The Need for Conceptual Clarity: Operationalizing Diversity
By James A. Anderson

One of the most difficult, yet important, discussions in higher education involves the concept of diversity and how it is represented within a campus culture. At many institutions diversity-related activities, practices, and policies have emerged in the absence of two critical factors: 1) a widely accepted definition that can be operationalized and measured, and 2) an assessment plan that allows for a systematic analysis of the presence and impact of campus diversity efforts. While this does not impede the development of diversity-related programs, strategies and policies, it is often the case that the institutional effort(s) fall far short in terms of quality and effectiveness since members of the campus community will vary in terms of what diversity means and/or whether there is a real impact.

The following five concepts are close enough in similarity that one might be tempted to let one substitute for the other:

1. Cultural Diversity - suggests difference and distinctiveness but coexistence
2. Multiculturalism - enjoyment of the contributions of many and transcendence over ethnocentrism
3. Pluralism - different groups explore, understand and try to appreciate other cultural experiences and heritages
4. Cultural democracy - listening to a diversity of voices to understand our past and present
5. Demographic diversity - differences across identifiable group characteristics like race, gender, culture, class, age, and physical capacity

What actually influences the apparent meaning of each is the context in which it is used. For example, multiculturalism is frequently used as a synonym for diversity but what underscores its real meaning is the concept of "culture." This is not the same as demographic diversity, which alludes to demographic similarities/differences (either within groups or between groups.

A recent (Spring 2003) classroom climate survey at NC State illuminates this concern of conceptualizing definitions and the resultant impact upon assessment. Undergraduate and graduate students were asked to respond to an on-line survey that focused on their perception of classroom climate issues. Among the significant findings was that fact that student responses were strongly influenced by their initial choice of definition. Students were offered a constellation of thirteen (13) demographic characteristics to select and apply to their definition of diversity. Three group definitions emerged: a) those who incorporated all 13 characteristics, b) those who incorporated some combination of the 13, and c) those who emphasized race, ethnicity, and national origin. In this study the absence of definitional differences would have precluded the emergence of certain findings and confounded the reporting of others.

Conceptual clarity is also important as we begin to discuss roles and responsibilities. For example, cocurricular staff who have responsibilities associated with diversity may need to examine the following question:

How do you define quality in terms of your responsibilities associated with diversity?

• In terms of how you meet your clients' needs?
• In terms of the product you produce or deliver.
• In terms of some standard or benchmark that you compare yourself to.
• In terms of your ability to continuously improve.
• In terms of your evaluation of clearly measurable outcomes.
• In terms of your unit, program or department, or relative to the whole institution.

Note that each bullet defines quality differently hence any assessment of quality and diversity would derive from that particular focus. Moreover, that focus wold also influence the type of assessment questions that one can ask. For example, an assessment of the impact of diversity training on student leaders could emphasize a measurable outcome (behaviors that student leaders exhibit); a product delivered (the amount and type of training); an external benchmark (a highly regarded national model); an indicator of student need/motivation ( student self-report and/or reflection); etc.

The difficulty that surrounds a politically charged topic like diversity is the tendency to initiate diversity programming or activities before a well-conceptualized model emerges. If we stick to our standards of effective assessment we should expect that, at the very least, any conceptualization of diversity should translate into measurable terms. Using the above example we might frame the question: "What do we want students leaders to know about leadership and diversity?" The following could represent some expected outcomes:

1. Need to develop a common vocabulary that includes new meanings for terms like leadership, authority, and diversity.
2. Know how to draw from their own cultural context and the contexts of others.
3. Become well versed about the different kinds of "isms" and "centrisms."
4. Develop a sense of social ethics and social responsibility.
5. Be willing to tolerate different types of stress and ambiguity.
6. Be willing to accept the demands of diverse role models.
7. Think in terms of the human community when confronted with challenging decisions.

The challenges associated with institutional transformation are often very complex. It is, therefore, important that we minimize the opportunities for conflict and miscommunication by reframing our questions and conceptualizations about diversity so that it is seen as a natural part of the institutional learning process.