3.8 Article

Examining the Complexity of the Campus Racial Climate at a Hispanic Serving Community College

期刊

COMMUNITY COLLEGE REVIEW
卷 44, 期 2, 页码 135-152

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0091552116632584

关键词

Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs); campus climate; mixed-methods; diversity; race; perceptions

资金

  1. Ford Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Despite the growing representation of Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) among community colleges, relatively little is known about student perceptions of the campus climate at these institutions. Although perceptions of campus climate may differ by race and adversely affect students of color, most research has been conducted at predominantly White institutions and through the use of either qualitative or quantitative methods. The present study examines student perceptions of discrimination and bias among Asian, Latina/o, and White students at a community college that has an HSI designation. Method: Employing a parallel mixed-method design, data were collected through the Diverse Learning Environments survey and focus groups at a community college in the western United States. An ANOVA with post hoc tests and a qualitative cross-case analysis were used to assess perceptions of discrimination and bias across racial groups. Results: Student perceptions differed by race with qualitative and quantitative results complementing and contradicting each other. Asian students reported more discrimination and bias on the survey but only shared positive perspectives in a focus group. By contrast, Latina/o students reported less discrimination and bias on the survey but in a focus group shared both positive and negative perceptions of the campus climate. Conclusion: The findings thus suggest that assessing perceptions of the campus climate at racially heterogeneous community colleges, such as HSIs, should employ mixed-methods to capture a more comprehensive picture for students from different racial groups.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据