sequential

four-phased process of social change. The first stage consists of the creation of innovative
models that are designed to solve a social problem. The second stage is a scientifically
credible evaluation of the effectiveness of the innovation. The third stage comprises of a
limited replication of the innovation, provided there is evidence of a positive assessment
of its effectiveness. And lastly, in the fourth stage, active dissemination or purposeful
attempts to implement the program on a large scale are executed. These four phases
represent an incremental and dynamic process, with each phase dependent on the
previous steps, such that a failure at any phase necessitates reverting to prior phases.
While this model can be criticized because of its source- centered perspective (Tomatzky
et al., 1983) and the fact that change does not necessarily follow such rationality and
reasoning but is often “natural” and unplanned (Eveland et al., 1977), this model
demonstrates the significance of a scientifically credible evaluation of the impact of an
innovation. It also cautions, that overlooking the crucial second stage of this model might
threaten the meaningfirl dissemination of the program in large scale.

The social problem: Issue of diversity; in higher education.

Prior to analyzing the phases in the model in relation to diversity initiatives, a
brief discussion of the problems associated with diversity is relevant. The issue of race on
college campuses has been one of the most profound and controversial topics in higher
education (Astin, 1993). Hacker (1992) suggests that race relations on college campuses
have been reflective of a broader resurgence of racial and ethnic strife in the United
States, especially in the last decade. Thus race relations on campus have been indicative
of the persistence of racism in social structures and interpersonal relationships in the

United States (Hacker, 1992). Enrilich’s (1990, 1992) investigations bear testimony to

this claim. Nearly one million US college students experienced racially or ethnically
motivated violence annually, and most victims did not report these incidents to campus
officials (Enrilich 1990; Enrilich, 1992). Of those who reported these incidents, nearly a
quarter of minority students indicated that they experienced racially or ethnically
motivated assaults, vandalism or harassment and more than half of minority group
members experienced related distress as a result.

The racial tension that was a consistent problem throughout the 19908 was
reflected in the racial climate at Michigan State University as well. As evidence
indicating this, Gazel (2001) details the segregated cafeteria tables, the reactions of
students to the O. J. Simpson verdict in 1995, the scathing letters to the State News
Editor, segregated social settings, and the racial climate in the classrooms that sent
messages to students that “it was easier, safer and more natural to hang out separately”
(13-2).

The direct and inverse relationship between racism on campus and diminished
academic performance (Nettles, 1998), and greater alienation from the institutions
(Cabrera & Nora, 1994), as well as the complexities that arose in the wake of a dramatic
transformation in the composition of the student population in U. S colleges posed
tremendous challenges to higher education administrators (Hansen, Rockwell & Green,
2000). Universities had to contend with the reality that students who had been socially
segregated prior to college, entered universities on separate racial tracks (Gurin, 1999).
Because colleges often provided the first opportunities for students to interact with others
from diverse racial, economic, or national backgrounds (Clements, 2000), new strategies

that effectively understand and address the racial divide became critical. The changing

demographics on campuses made it imperative for Michigan State and other universities
to equip students with necessary skills that would enable them to deal with an
increasingly diverse society.

Consequently, diversity became a buzzword in the 19908 and was upheld as one
of the important values in educational institutions (Gazel, 2001). This phenomenon is
evident in literature. Researchers began to unearth scientifically, the merits associated
with the goal of diversity. A substantial number of expert reports and testimonies that
verified the overall benefits of a diverse college campus in determining learning
outcomes were generated (Smith, 1997). Data consistently suggested that university
programs emphasizing diversity in a ‘student-centered’ environment where faculty took a
personal interest in the student’s learning showed more positive outcomes for the overall
educational experience (Chang, 1997; Marayuma & Moreno, 2001).

What is racial/ethnic diversity?

Despite its popularity in usage, there is considerable ambiguity that surrounds the
definition and operationalization of the term ‘diversity’ in research and practice (Gazel,
2001; Hurtado, 1997). This ambiguity makes it difficult for scholars and practitioners to
create and sustain and study an environment that espouses diversity, and fiirther poses
constraints on the effective evaluation of ‘diversity’ based initiatives. In the absence of
clarity of a sound definition, it becomes difficult to associate potential effects/outcomes
to any diversity-based initiatives. In short, an accurate assessment of the consequences of
‘diversity’ initiatives is threatened.

Several meanings of the term are employed in literature and practice. Racial or

ethnic diversity has been widely used in the context of affirmative action struggles. In

this light, diversity has been defined in numerical terms, referring to the proportion of
students of color admitted and retained in universities. The association of diversity with
the controversial issue of affirmative action has often meant that diversity is understood
by many as concerning minority students alone (Gazel, 2001). This ‘minority focus’ is
apparent in many of the university-based ‘diversity’ initiatives that stress recruitment,
retention, financial assistance, and developmental programs for minorities (Spitzburg &
Thorndike, 1992). An unanticipated consequence of such an emphasis, often results in
white students and students of color feeling, and remaining socially segregated. (Gazel,
2001)

Most importantly, an emphasis on numerical diversity alone, does not guarantee a
diverse campus. Because interactions between different groups do not take place on their
own, the mere existence of a numerically diverse group is not a sufficient guarantee for a
diverse campus (Yales, 2000). Gurin (1999) articulates three different types of diversity
that brings out this crucial point. “Structural diversity”, according to Gurin (1999) is
defined in numerical terms and refers to the extent to which a campus has a diverse
student body. On the other hand, “Classroom diversity” refers to the extent to which
knowledge about diverse groups and issues relating to diversity is included and discussed
as a part of the curriculum in classrooms. Gurin (1999) contrast these definitions of
diversity with “informal interaction diversity,” that is conceptualized as the extent to
which campuses provided opportunities for informal interaction across diverse groups.

Drawing from the contact theory (Allport, 1954), Gurin (1999) found that
structural diversity was necessary, but insufficient in producing benefits to its

stakeholders, and that it was informal interactional diversity that was positively

 

associated with learning outcomes such as increased active thinking, academic
engagement, participation in citizenship activities, and greater appreciation for
differences. According to Vontress (1996), it is through interactions that students learn
how to relate to one another across personal differences. By engaging in the process of
knowledge exchange of different people and their cultures, participants gradually learn to
challenge stereotypes. Therefore, many researchers (e. g., McAllister & Irvine, 2002;
Smith, 1997; Pascarella et al., 1996) support the claim that if diversity is not brought
forth through interaction, it is in fact meaningless to consider a class or a campus as
diverse. Thus the literature strongly indicates that the notion of diversity entails benefits
to the extent that diversity is defined and operationalized as a communicative
phenomenon, rooted in the nature of the interaction. This paper endorses this view, and
conceptualizes racial diversity in terms of interactional diversity, which is characterized
by the extent to which students are aware and accepting of the likeness and differences of
each other (V ontress, 1996).

Interactional diversity is not common in campuses today. Based on the racial
clusters that are typically observed in classrooms and cafeterias, Gazel (2001), Gurin,
(2001) and Yales (2000) observe that it is common for students to be socially segregated,
and that few white students and students of color share meaningful interracial
connections that enhance their educational experience. In other words, there appears to be
a wide gap between the desirable effects associated with interactional diversity, and the
practice of such a phenomena in reality. Universities have addressed this gap by creating
various platforms that allow meaningful experiences for students with their peers of

different backgrounds.

The creation of innovative models to solve the soLal problem

Campus diversity programs have mushroomed over the last decade, creating “a
plethora of diversity training workshops” (Gazel, 2001). These initiatives typically take
the form of inter-group race relations dialogues in and outside classrooms (Springer et
al., 1996). These interactional diversity initiatives often involve the comprehension of the
historical and cultural contexts of different racial/ethnic groups, based on the premise that
such knowledge would enhance one’s understanding about individuals who belonged to
the particular group. However, because this approach incorporated issues on oppression
and marginalization of several groups in the United States, it caused discomfort in the
minds of participants. Consequently, many diversity-training programs became unpopular
and withdrew from educating around race (Thomas, 1996).

Nonetheless, many universities upheld the value of racial and ethnic interactional
diversity by creating and retaining several efforts. These efforts typically revolved around
conducting one shot voluntary programs, encouraging faculty to present academic
programs in residence halls, and conducting activities initiated by campus wide
committees or the student affairs to encourage minority leadership and multicultural
understanding (Marklein, 1998). Typically, these initiatives reflect a combination of
efforts that are designed to promote structural as well as interactional diversity; some
with a deliberate minority focus and others that take a broader and more inclusive

approach.

MRULE — a social innoxgtion in bridging the racial divide
The Multi Racial Living Unity Experience (MURLE) program that began in 1996

was initiated by Dr. Jeanne Gazel and Dr. Richard Thomas, faculty members with the

departments of History and Urban Studies at Michigan State University, with the help of
a strong of institutional commitment to promote race relations on campus. MRULE was
created to promote integration among students by building a multi-racial community of
students from diverse backgrounds at Michigan State University (MRULE brochure,
2001). At MRULE, numerically diverse groups of students come together to engage in
non-threatening round table dialogues held in their dormitories, once a week, throughout
the academic year. In these sessions, students discuss issues related to race, and connect
these issues to their own current and future lives, while simultaneously unearthing
historical facts associated with these issues. Peer leaders who are groomed to be student
leaders in a rigorous training program, facilitate these dialogues. These discussions form
the center of knowledge gain and attitude change among the students (Gazel, 2001).

In addition to round table dialogues, students engage in monthly socials that are
designed to offer a congenial platform wherein they get an opportunity to know their
peers as individuals and build ‘genuine’ relationships with them (Gazel, 2001). To
strengthen the emerging interracial friendship networks, and to learn about the
multicultural history and culture of this nation, students make trips to a metropolitan area
once a year. Further, participants also get involved in community service at least once
every semester. By engaging in these four components of the program that are designed
to build a community of diverse students, participants explore their own knowledge and
attitudes related to race. This exploration is expected to translate into practice/ behavior,
such that each participant becomes a change agent impacting race relations proactively in
his or her own way. In short, MRULE seeks to enhance participants’ knowledge about

race related issues, promote positive attitudes towards people who belong to different

10

racial backgrounds, highlight the importance of racial issues in various contexts of one’s
life, and most importantly encourage its participants to interact with members of diverse
groups.

MRULE can be regarded as a social innovation in the field of diversity initiatives
on campus for several reasons. First, it is a unique program in the field of race relations
because it offers a coordinated and a multi-pronged approach towards the creation and
sustenance of interactional diversity by permeating various aspects of the life of a I

student. The MRULE approach is holistic and goes beyond spreading awareness about

 

race related issues, or changing attitudes of students towards race alone. Rather the goal "*
is to build a community of students across racial/ethnic groups who form genuine

relationships with each other. This approach offers a contrast to most campus diversity

initiatives that are typically piecemeal, uncoordinated, and lacking the ability to influence

the totality of the life of a student on campus (Brown, 1998).

Second, the methodology employed by MRULE also distinguishes it from other
race relations programs. Unique to MRULE is its approach of encouraging participants to
apply race related facts and issues to their own lives. By making connections between
their day-to-day perceptions and experiences with friends and families, and the history
that underlies common racial attitudes and practices, the program is made meaningfiil to
the lives of students. Because of this unique approach, MRULE is a synthesis of theory
and practice (Gazel, 2001). As a result, participants in MRULE are not merely exposed to
a race-relations program but rather go through an experience of self-discovery and
growth. Third, the channel that MRULE uses to educate participants around racial issues

are students themselves. This peer-to-peer educating has proved powerful tool in

11

educating students around race because participants develop close ties, and identify with
their students leaders, who also serve as a role model for them. This coupled with the
voluntary nature of the program gives students the space to make themselves comfortable
in processing the import of the discussion and activities, as well as participating in them.
Fourth, because of the above reasons, MRULE is a novel experience to its participants,
therefore making it an innovation in the eyes of the adopters of the program.

A scientifically credible evalu_ation of the effectiveness of the innovation.

The question remains however, whether interactional diversity efforts like
MRULE and others indeed have yielded desirable consequences, such that it is reflected
in the level of salience attributed to race by the participants, as well as their knowledge,
attitudes and behaviors related to race. With few exceptions (e. g. Facing History, 2002;
Smith, 1992), empirical studies on consequences of such programs in terms of their
impact on the participants are lacking (Neville & Furlong, 1994). Several reasons might
account for this. It is plausible that evaluations are conducted at the university level but
are not published in journals, making access difficult for the academic body at large.
Alternatively, the lack of emphasis on consequences of social programs could be
reflective of the dearth of research on consequences in diffusion literature.

Rogers (1995) observes that studies on costs and gains that individuals experience
as a result of adopting an innovation have received little attention from diffusion
researchers. This observation spans across various fields, and is applicable to both
tangible innovations, as well as social innovations such as policies and social programs.
For example, in the social sector, Racine (1998) observes that crucial information needed

by stakeholders to judge whether a social program is replicable or not is lacking. The

12

lack of emphasis on consequences is also observed among change agents who often
assume that innovations automatically imply betterment (Smith et. al., 1996). Change
agents, who often sponsor diffusion research, overemphasize adoption, and make implicit
and often false assumptions about the need for such innovations and the benefits
associated with its adoption to the various stakeholders involved. This ‘pro-innovation
bias, or the tendency of innovation creators and change agencies to assume that the
adoption of a given social innovation would produce only beneficial results for adopters
is well documented (Rogers, 1995). This could be especially true in the case of diversity
based social innovations, given that the goal of diversity is highly valued, and yet
consistent ambiguity exists in the meaning of the diversity, and the means to achieve it
(Astin, 1993).

In addition to the factors outlined above, lack of studies on consequences of
innovation might be accounted for, in part by the complexities involved in the
measurement of consequences. Since social programs focus on changes in behavioral
intent, this becomes hard to identify, quantify and measure (Racine, 1998). Maj or
methodological criticism of literature on consequences also includes lack of predictive
designs, lack of meaningful criteria employed to evaluate programs, unreplicablity of
measurement, and the predominance of case studies dealing with only a single adopter or
a handful of adopters (Mayer & Davidson, 2000). Further, it is extremely difficult to
separate the impact of a program from the effects of other confounding variables that
impact individual behavior. Threats to internal validity, like history, maturation,
selection, make it difficult to establish a causal relationship between the social innovation

and its consequences. For example, in evaluating the impact of a prejudice reduction

13

program on the participants, Neville & Furlong (1994) conclude that although positive,
the findings could reflect students’ preexisting desire and receptivity to learn about
racism.

Despite these factors that inhibit a systematic study of consequences, the need for
such studies cannot be overemphasized. In the absence of such studies, there is little
clarity about the efficacy of social programs, and an understanding of the consequences it
entails to its participants/adopters. As a result, the successfiil implementation of the third
and the fourth stages as of purposive diffusion that depends on the efficacy of the
previous two stages in F airweather’s model are threatened. In addition, it becomes
increasingly difficult to obtain information on “best practices” (Dearing, 2002), that are
vital in addressing social problems effectively, and replicating successful efforts.
figers’s frameworm the study of consequences — evaluating MRULE.

Rogers (1995) defines consequences as changes that occur to an individual or to a
social system as a result of the adoption or rejection of an innovation. In the event of an
innovation being a social innovation (innovative program or a policy), a study of
consequences is an investigation into whether a program caused ‘demonstrable effects’
on specifically defined target outcomes. In other words, it is a judgment about the
effectiveness of the effort, and an assessment of whether the program achieved its
objectives. Outcome evaluations that examine the immediate effects of the program on
the target audience in terms of the increased awareness of the content, changes in
knowledge, attitudes and behavior of the participants mirror the studies of consequences

of social innovations (Rossi & Freeman, 1985).

14

Rogers (1995) categorizes consequences of innovations in terms of the
desirability of their effects, the directness of their impact, and the anticipation of effects
that are associated with the innovation. Desirable and undesirable consequences refer to
the functional and the dysfunctional effects of an innovation as perceived by the
individual or a social system, which adopts the innovation. Direct consequences are the

“6'

changes to an individual or a social system as a result of the Immediate response” to '
innovations. Indirect consequences are the changes to an individual or a social system ~

that occur as a result of the direct consequences of innovations. Thus, according to

 

Rogers, “they are consequences of consequences”. Lastly, Rogers distinguishes between
anticipated and unanticipated consequences. Anticipated consequences refer to changes
brought about by an innovation that are recognized and intended by members of a social
system, while unanticipated consequences are changes in individuals that are neither
intended nor recognized by members of a social system. According to Rogers,
consequences are a summation of these components such that the undesirable, indirect
and unanticipated consequences of an innovation go together with the desirable, direct
and anticipated consequences.

Based on Roger’s categorization of consequences, an inquiry into the
consequences of adopting MRULE is proposed. This study examines the direct and
anticipated consequences of MRULE in terms of its impact on salience, knowledge,
implicit attitudes and behavior of its adopters/students. MRULE is designed (anticipated)
to achieve direct effects on its participants such that they exhibit enhanced levels of
knowledge, higher salience towards racial issues, and positive attitudes and behaviors

related to race. Therefore, an inquiry into the effects of MRULE on these four outcomes

15

(attitudes, salience, behaviors and knowledge) on participants is an examination of the
direct and anticipated consequences of the program. Specifically, this study seeks to
answer the following question:

RQl. Are there significant differences between MRULE participants and non-participants

in levels of knowledge, attitude, and behaviors and salience related to race?

16

Chapter 2
Method
Participants

One hundred and sixty-seven students (115 females, 48 males) at Michigan State
University completed a questionnaire measuring attitude, salience, behaviors and
knowledge related to race. Of these, data from three students were excluded from
analysis because they failed to follow the instructions on the questionnaire. Of the
remaining 164 participants, 53 students (32.32%) who were not a part of MRULE
comprised of the control group (control group). The comparison group consisted of 76
students (46.34%) who had just joined the program two weeks prior to the administration
of the survey (new recruits). Thirty-five students (21.34%) who had been participants of
the MRULE program for two years (between 2000-2002) prior to the collection of data
constituted the treatment group (MRULE participants group). This figure does not
include student leaders of MRULE who did not participate in this study.

A detailed description of the demographics of participants in each group is
presented in Table 1. The majority of participants in the study were seniors (n = 65,
39.6%), followed by freshmen (n = 41, 25%), juniors (n == 30, 18.3%), sophomores (n =
20, 12.2%), and graduate students (n = 5, 3.0%). Of the total sample, 101 students
(61.6%) were Caucasians, 29 (17.7%), were African Americans, and the rest were
Hispanics, Asians, Middle Easterners and students who identified themselves as biracial
(Others). Five participants did not report their racial group affiliation, while five others

reported that they belonged to the ‘human race’.

17

The control group comprised of 20 males and 33 females. The majority of them
were seniors (n = 47), followed by juniors and graduate students (n = 5). One participant
in this group failed to report their school year. There were 41 Caucasians, three African
Americans, two non-listed, and seven students who belonged to the ‘other’ category in
the control group. In the New recruits group, which was comprised of 24 males and 51
females, (one unlisted) there were 41 freshmen, 26 sophomores and juniors, and eight
seniors and graduate students. In this group, 42 participants were Caucasian, 16 African
American, 16 belong to the ‘other’ category, and two who were unlisted. In the MRULE
participants group, there were 31 females, and four males (one unmarked) who were
juniors (n = 14), seniors (n = 13) and sophomores (n = 7). One participant failed to
indicate his/her school year. In this group, 18 participants were Caucasians, 10 students
were African American, and six belonged to the ‘other’ category. One participant in this
group failed to‘identify his/her racial category.

De_siga

A three-group post test only quazi-experiment with an offset control group was
designed to assess the anticipated and direct consequences of MRULE. The researcher
examined the relationship between membership in MRULE (Independent Variable) and
scores on a questionnaire measuring, race related salience, knowledge and behavior and
attitudes (dependent variables) of non-participants and participants. Thus scores obtained
by the control group, the new recruits and the MRULE participants were assessed for
potential differences on measures of salience, knowledge, behavior and attitudes related

to race.

18

Procedure

Prior to the quazi-experiment, a preliminary analysis was conducted by the
researcher to gather detailed information on the MRULE program, its purpose, history
and approach. A qualitative technique of data collection was employed. The researcher
went over artifacts, (Gazel, 2001), and conducted interviews with Dr. Gazel, the director
of the program in summer, 2001. In addition, the researcher became a participant
observer of the MRULE weekly round tables held in one of the dormitories in the campus
of Michigan State University through the fall semester, 2001. Participants were not aware
of the research interests of the experimenter. Based on the data obtained from these
qualitative sources, the researcher was able to narrow down the thrust of the program, and
evolve the criteria for evaluating MRULE. Four outcomes were decided upon for the
evaluation of the program and scales devised to measure them were designed.

Next, the measures were pilot tested on MRULE student leaders (I: = 11), to
determine if the items on the scales reflected accurately the thrust of the program, and
whether items were easy to comprehend. Some scale items were reworded based on the
feedback that was obtained.

In fall 2002, two weeks after the MRULE program was underway, the researcher
along with a research assistant went into the MRULE meeting rooms in each of the five
residence halls in which MRULE operates. These were either on Mondays or Tuesdays,
depending on when each group met for their weekly round table discussions. In these
round tables, participants who had been a part of the MRULE program (MRULE
participants group) as well as students who were just beginning their experience (new

recruits group) gathered together to discuss issues related to race. Prior to the start of their

19

discussion, the researcher introduced herself as a student who was interested in studying
issues related to race. The researcher then requested the students present to fill out a
‘survey on race relations’. The participants were not informed that this was an evaluation
of the MRULE program. Though it was mentioned that it was not mandatory for them to
fill out the survey, all participants came forward and completed the questionnaire. The
participants were thanked for their time, and debriefed. Data were collected over a span
of two weeks. The control group participants were drawn from an undergraduate class at
Michigan State University. The procedure followed was similar to the new recruit groups
and the MRULE participants group.
Measures

In this study, salience is defined as the degree of importance that participants
attribute to diversity related issues. Knowledge is conceptualized in terms of facts that
deal with important historic and current race related issues. Racial attitudes are defined as
the perceiver’s evaluations, including thoughts and emotions, towards social objects that
are deemed as either favorable or unfavorable (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Shuman,
1995). Behaviors are defined as overt day-to-day interracial actions and activities in
which participants engage. A questionnaire measuring the four dependent variables was
constructed (See Appendix A). The questionnaire draws in part from the Modern racism
scale (McConahay, 1996), Discrimination and Diversity Scales (Wittenbrink et al., 1997),
Student Racism scale (Boneicki, 1996), Anti Black and Pro Black Scale (Katz & Hass,
1988) and the Stephan’s (2001) “Survey for use in evaluating dialogue programs”.

The attitude scales consisted of 27 items. Three items were deleted because they

failed to contribute to scale reliability and one item was excluded from the scale because

20

of lack of variance in responses. The attitude scale was assessed with a 3-point response
format in which respondents were required to agree, disagree or mark ‘unsure, against a
set of declarative statements. The alpha coefficient for the attitude scale was .82. The
salience scale which consisted of fifteen items is assessed with a 3-point response format,
in which respondents had to choose between ‘yes’, ‘no; or ‘unsure’ options in responding
to a set of declarative statements. One item was deleted from the scale because it failed to
contribute to item reliability. The coefficient alpha for the salience scale was .90. Two
different measures were constructed to detect behaviors related to race. They were the
reported frequency of activities with members of other racial groups, and a generic
measure of behaviors related to racial issues. The behavioral scale was assessed with a
Likert type 5- point response format ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’.
The coefficient alpha for the scale measuring reported frequency of activities with
members of other racial groups was .95. The second measure designed to assess generic
behaviors of participants related to racial issues, comprised of 22 items and had a
reliability index of .89. The knowledge scale comprised of 18 items in which respondents
chose between ‘true’ ‘ ’false’ or ‘don’t know’ options. The scale had coefficient alpha of
.72. The distribution of responses to each of these scales approximated normality. In
addition to the scales, the questionnaire also sought demographic information from the
respondents. This included information on reasons why participants chose to join
MRULE, percentages of members from different racial backgrounds that constituted

one’s school and neighborhood, and prior exposure to race.

21

Chapter 3
Results
Substantive findings
To test the impact of MRULE on the four dependent measures, data obtained
from the three groups were subject to a one-way analysis of variance test examining the
equality between means. Post hoc analysis with Tukey b was conducted to determine

potential differences between groups. Table 2 provides a summary of the results.

mm

Significant differences between the three groups were found in attitude towards
racial issues, F (2, 161) = 20.36, p = .0001, n2 = .20. Participants in the control group (N
=53, M = 0.33, SD = 0.32) expressed significantly less positive attitudes towards racial
issues in comparison to participants in the new recruits group (N = 76, M = 0.57, SD =
0.25), mean difference: - 0.23, p = .0001, as well as the MRULE participants group (N =
35, M = 0.70, SD = 0.27), mean difference = - 0.37, p = .001. The differences between
the new recruits group and the MRULE participants group were also significant, mean
difference = -0.14, p = .02

A supplemental analysis was conducted on the item that was deleted because of
lack of variance. In responding to the statement ‘some races are genetically superior to
others’ only 6 participants in the entire sample expressed agreement. Of the six who
agreed, two participants belonged to the control group, four to the new recruits group.

None of the participants belonging to the MRULE participants group.

22

SEEM.

A one-way AN OVA revealed significant differences between groups in levels of
salience attributed to issues dealing with race, F (2, 161) = 21.72, p = .0001, n2 = .21.
Participants in the new recruits group (N = 76, M = 0 .54, SD = 0.43) attributed
significantly more importance to racial issues in various contexts when compared to
participants in the control group (N = 53, M = .06 SD = 0 .55), mean difference = 0. 48, p
= .0001. Likewise, participants in the MRULE group (N = 35, M = .65, SD = 0 .44) also
exhibited significantly more importance to racial issues than control group participants,
mean difference = 0.59, p = .0001. While participants in the MRULE group attributed
higher levels of salience to racial issues when compared to the new recruits, the
differences in means between these two groups was not significant, mean difference =
0.1 1, p = .28.

Behavior

The scores on the generic behavior scale that were subject to a one way ANOVA
indicated significant differences between groups, F (2, 161) = 20.03, p = .001, n2: .20. In
the control group, participants (N =53, M = 2.82, SD = 0.55) reported that they engaged
in common actions and activities with members of different groups in their every day life
significantly less often than participants in the new recruits group (N = 76, M = 3.24, SD
= 0.66), mean difference = - 0.42, p =. 0001, as well as the MRULE participants group (N
= 35, M= 3.63, SD = 0.54), mean difference = - 0.81,p = .0001. The MRULE
participants reported that they engaged in such behaviors more often than the new

recruits, mean difference = - 0.39, p = .002.

23

For the scale measuring frequency with which individuals indulged in specific
activities with others fi'om different racial backgrounds, the AN OVA test revealed
significant differences between groups, F (2, 161) = 5.51, p = .005, n2 = .06. Compared
to the new recruits (N = 76, M = 2.74, SD= 0.81), MRULE participants (N = 35, M =
3.09, SD = 0.70) were significantly more likely to engage in various types of activities
with members of a different racial/ethnic background (mean difference = 0.35, p = .02).
Also, the control group participants (N = 53, M = 2.56, SD = 0. 62) were significantly less
likely to engage in various types of activities with members of other racial backgrounds
when compared to participants in the MRULE group, mean difference = -0.52, p = .001.
There was no significant difference in means between the new recruits group and the
control group, mean difference = 0.18, p= .17.

Knowledge

Analysis of the knowledge scores obtained by participants revealed significant
differences between groups, F (2, 161) = 23.86, p = .0001, 112: .23. The control group (N
= 53, M = 0.20, SD = 0.29) differed significantly in knowledge when compared to the
new recruits group (N = 76, M = 0.34, SD = 0.27), and the MRULE participants group (N
= 35, M = 0.61, SD = 0.28) Thus, participants in the control group were significantly less
aware of facts related to race relations, in comparison to participants in new recruits
group (mean difference = - 0.14, p =. 004), and the MRULE group, mean difference =

- 0.41, p = .0001 Similarly, the difference in knowledge scores between the new recruits

and the MRULE participants was also significant, mean difference = - 0.27, p = .0001.

24

Supplemental analysis

Additional analyses were conducted to determine if the three groups in the quazi-
experiment were comparable on certain relevant attributes. Table 3 provides a detailed
description of the differences in demographics between participants within each of the
three groups.

For an assessment of potential differences in reasons for joining MRULE, the new
recruits group was compared with the MRULE participants group. Chi-square test
revealed that participants in the two groups were equally likely to join the program
because of personal interests, x2 (1, N = 111) = 2.91, p = .09, and were equally likely in
both the groups to have been attracted to the program because their fiiend told them
about it, x2 (1, N = 111) = 0.068, p =.79. The between group differences among
participants on their exposure to race prior to Michigan State University, was also not
statistically significant, x2 (2, N = 161) = 2.11, p = .35.

A one-way ANOVA to test for potential differences between groups in
neighborhood demographics that participants belonged revealed significant differences, F
(2, 150) = 3.08, p = .05, n2 = .04. Post hoc analyses were conducted on responses to an
item that asked participants to report approximate percentages of people belonging to
different racial groups who occupied their neighborhood. A comparison of control group
participants (N = 50, M = 17.14, SD = 25.00) and the new recruits group (N = 70, M=
31.39, SD = 34.07) revealed that the difference was significant (mean difference = -
14.25, p = .02). The difference between the new recruits group (N = 70 M = 31.39, SD =
34.08) and MRULE participants group (N = 33, M = 27.67 SD = 33.81) was not

significant, mean difference = 3.72, p = .58. Likewise, the difference between the

25

MRULE participants group and the control group was also not significant, mean
difference = 10.53,p = .14.

The three groups were also analyzed to assess potential differences in the
demographics that characterized high schools that participants attended, to examine if
participants attended schools in which most students were predominantly people of color,
white, or multiracial. Participants reported their answers in a four- point response format,
ranging fi'om predominantly people of color, to predominantly white distribution. A one-
way ANOVA revealed no significant differences between the three groups, F (2, 158) =
.93, p = .40, n2 = .01. Further, participants were also asked to self-report their racial
affiliation. Based on the responses of the participants, eight categories were created (see
Table 1). The differences observed in the racial demographics within each group were not
significantly different from the demographics across the three groups, x2 (14, N = 164)
=16.96,p = .26.

With regard to economic background of participants, differences in income levels
(as measured by family annual income) were elicited on a 4-point response format
ranging from ‘under $ 30,000’ to ‘above $ 120,000’. The differences in income levels of
families of participants between the three groups were statistically significant, F (2, 154)
= 3.89, p = .02, n2 = .05. Post hoc tests indicated that the control group participants (N =
51, M: 3.49, SD =l.16) were significantly different from the new recruits (N = 72, M =
2.93, SD = 1.24), mean difference = 0.56, p = .01. The control group also differed
Significantly from the MRULE participants group on income levels, mean difference =

0.58, p = .03. The mean difference on income between the new recruits group and the

26

MRULE participants group (N = 34, M = 2.91, SD = 1.14) was not statistically significant
(mean difference = 0.02, p = .94).

The proportion of males and females did not significantly differ between
the three groups, x2 (4, N = 164) = 8.67, p = .07. There was a significant difference
between the three groups in the participants’ year at school, F (2, 159) =90.60, p = .0001,
n2 = .53. MRULE participants were at a significantly higher level in their undergraduate
education than the new recruits (mean difference = 1.32) and were at a significantly
lower level of undergraduate year in comparison to the control group (mean difference =
- 0.80, p = .0001). Further, the control group participants were at a significantly higher
educational year than the new recruits (mean difference = 2.13, p=. 0001).

Finally, an Analysis of Covariance was performed controlling for reasons why
people join MRULE, differences in income levels, levels of education, the proportion of
racial exposure prior to college, and their neighborhood and school demographics. This

test revealed that the effects of the MRULE program remained significant.

27

Chapter 4
Discussion

This paper offers a social change perspective of diffusion of innovations, and
presents a synthesis of literature on diversity initiatives and diffusion. This synthesis is
achieved by placing the problems associated with race relations on campus, and the lack
of the study of consequences of diversity initiatives into Fairweather’s (1986)
experimental social innovation model. In the context of this model, the problem of race
relations on college campuses, and the lack of clarity on the conceptual and operational
definition of ‘diversity’ were discussed. In this study, diversity is defined in terms of the
extent to which platforms for interactions across racial/ethnic lines are made available
and utilized on college campuses. Solutions that promote interactional diversity are
reviewed and the MRULE program is introduced as one alternative to bridging the racial
divide. The rationale for MRULE being a social innovation in the field of race relations
was presented.

In an attempt to bridge the gap in diffusion research and diversity studies, an
inquiry into the consequences of participating in MRULE was explored. Roger’s
categorizations of the study of consequences is outlined, and based on this framework, an
investigation into the direct and anticipated consequences of MRULE is conducted.
Specifically, this study examined whether the levels of knowledge, salience, attitude, and
behaviors (related to race), of participants who have undergone the MRULE experience
are significantly different from participants who have not yet adopted the program. To
answer this research question, students who have been part of the MRULE program for

two years were compared to students who have just begun the program, on scores

28

obtained from a questionnaire measuring attitude, behavior, salience and knowledge
related to racial issues. Further, a control group comprising of students who were not a
part of the program was included in the design.

Data analysis revealed that the MRULE program did indeed make a positive
difference on participants’ racial attitudes, knowledge and behaviors. Evidence to this
claim is demonstrated by data that indicated that program participants were significantly
and substantially more knowledgeable on racial issues, more positive in their attitudes
towards race, and also exhibited more pro-interracial behaviors, in comparison to those
who were not a part of the program, as well as those who just begun their experience in
the program.

Scores on the salience scale indicated that students in MRULE attributed higher
levels of importance to race related issues in various contexts, in comparison to those
who were not participants of the program (control group). However, attributions of
salience to race related issues by MRULE participants was not significantly higher in
than those indicated by the participants who were just beginning the program (the new
recruits group). The non- significant differences in scores on the salience scales between
the beginners of the program and the MRULE participants suggests that MRULE did not
significantly impact students in terms of highlighting the importance of racial issues in
the lives of participants.

The attitudes of students in the MRULE program were significantly more positive
towards issues related to race, in comparison to non-participants and students who were
just beginning the program. The robust effect size of 0.20 attests the impact of MRULE

on the racial attitudes of students. Thus the MRULE program was successful in molding

29

students’ attitudes positively towards race related issues. An analysis of the deleted item
is consistent with this claim. No MRULE student agreed to the statement that endorsed
biological superiority of certain races.

To examine if MRULE enhanced its participants’ awareness and accuracy of
knowledge related to racial issues, a knowledge scale comprising of 18 items was
constructed. As observed from the scores obtained by participants on the scale, students
in MRULE were much more accurately aware of facts related to racial history and current
events in comparison to beginners and non-participants of the MRULE program. Thus
MRULE students were more aware of the GI Bill and its implications, meaning of
affirmative action and the differences between affirmative action and diversity, than the
new recruits or the control group participants. Of the total variance in students’
knowledge related to race, MRULE accounted for a substantial 23% of the variance.

To test for potential differences in overt behaviors that participants in the three
groups engaged, the generic behaviors scale was constructed with items that tapped
students’ day-to-day actions/activities in relation to racial issues in various contexts. Post
hoc tests indicated that students in the MRULE program engaged in such behaviors most
often, in comparison to the new recruits as well as the control group students. The control
group participants, who were not a part of the program reported to engage in such
behaviors least often in comparison to the other two groups. The effect sizes that
demonstrated the impact of MRULE on race-related behaviors was 0.20.

The second scale that was constructed to measure reported frequency of activities
that students were involved in, with people from a different/racial ethnic background

indicated strongly that the MRULE program students were proactively involved in multi-

30

racial and multi-ethnic interactions in comparison to the other two groups. For example,
students of MRULE in general were more likely to work together in organizations to
improve race relations in their communities, intervene if a member of a racial group was
unfairly criticized or go out on dates, live together and visit homes of people from
different racial ethnic backgrounds, in comparison to the control group and the new
recruit participants. The differences in frequency of such behaviors between participants
in the control and the new recruits group were not statistically significant. In other words,
the new recruits group and the control group did not differ in their frequency of
interactions with members of different racial groups and were both engaged in such
actions significantly less often than the MRULE participants group. Therefore the
yardstick employed to measure the crux of interactional diversity - the extent to which
individuals engage in interactions with members of a different racial /ethnic background,
strongly indicated that MRULE participants stood out in comparison to the incoming
students and also the non-participants. This suggests that MRULE was successful in
making the difference by building and fostering a climate in which these interactions
were created and nurtured.

In short, results strongly indicate that the direct and anticipated impact of the
MRULE program on the levels of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of participants are
‘real’. MRULE appears to be highly successful in achieving its objectives. However, in
order to claim unequivocally that it was indeed MRULE that ‘caused’ the effect on the
dependent measures, it is important to rule out alternative explanations that might
account for the pattern of data observed. One of the plausible alternative explanations that

might be able to account for the data is selection bias. In the absence of random

31

assignment to the three conditions, it is plausible that participants who were attracted to
MRULE groups self selected themselves, and therefore, the scores on the dependent
measures could have been more positively associated with racial issues even without the
program intervention. While an experiment that allows for random assignment would
have ruled out this alternative explanation to a large extent, the use of a control group in
this quazi-experiment, as well as the background information check attributes, allows for
the assessment of this alternative explanation.

Assume for instance that the selection bias was not operating, and that it was
MRULE alone that accounted for the differences in measures between the three groups. If
this were the case, then the control group and the new recruits group should have had
similar attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge related to race within sampling error. This is
because both the groups were ‘equally’ unexposed to the program. This ‘equality’ is
observed in case of the fiequency of behavior scale, in which participants both the groups
were not significantly different from each other, and were simultaneously lower in
comparison to scores obtained by MRULE participants.

However, the significant differences between control group and the new recruits
group on the other dependent measures suggests that a selection bias was operating,
casting doubt on the ‘real’ effects of the program. These data suggest that students who
chose to join MRULE were ‘different’ in that they were typically more positive in their
attitude, and generic behaviors related to racial issues to begin with, and that these
positive attitudes and behaviors could be created and sustained regardless of the program
intervention. Thus the current data are consistent with self-selection effects. The question

of relevance, however, is whether self-selection, or the ‘differences’ in students’

32

predetermined attitudes, generic behaviors and knowledge between the three groups
implies that MRULE did not have any effect on the minds of participants. A comparative
analysis of the scores obtained by participants in the comparison group, and the treatment
group gives Sheds light on this question.

Assume that MRULE did not make any difference to students’ attitude, generic
behaviors and knowledge related to race. If this were the case, then the scores of the new
recruits group and the MRULE participants group on these dependent measures should
have been more or less equal. This is not however the case. Participants who have
undergone the MRULE program have significantly more positive attitudes towards race,
engage more frequently in behaviors involving interracial interactions, and are more
knowledgeable about facts related to current and historical race related issues, in
comparison to participants who have just joined the program. The differences between
the two groups, both of which self selected themselves to be a part of MRULE, reveals
the impact of the MRULE program on the minds of the participants, in the relative
absence of self-selection. Thus the current data are consistent with both self-selection
effects and the effectiveness of MRULE. At a minimum, data suggests that MRULE
impacts those who have self-selected to be a part of the program.

The question remains however, if there might be other factors associated with
selection, that make the new recruits group different from the MRULE participants
group, such that these factors, and not MRULE, account for the differences in results
observed. First, because the comparison group is constituted by students who also
volunteered to be a participant of the program (similar to the treatment group), self-

selection as a bias in interpreting the results of the study is controlled to a considerable

33

extent. But how plausible is it for a group volunteering to join MRULE in one year to be
significantly different from a group of student opting to be a part of MRULE the next
year, on factors that might explain the pattern of data obtained. The background
information elicited from participants provides further insight into this question. In this
study, some factors associated with self-selection that could explain the differences in
scores between the three groups were obtained from participants. These were reasons
why people join MRULE, differences in income levels, levels of education (their year at
school), the proportion of racial exposure prior to college, and their neighborhood and
school demographics.

A comparison between the new recruits and the MRULE participants on reasons
for joining MRULE indicated that participants in both the groups were more or less
equally attracted to MRULE for personal interest in issues related to race. Counter-
intuitively, majority of the participants in both the groups did not self-select to join
MRULE because of personal interests in the content of the program, but rather because
their friends informed them about the program. The data also revealed that participants in
all three groups did not differ significantly from each other on their prior exposure to
race, their neighborhood and high school demographics. Therefore, because equivalence
on these attributes across the three groups can be assumed, the confidence in the claim
that differences in scores across groups is ‘caused’ by the program, is enhanced.

However, the three groups differed significantly on levels of education, income,
and neighborhood demographics. Significantly more MRULE participants were seniors,
compared to the new recruits. This might suggest an alternative claim that as participants

acquire higher levels of education, their attitudes behaviors and knowledge related to race

34

becomes increasingly more positive, regardless of any program intervention. If this were
the case, then the MRULE students must have had more positive outcomes related to
race, in comparison to the new recruits. The findings from the comparative analysis
between these two groups reflect this identical pattern. However, the counter claim that
differences in levels of education account for findings does not hold when the results
from the control group are examined. If students acquire more knowledge about racial
issues, develop more positive attitudes and express behaviors consistent with those
attitudes as they acquire higher levels of education, then the control group which
consisted of maximum number of seniors (and comprising of a significantly larger
number of seniors in comparison to both other groups), should have scored highest on all
the dependent measures. Interestingly, despite the fact that most students were in their
senior year, they exhibited least positive attitudes, knowledge and behaviors in
comparison to the new recruits group constituted mostly by freshmen and the MRULE
participants group which was comprised mostly of their senior counterparts.

In regards to income, overall, participants in the control group appeared to belong
to a higher economic bracket than participants in other two groups. Income then might
explain the pattern observed in data. However, given that there is no significant
difference in the income levels of participants in the two groups that have self selected to
be a part of MRULE, significant differences between these two groups in the four
dependent measures that were tested suggests that MRULE does make a positive impact
on these four outcomes.

An analysis of neighborhood characteristics of participants across the three groups

reveals a pattern similar to that observed in income. While the control group participants

35

belonged to neighborhoods that were lower in numerically diverse population in
comparison to participants in the new recruits group as well as the MRULE participants
group, the neighborhood characteristics of the latter two groups are more or less similar.
Although this pattern observed might be an indication of selection bias, it does not
however undermine the impact of MRULE on its participants. Assuming that
neighborhood demographics is more or less constant between the new recruits group and
the MRULE participants group, MRULE students still held more positive attitudes, more
accurate knowledge and more interracial behaviors than the newly recruited students.
The lists of factors against which groups have been compared to determine
equivalence are by no means exhaustive. Given the quazi- experimental nature of the
design, an analysis of all potential differences is impossible. This leaves open the
possibility for confounds that question the internal validity of the study. The absence of a
pretest in the study also does not allow for a comparison of post test data with pretest
measures. This approach would have been beneficial in tracking potential individual
changes across time and providing a stronger case for or against the potential effects of
the program. Despite the sensitive nature of the topic that would typically elicit social
desirability, significant differences in self-report measures were found between the
groups. Yet, students’ reports might not accurately reflect their true attitudes and
behaviors. Self-report measures might also have also distorted some of the demographic
information elicited from participants (e. g. neighborhood/school demographics). Another
limitation of the study is the small sample size, and the unequal cell sizes. Also, the
range of responses elicited from participants in the study might be another limitation in

the study. Participants were asked to agree, disagree or mark unsure to items on the

36

attitude and salience scale, rather than mark their response on a continuum. This
restriction of range in response might have limited the covariation between independent
variable and dependent variable. A wider range in responses might have resulted in an
even stronger a relationship between the two.

This study offers theoretical and pragmatic implications for the field of diffusion
and diversity initiatives. It is aimed at enriching literature on diversity initiatives by
providing further clarity in the meaning and implications of the term ‘diversity’. Toward
this, the distinction between different types of diversity and the implications of the
resultant ambiguity in its application is highlighted. This study contributes to diffusion by
emphasizing the post adoption stages of social innovations. This study attempts to fill the
void in diffusion literature that is predominantly concerned with the study of innovation
attributes that explain the rate of adoption of members in a social system.

Further, the methodology employed in this study provides an empirical test of an
innovation — one that has often been ignored in diversity and diffusion literature. This
study combines survey methods, with a quazi experiment in an attempt to provide a
strong test of the direct, and anticipated consequences of adopting the social innovation.
The inclusion of a control group in the design as well as an attempt to inquire into the
equivalence between the groups on critical factors that might threaten the internal validity
of the study provide confidence in the conclusions of the study.

The findings of this study bear direct and relevant implications to universities
which are finding it increasingly difficult to set a tone for racial harmony, especially
when many students who join universities have little exposure to other racial groups and

cultures (Clements, 2000). The MRULE program is effective in molding students’

37

attitudes, enhancing knowledge related to race and expressing behaviors that are racially
inclusive. A scientific test of this social innovation and its results could provide useful
insights to universities faced with the task of integrating its diverse student population.
Future research could explore the relationship between attitudes, behaviors, salience and
knowledge associated with racial issues. The extent to which knowledge about an issue
impacts attitudes, and the degree to which levels of salience, attitudes, and knowledge
predict behaviors will be particularly informative. The relationships between the
behavioral measures, and the attitudinal measures as observed in this study are worth
exploring deeper. For example, if attitudes predicted behavior, then specifically what
dimensions of behavior do they influence? In this study, the new recruits group differed
significantly from the control group on attitude and generic behavior scores but not on
scores related to frequency of interactions with members of another racial group. Further,
future research might examine at greater depth the relationship between income levels
and race related outcomes. It is possible that income interacts with other factors (that in
turn influences outcomes) that have not been explored in this study.

Future research might employ a multi-method strategy that inquires into effects of
social innovations, a strategy that incorporates the notion of time, a key component in
assessing consequences of innovations Glogers, 1995). Because of the complexities
involved in the measurement of consequences, survey research methods often do not lend
themselves to an exhaustive study of consequences as they do for the study of
innovativeness (Rogers, 1995). Also, Since consequences usually occur over extended
periods of time, future research on these consequences will be meaningful. These studies

might use extended observation over time, or in depth case study that provide a more

38

comprehensive and in-depth study of consequences. Rogers (1995) advocates a panel
study in which respondents are interviewed both before and after an innovation. A
thorough and detailed assessment of consequences might also include a study of the
unanticipated consequences and undesirable consequences of an innovation that are
equally important for research and practical purposes.

In conclusion, an assessment of whether the anticipated and direct effects of the
program are ‘real,’ revealed that this indeed was the case. To the extent that MRULE
aims at fostering interactional diversity on campus, data revealed that it has been highly
successfirl. The ‘acid-test’ or evidence for the occurrence of interactional diversity attests
to the efficacy of the program. This study therefore demonstrates that it is meaningful to
bring diverse students on campus together under the platform of MRULE that is
executing a sustained and coordinated effort towards building a multi-racial community

on campuses, a need that is highly pertinent and valued by institutes of higher education.

39

Appendix A

Tables

40

Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Participants in the Quazi-Experiment

 

 

Demographics Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Total
Sex
Male 20 24 4 48
Female 30 51 31 115
Unmarked 1
Year
High School 1 l
Freshmen 41 41
Sophomore 13 7 20
Junior 3 l3 14 30
Senior 47 5 13 65
Graduate 2 3 5
Unmarked 1 1 2
Race
Caucasian 41 42 1 8 101
African American 3 16 10 29
Hispanic 2 4 6
Asian 2 3 1 6
Middle eastern 2 2 l 5
Biracial 4 3 7
Human 1 3 1 5
Unlisted 2 2 l 5
Income
< $ 30,000 4 6 2 12
$ 30,000- $ 59,999 5 27 13 45
$ 60,000- $ 89,999 14 17 9 40
$ 90,000-$ 119,999 18 10 6 34
> $ 120,000 10 12 4 26
None listed 2 4 l 7
Prior exposure to race
Yes 45 59 26 130
No 7 15 9 31
None listed 1 2 O 3

 

41

Table 2

Mean differences of participants’ demographics between the three groups

 

 

Demographics Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Neighborhood 17.14a 31.3% 27.68
High school 2.15 2.04 1.94
Income 3.49a 2.93 2.91b
Year at school 3.98a 1.86b 3.18c

 

Note: Means with different subscripts are significantly different at p<. 05 with Turkey’s
b.

42

Table 3

Mean Differences in Dependent Measures between the Three Groups

 

 

Dependent measures Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Attitude .33a .56b .7c
Salience .06a .54b .65c

Knowledge .20a .34b .61c
Generic behaviors 2.82a 3.24b 3.63c
Frequency of activity 2.56a 2.74b 3.08c

 

Note: Means with different subscripts are significantly different at p<. 05 with Tukey b.
Higher mean values indicate more positive racial attitudes, higher salience, higher levels
of knowledge related to race, and more frequent pro-racial behaviors and activities.

43

Appendix B

Survey

44

Survey measuring participant’s attitude, salience, behaviors and knowledge
related to race

This is a survey designed to measure your response regarding issues relating to racial and
ethnic diversity issues. This is an anonymous survey. Please answer as honestly and
accurately as possible. You are requested to answer spontaneously (not to spend too
much time answering each question), maintain the order of the questions, and avoid
reverting back to answering previous questions. Thank you for your participation in this
study.

This section of the survey is designed to gain an insight into your views about race/ethnic
diversity. There are no right or wrong answers to these statements. What you answer
below should reflect your opinion. Please only choose the “not sure ” option, if you are
completely unsure of your own views!

1. It is all right to date interracially.

AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE

2. In the United States, if people work hard, success usually follows. Failure is just a
matter of some people not trying hard enough. If they would only try harder they could
be as well off as everyone else.

AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE

3. When people talk about race relations, for the most part, they tend to whine about
past wrongs.

AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE

4. It is possible for people from different races to be both separate and equal at the same
time.

AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE

5. People are different because of their different cultural values. This has nothing to do
with race.

AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE

6. Many minority students who are admitted to universities in the name of increasing
diversity are not qualified to be in school.

AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE

45

7. One reason that marriage between people from different racial/ethnic background is
wrong is because it would be hard on the children.

AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE

8. I feel that discussions on race relations should be avoided, because they are very often
too difficult to deal with.

AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE

9. Being white in the United States means that one can benefit and enjoy unearned
privileges associated with white skin.

AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE

10. When assigned to group work I prefer to work with people from my same
racial/ethnic background.

AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE

11. If programs such as affirmative action were to end, it would have a negative effect
on the learning environment on campus.

AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE
12. To be diverse often implies being discriminatory against the white majority.
AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE
13. Racism is mostly a thing of the past.

AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE
14. Affirmative action is an unjust and discriminatory tool.

AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE

15. People segregate because they prefer to hang out with people who are like them. In
my view, this has nothing to do with racism.

AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE

16. One reason I favor representation of diverse U.S race/ethnicities in universities is
because it contributes positively to the quality of learning experience in school.

AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE

46

17. Most minorities on campus are on special scholarships, “free rides” so to speak.
AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE

18. Diversity should be highly valued.

AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE

19. According to me, people are no longer judged by their skin color in the United States.
AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE

20. If we just left people alone, they will gravitate automatically to those who they feel
comfortable with, and if that is people who look, speak and believe like them, there is
nothing wrong with it.

AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE

21. People of color have jobs that white people should have.

AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE

22. To be an advocate of equality often means caring more about people of color than the
white majority.

AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE
23. Some races are genetically superior to others.
AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE

24. People from some racial/ethnic backgrounds are not very successful because they are
taught values different from those required to be successful in the United States.

AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE
25. Race relations in this country needs to be improved.

AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE
26. Racial profiling is a necessary practice for crime prevention.

AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE

47

27. Living with a person who belongs to a different racial/ethnic background in the place
of residence can be very difficult.

AGREE DISAGREE NOT SURE

The following questions seek to ascertain the importance/non importance you attribute to
issues related to race/ethnic diversity as it pertains in various contexts. There are no
right or wrong answers to these statements. Please mark YES if you agree with the
statement, NO If you disagree. Please use the “UNSURE ” option sparingly, only If you
are completely unsure about the statement!

1. The racial and ethnic diversity of my university is important to me.

YES NO UNSURE

2. I attach much importance to interacting with students from different racial/ethnic
backgrounds in classrooms.

YES NO UNSURE
3. To encounter perspectives that I have not encountered before, I consider it crucial to
interact with others of different racial/ethnic backgrounds.

YES NO UNSURE

4. Interacting with students from different racial/ethnic backgrounds is important in
helping me examine my own perspectives and values critically.

YES NO UNSURE

5. To enrich the quality of discussions on course material, I attach importance to racial/
ethnic diversity in classrooms.

YES NO UNSURE
6. It is important to me that I have a racially/ethnically diverse group of friends.

YES NO UNSURE

7. It is important to me that my teacher/ graduate assistants are aware of critical
racial/ethnic issues.

YES NO UNSURE

48

8. It is important to me in my residence life that I live among a diverse group.

YES NO UNSURE

9. It is important to me that my significant other belongs to the same racial group as I do.
YES NO UNSURE

10. It is important that I interact with people from different racial/ethnic background so
that my living experience in the residence hall in enriched.

YES NO UNSURE

11. Interacting with students from different racial/ethnic backgrounds is a significant
factor in helping me develop my ability to think critically.

YES NO UNSURE
12. Race/ethnicity issues are important to me for my career and future.

YES NO UNSURE

13. It is important that I interact with students from a different racial/ethnic background
in order that I develop leadership skills and abilities.

YES NO UNSURE
14. In general, I give less importance to issues of race and ethnicity.

YES NO UNSURE

15. The Racial and ethnic diversity of my university is one of the many important factors
I considered while applying to universities.

YES NO UNSURE

49

This section of the survey intends to gain some information on the common actions and
activities you indulge in with members of different groups in your everyday life.

Key: Never=l , Rarely =2, Sometimes =3, Frequently=4, Very frequently =5.
1. I use the “N” word with those I am comfortable with.
1 2 3 4 5
Never Very Frequently
2. I hang out mostly with others of my racial/ethnic background.
1 2 3 4 5

Never Very Frequently

3. I engage in discussions on racial/ethnic issues in groups wherein members are
racially/ethnically diverse.

1 2 3 4 5
Never Very Frequently

4. I engage in discussions on racial/ethnic issues in groups wherein members belong to
the same race as I.
1 2 3 4 5
Never Very Frequently
5. In the past one year I have
a) Conducted research or writing focused on racial ethnic diversity.

1 2 3 4 5
Never Very Frequently

b) Attended racial cultural awareness workshops other than MRULE.

1 2 3 4 5
Never Very Frequently

50

c) Participated in activities designed to integrate students of color with white students
other than MRULE

1 2 3 4 5
Never Very Frequently
6. I attempt to work with students across racial/ethnic lines in class assignments and
group presentations.
1 2 3 4 5
Never Very Frequently
7. I tend to pick my electives that will offer me more discussions and analysis of race
related issues.
1 2 3 4 5
Never Very Frequently
8. In my assignments, I tend to incorporate relevant racial and ethnic issues.
1 2 3 4 5
Never Very Frequently
9. I fight against racial injustice and inequality.
1 2 3 4 5
Never Very Frequently
10. I find myself questioning and re-examining my own ideas about race.
1 2 3 4 5
Never Very Frequently
11. I participate in activities that are geared towards interracial unity.

l 2 3 4 5
Never Very Frequently

51

12. I confront a member of my racial/ethnic group for making offensive jokes/offensive
comments about people of different racial/ethnic groups.

1 2 3 4 5
Never Very Frequently

13. I make it a point to reach out to others from different racial/ethnic backgrounds by
initiating conversations with them in order to get to know them better.
1 2 3 4 5
Never Very Frequently
14. I uphold my views on race even if it contradicts the opinion of my parents.
1 2 3 4 5
Never Very Frequently
15. I question the views of my family members with regard to racial/ethnic issues.
1 2 3 4 5
Never Very Frequently
16. I discuss race related issues with my fiiends.
l 2 3 4 5
Never Very Frequently
17. My friends and I share similar perspectives on racial and ethnic issues.
1 2 3 4 5
Never Very Frequently
18. I engage actively and honestly in discussions on race with my family members.

1 2 3 4 5
Never Very Frequently

52

19.1 respect teachers/ professors /TAs irrespective of their racial/ethnic orientation.

1 2 3 4 5
Never Very Frequently

20. In any discussion, I try to affect the dynamics of the group in ways that integrate
different racial/ethnic perspectives.

l 2 3 4 5
Never Very Frequently

21. I am comfortable in interacting with members of different racial/ethnic groups, whom
I don’t know,
1 2 3 4 5
Never Very Frequently
22. I reflect on what my parents taught me, or didn’t teach me about people from

different racial/ethnic backgrounds.

l 2 3 4 5
Never Very Frequently

53

23. How often have you engaged in the following activities with members of the
following race? Please fill the table accordingly:
Never=1, Rarely =2, Sometimes =3, Frequently=4, Very frequently =5.

 

African
Americans

Asians

Caucasians

Latinos

Native
Americans

 

a) Invited as guests into
your home

 

b) Visited their home as
guests

 

c) Chose to work in the
same work group

 

d) Belonged to the same
club

 

e) Went out to restaurants

 

f) Intervened if a member
of their group was unfairly
criticized

 

g) Worked together in
organizations or other
efforts to improve race
relations in your
community

 

h) Gone out on dates

 

i) Gone out on
vacations/trips

 

 

j) Lived together

 

 

 

 

 

 

54

 

This section of the survey is designed to gain an insight into the level of knowledge you
possess in the area of race relations. What you answer below is about actual facts
pertaining to race relations in the United States. Please choose the “Don ’t know” option,
if you are unsure of the facts.

1. From a biological perspective, there are several different races in the world.

True False Don’t know
2. The United States is a land that uphold meritocracy. Basically, if people work hard,
then success is inevitable. The fact is people do not succeed because they do not try hard
enough.

True False Don’t know

3. Many students of color are admitted in the name of increasing diversity, even when
they are not qualified to be in school.

True False Don’t know

4. To be white in this country means that one can benefit and enjoy unearned privileges
associated with white skin.

True False Don’t know
5. In the US people are no longer judged by their skin color.
True False Don’t know

6. Even today, people of color lose out on jobs and promotions in the United States
because of their skin color.

True False Don’t know

7. It is fact that most minorities on campus are on special scholarships, “free rides” so to
speak.

True False Don’t know

8. Latino/as, Asians, Native Americans, and Afiican American experience
discrimination at more or less the same degrees.

True False Don’t know

55

9. After World War II the GI Bill that was introduced in the United States was a form of
affirmative action for white people.

True False Don’t know
10. The end of affirmative action in admissions will severely reduce the racial/ethnic
diversity on college campuses. The segregation that will be reinforced in higher
education will have an adverse effect on the learning environment on campus.

True False Don’t know
11. All people in the United States are racialized.

True False Don’t know

12. People segregate because they prefer to hang out with people who are like them. The
fact is, it has nothing to do with racism.

True False Don’t know
13. Race is not a biological reality, but a social construct.
True False Don’t know

14. Based on history of the United States, it is safe to conclude that it is possible for
races to be both separate and equal at the same time.

True False Don’t know

15. The Civil rights movement has put an end to racial/ethnic discrimination in the
United States.

True False Don’t know
16. Affirmative action and diversity mean one and the same thing
True False Don’t know

17. Affirmative action is a government policy aimed at opening doors for people who
have been historically excluded.

True False Don’t know
18.The biggest beneficiaries of Affirmative action historically have been white women.

True False Don’t know

56

19. Discrimination against people of color is illegal in the United States, but the fact
remains that it continues to be a major problem.

True False Don’t know
Background information
1. Which year of MRULE are you in currently? 1St 2nd 3rd 4th

2. Have you been an active participant of MRULE? Yes / No / N/A/

 

3. Sex: M F

4. What year of college are you currently pursuing?

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

5. When did you join MRULE? Please specify semester and year of joining (e. g. Fall,
2002)

 

6. What percent of the group of people you consider to be friends constitute members of
a race other than yours?

7. How would you name the racial/ ethnic category that you identify with?

 

.°°

Which figure best matches your family’s annual income?

Under $ 30,000

Between $ 30,000 — $59,999
Between $60,000- $89,999
Between $ 90,000- $ 119,999
Above $120,000

3".“pr

9. Prior to MSU, what percent of your neighborhood did people other than your own
racial background occupy?

10. I came to MRULE as a result of

a) Class

b) Personal interest

0) Friend told me about it

(1) Professor told me about it

57

11. How would you characterize your High School?

1. Predominantly people of color (more than 60%) _
2. Predominantly white (more than 60%) _
3. Multi Racial (a relatively even distribution)

4. Other

 

12. Prior to MSU, have you been exposed to race/ethnicity related issues?

1. Yes 2. No

58

References

59

References

Alger, J ., Chapa, J ., Gudeman, R., Marin, P., Maruyama, G., Milem, J ., Moreno,
J ., & Wilds, D (2001). Does Diversity make a difference? Three Research studies
on diversity in college classrooms. Washington DC: American Council on Education and
American Association of University Professors.

Allport G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MN: Addison, Wesley.

Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college? In V.J. Balenger, M.A.Hoffman &
W.E Sedlacek. (1992). Racial attitudes among incoming white students: A study of 10-
year trends. Journal of college student development, 33, 245-252.

Baggenstos, D. (2001). Affective and cognitive components of racial attitudes:
The relationship between direct and indirect measures. Unpublished masters thesis.
Western Washington University.

Barnett, H. (1953). Innovation: The basis of cultural change. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Blakely, H, Mayer, J., Gottschalk, G., Schmitt, N., Davidson, W., Roitrnan, D., &
Emshoff, J. (1987). The fidelity-adaptation debate: Implications for the implementation

of public sector social programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 253-
268.

Boneicki, K. (1996). Student racism scale. Unpublished measure. In D.A
Baggenstos. Aflective and cognitive components of racial attitudes: The relationship
between direct and indirect measures. Unpublished masters thesis. Western Washington
University.

Brown, C. (1998). Campus diversity: Presidents as leaders. College Student
Affairs Journal, 18, 84-93.

Cabrera, A., & Nora, A. (1994). College students’ perceptions of prejudice and
discrimination and their feelings of alienation: A construct validation approach. Review of
Education, Pedagogy and Cultural Studies, 16, 387-409.

Chang, M. (1997). Racial diversity: A compelling interest for higher education.
Paper commissioned by the Harvard Civil Rights Project for a conference on Diversity
and Higher Education, Cambridge, MA, May 1997.

Clements, E (2000). Creating a campus climate in which diversity is truly valued.
New Directions for Community Colleges, [[2, 63—72.

60

Dearing, J. (2002). Diffusion theory and societal betterment. Forty Years of
Diffusion of Innovation: Its Utility and Value in Public Health, Paper presented at George
Washington University, Washington, D, G, April 2, 2002.

Ehrlich, H. (1990). Campus ethnoviolence and the policy options. Baltimore:
National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence.

Ehrlich, H. (1992). Campus ethnoviolence: A research review. Baltimore:
national Institute Against Prejudice and Violence.

Ettlie, J. (1980). Adequacy of stage models for decisions on adoption of
innovations. Psychological Reports, 46, 991-995.

Eveland, J., Rogers, E., & Klepper, C. (1977). The innovation process in public
organizations: Some elements of a preliminary model. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan.

Faces show racial prejudice. Retrieved March 3, 2002 from the World Wide
Web: httJfl/webnracamac.il/~babi/faceart.html

 

Facing History and ourselves. (2002). Retrieved March 24, 2002, from the World
Wide Web: http://www.facingrg/facinflflraoZnsf/

Fairweather, G., & Davidson, W. (1986). An introduction to community
experimentation: Theory methods and practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fairweather, G., & Tomatzky, L. (1977). Experimental methods for social policy
research. New York: Pergarnon.

Gaertner, S.L. & Dovidio, J.F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J.F
Dovidio and S.L. Gaertner (Eds), Prejudice, Discrimination and Racism. Orlando:
Academic Press.

Gazel, J. (2001). Building community of campus: The interdependent theory and
practice of the multiracial unity living experience. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Michigan State University.

Greenwald, A.G, & Banaji, MR. (1995). Indirect social cognition: Attitudes, self-
esteem and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4-27.

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D.E., & Schwartz, J .L.K. (1998). Measuring
individual differences in indirect cognition: The Implicit Association test. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.

Gurin, P. (1999). Does Diversity Make A Difference? Three research studies on
diversity in college classrooms. American Council of Education and American

61

Association of University Professors, 2000. AAUP, Washington, DC: American Council
on Education and American Association of University Professors. Retrieved March 4,
2002, from the World Wide Web: http://wwwacenetcdu/programs/omhe/diversity-

rcportpdf

 

Hansen, N., Rockwell, F ., & Green, A. (2000). Multicultural competence: Criteria
and case examples. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31 ,652-660.

Hacker, A. (1992). Two Nations: Black and white, separate, hostile, unequal.
New York: Scribner’s.

Hurtado, S. (1997). Linking diversity and educational purpose. How the diversity
of the faculty and student body may impact the classroom environment and student
development. Paper presented at the Harvard Civil Rights Conference on Diversity and
Higher Education, Cambridge, MA.

Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. R. (1998). Enhancing
campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. The Review
of Higher Education, 21 ,279-302.

Katz, 1, & Hass, R. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict:
Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures._Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 55, 893-905.

Katz, E., Levin, M. & Hamilton, H. (1963). Traditions of research in the diffusion
of innovation. American Sociology Review, 28, 237-252.

Kleeman, G. (1994). Achieving academic success with ethnically diverse
students: Implications for student affairs. NAPSA Journal, 31 ,137-149.

LaPiere, RT. (1965). Social change. New York: McGraw Hill.

Marklein, M. (1998). Diversity of opinion: Students push back on push for
campus equality. USA Today, Arlington: July 15, 1998.

Marayuma, P., & Moreno, J. (2001). University Faculty Views about the value of
diversity on campus and in the classroom. In Does diversity make a diflerence? Three
research studies on diversity in college classrooms. American Council on Education and
American Association of University Professors, Washington, DC.

Mayer, J., & Davidson, W (Ed.), (2000). Dissemination of innovation as social
change. Handbook of Community Psychology, (Ed.), J. Rappaport & E. Seidman. Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 2000.

McAllister G, & Irvine, J. (2000) Cross-cultural competency and multicultural.
Review of educational research, 70, 3-24.

62

McConahay, J.B. (1986). Modern Racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism
scale. In J.F. Dovidio &S.L. Gaertner (Eds), Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Milem, J & Bakuta, K. (2000). The benefits of racial and ethnic diversity in
higher education. In D. Wilds (Ed.), Minorities in higher education. Seventieth annual
status report. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Nettles, M. (1988). Factors related to black and white students’ college
performance. In N.T. Nettles (Ed.), Toward black undergraduate student equality in
American Higher education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Neville, H., & Furlong, M. (1994). The impact of participation in a cultural
awareness on the racial attitudes and social behaviors of first year college students.
Journal of College Student Development, 35, 371-377.

Orfield, G, & Miller, E. (1998). Chilling Admissions The affirmative action crisis
and the search for alternatives. The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University. Harvard
Education Publishing Group. Cambridge, MA.

Pascarella, E., Whitt, E., Nora, A., Edison, M., Hagedom, L., & Terenzini, PT.
(1996). What have we learned from the first year of the National Study of Student
Learning? Journal of College Student Development, 3 7, 2, 182-192.

Porter, E., Kramer, R. (1999). Philanthropy’s New Agenda: Creating value.
Harvard Business Review, 121-130.

Racine, D. (1998). Replicating programs in social markets. Replication &
Program Strategies. Inc.

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Rossi, P., & Freeman, H. (1985). Evaluation: A systematic approach (3rd ed.).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Ramirez, M (1998). Multicultural/multiracial psychology: Mestizo perspectives in
personalities in personality and mental health: New Jersey. Jason Aronson, Inc.

Schuman, H. (1995). Attitudes, beliefs and behaviors. In K.Cook, G. Fine and J.
House, Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, Boston, Allyn and Bacon.

Smith, D. G. (1997). Diversity Works: The Emerging Picture of How Students
Benefit .Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

63

Springer, L., Palmer, B., Terenzini, P., & Pascarella, E. (1996). Attitudes towards
Campus Diversity: Participation in a Racial or cultural awareness workshop. The Review
of Higher Education, 20, 53-68.

Stephan, W. (2001). A survey for using in evaluating dialogue programs.
Retrieved March 4th, 2002 from the World Wide Web:
www.wcstemjustice.org/dialogue_evalti.htm

 

Spitsburg, I. And Thorndike, V. (1992). Creating Community on College
Campuses. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Smith, D., Zhang, J ., & Colwell, B. (1996). Pro-innovation bias: The case of the
Giant Texas Smoke Screen. Journal of School Health, 66, 210-213.

The Bright and dark sides of Innovation. Retrieved March 10, 2002, from the
World Wide Web: http://interscienccs.wiley.com/jpages/0894-3796/call.html

Thomas, R. (1996). Understanding interracial unity. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Torantzky, L., Eveland, J ., Boylan, G., Hetzner, A., Johnson, C., Roitman, D., &
Schneider, J. (1983). The process of technological innovation: Reviewing the literature.
Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Vontress, CE. (1996). A personal retrospective on cross-cultural counseling.
Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development. 1 6, 78-83.

Wittenbrink, B., Judd, C., & Park, B. (1997). Evidence for racial prejudice at the
indirect level and its relationship with questionnaire measures. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 72, 262-274.

Yales, EL. (2002). Helping students build bridges across racial division. Black
Issues in Higher Education. I 7, 36-38.

Yin, R. (1978). Changing urban bureaucracies: How new practices become
routinized. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.

64