admin
Tue, 02/17/2026 - 19:53
Edited Text
WALK THE TALK
1
Walk the Talk: Supporting the Equity Journey of Online Higher Education Institutions
Dr. Teresa Leary Handy and Dr. Tamecca Fitzpatrick
Department of Education and Liberal Arts, University of Arizona Global Campus
Author Note
We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Teresa Leary Handy, Ed.D.
Email: Teresa.Handy@uagc.edu
WALK THE TALK
2
Abstract
This ongoing qualitative research project examines the process by which faculty and staff at an
online university moved from discussions of equity to the implementation of equity practices in
the learning environment. 55 faculty and staff members participated. As these are preliminary
results, faculty and staff will complete two additional surveys after they complete their voluntary
21-day equity challenge and book discussion sessions. After participating in the virtual
interactive game, students showed an increased understanding of structural inequality, the
intersectionality between race and poverty, and the systemic issues facing them. Additionally,
preliminary results suggest that faculty and staff feel better equipped to support diverse students.
These preliminary results are discussed in terms of potential implications for institutions working
with fluctuating faculty and staff while working towards institutional equity and inclusion goals.
Keywords: diversity, equity, inclusion, gaming, higher education, professional
development
WALK THE TALK
3
Walk the Talk: Guiding the Equity Journey of Online Higher Education Institutions
Action is an essential part of equity work, but it can be challenging because it forces us to
confront and examine some of our socialization and personal biases. Mintz (2021) states that
pursuing equity can look like the pressure institutions feel to live up to their purported ideals of
merit, diversity, inclusivity, and opportunity. However, what causes the pendulum to swing
towards equity in higher education? McNair et al. (2020) suggest that a paradigm shift in
language and behavior is needed and that institutions must use an equity lens or framework to
guide their work. Hence, faculty and staff having a deep understanding of the systemic issues
that impact student success and retention in higher education are essential to the learning
environment and the institution. The opportunities to improve equity in higher education remain
at the forefront of conversations and should remain the focus of an institution’s continuous
improvement efforts. These glaring equity gaps have impacted underrepresented and
underserved students the greatest (Prystowsky, 2018). Specifically, the non-traditional adult
learners who make up 50% of students in higher education are the ones faced with the most
significant challenges. (Cahalan et al., 2021). Finally, there is significance in meeting the needs
of these students, which can support the sustainability of colleges and universities.
Introduction
Hammond (2015) reasons that intention is the starting point with self-examination of one's
cultural identity in the next stage. Notably, the University of ABC leadership team has focused
on intentionally supporting students who have been systemically marginalized. Consequently,
the researchers assert that it would be a best practice to propose the next step to be supporting
faculty through understanding their personal stories and the impact their lived experiences have
on their instructional practices. This multi-pronged approach is meaningful as it will help
institutions learn ways to support faculty as they move from an equity talk to an equity walk. The
researchers seek to provide a professional development protocol to:
•
•
•
enhance institutional and faculty equity-centered pedagogy
positively impact student retention and success.
model for institutions, equity initiatives that engage faculty stakeholders.
Dr. Teresa Leary Handy, a former Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at a private P12 school, knows first-hand the challenges of shifting a 175-year-old institution forward on
equity issues. Dr. Tamecca Fitzpatrick has diverse experiences helping individuals and
WALK THE TALK
4
organizations ensure their actions are evidence of their commitment to the students, families, and
communities that they serve. Together, this team wanted to explore a specific interactive gaming
experience followed by the book with an action framework with an optional equity challenge to
help provide faculty and staff the ignitor needed to build their capacity and fuel their equity work
in talk and action.
Literature Review
Andragogy is the learning theory that is designed to address the particular needs of the adult
learner (Cercone, 2008 & Thompson et al., 2004). As the researchers selected the tools/strategies
for this project, they wanted each to be rooted in best practices for working with adult learners.
In other words, the tools would respect the participants’ prior experiences while including what
they need to know, it had to be self-directed as well as problem-oriented with immediate
opportunities to use the new learning (Cercone, 2008).
According to McNair et al. (2020), the ten obstacles that block an institution’s journey to
racial equity are:
•
Claiming not to see race.
•
Not being able/willing to notice racialized consequences.
•
Skirting around race.
•
Resisting calls to disaggregate data by race and ethnicity.
•
Substituting race talk with poverty talk.
•
The pervasiveness of white privilege and institutionalized racism.
•
Evasive reactions to racist incidents.
•
The incapacity to see institutional racism in familiar routines.
•
The myth of universalism and seeing racial inequities as a reflection of academic
deficiency.
•
Seeing racial inequities as a reflection of academic deficiency.
So, how does one combat these obstacles? In the text, McNair et al. (2020) provides equityminded responses, but how does one develop an equity mind? Exactly what is an equity mind?
How can institutions, faculty, and staff properly execute equity initiatives if they don’t
understand equity, the toll it takes on faculty of color, and what that looks like in practice at all
levels throughout the institution (Ballard et al., 2020)? Fundamentally, the book is excellent and
there are research-supported strategies to move institutions forward on their equity journey, but
WALK THE TALK
5
how can faculty and staff explain equity in their practice with students and connect it to their
institutional work?
Bensimon, et al. (2016) defines equity-mindedness as a way of approaching educational
reform that foregrounds the policies and practices contributing to disparities in educational
achievement and abstains from blaming students for those accumulated disparities. According to
Bensimon et al., (2016) the five principles that institutional leaders can use to guide their work
are:
1. Clarity in language, goals, and measures.
2. “Equity-mindedness” should be the guiding paradigm for language and action.
3. Equitable practice and policies are designed to accommodate differences in the contexts
of students’ learning-not treat all students the same.
4. Enacting equity requires a continual process of learning, disaggregating data, and
questioning assumptions about relevance and effectiveness.
5. Equity must be enacted as a pervasive institution and system-wide principle.
These five principles, which the researchers, who have experience as diversity practitioners, find
to be ideal to help institutions move on their equity journey. However, the researchers wondered
how faculty and staff conceptualize these equity obstacles and principles. When working with
students, faculty and staff draw on their rich cultural histories. How are institutions preparing
faculty and staff to work with 21st-century students? How are faculty and staff trained to handle
the complexities of culture, diversity, and systemic oppression that are impossible to ignore as
work is done to dismantle structural inequalities that perpetuate systemic racism in higher
education (Alexander, et al., 2015, Ash et al., 2020, Castellanos et al., 2008, and Kozleski et al.,
2020)?
How do faculty and staff unpack these complex issues to become more culturally responsive
or equity-minded? What does it mean to become more culturally responsive? Kwak (2020)
asserts that culturally responsive teaching views the cultural knowledge of students as an asset
that is needed in higher education by faculty who are adept and comfortable at using that
information to scaffold the students learning. Whereas, Casetllanos et al., (2008) contend that for
student affairs professionals, training that addresses interpersonal, intrapersonal, and cultural
dynamics while also focusing on personal awareness and knowledge would maximize skill
development (field studies or a practicum). Furthermore, how do faculty and staff engage in this
WALK THE TALK
6
deeply personal work that requires them to be not only aware but comfortable connecting with
the cultural background of the students they engage within the learning environment. If faculty
and staff have not increased their cultural awareness and engaged in not only a critical reflection
but also a personal reflection they will not realize their experiences reflect their cultural values
and norms and in many cases those cultures and norms are varied from those of the students they
serve (Kozleski et al., 2020). We know that how faculty and staff think about ability,
intelligence, and academic talent has important implications for students’ motivation and
performance (Murphy & Destin, 2016). Accordingly, having a growth mindset, one that
identifies challenges, knows which strategies to use with students, flexible, curious, open, and
receptive to change is a necessary 21-century skill our faculty and staff will need as they work
with the 21-century student (Khan & Forshaw, 2017).
Purpose
The purpose of the study is to examine the process by which faculty and staff move from
the discussion of equity to the implementation of equity practices in the learning environment.
Students need higher education institutions (hei’s) to see all their identifiers in the classroom and
during their interactions. HEIs that can understand marginalized students' racialized experiences,
resiliency, and persistence will demonstrate the cultural competency, cultural humility, and
culturally responsive teaching practices these students need. Furthermore, developing a faculty
and staff with this skill set supports the 21st-century skills our global students will need to be
global leaders (Khan & Forshaw, 2017). For faculty and staff to see the complete student, they
must examine their personal stories, biases, and practices while assessing the impact each could
have on the institution's equity work. Leaders in higher education are hiring consultants, reading
books, and conducting professional development to meet their initial goals. However, it remains
to be seen if this is the most effective way to help faculty become more culturally responsive and
equity-centered. In fact, after experiencing several lecture-style trainings and book studies, the
researchers were curious if a combination of learning experiences could ignite the action needed
to move equity forward. They sought to explore, what is the ignitor for movement from talk to
action? What is an effective way to help faculty and staff become more culturally responsive and
equity-centered in both talk and action?
Design/Methodology/Approach
WALK THE TALK
7
This study first engaged Factuality, a timed online interactive gaming experience that
simulates structural inequality in America. While participating in Factuality, participants
assumed the identities of specific characters encountering a series of fact-based advantages and
limitations based on the intersection of their race, class, gender, faith, sexual orientation, age, and
ability. Next, participants will read and discuss the book, From Equity Talk to Equity Walk by
Tia Brown McNair, Estela Mara Bensimon, and Lindsey Malcom-Piqueux. There are three more
sessions of this book discussion left. Participants were provided a reflective opportunity, by
participating in a 21-day equity walk, where they have a chance to demonstrate their equity
practices in their learning environments. IRB approval (IRB no. 22-0004-UAGC) was received
from the University of ABC Institutional Review Board.
The researchers sought to answer:
a. A What effect does the Factuality the Game have on the understanding full-time faculty
have of systemic issues that affect students in the College of Arts and Sciences?
b.
How do University of ABC faculty members demonstrate culturally responsive teaching
and how do they practice equity in their learning environments?
c.
How do University of ABC faculty members explain their equity walk?
d. How do a framework-focused book and equity challenge support their work with
students?
The methods utilized are Pre and Post Surveys and small group discussions. The pre-survey
will be used to gather baseline information before the interactive game and book study. The postsurvey will be used to gather follow-up information. Finally, small group discussions will be
used to explain, explore, and understand the faculty members’ opinions, behavior, and
experiences. The researcher developed a list of semi-structured questions for the book study
discussions. The survey and small discussion group questions were tested by a panel of experts
to ensure the inter-rater reliability of the questions.
The population of the study is all full-time faculty, Associate faculty, and staff at the
University of Arizona Global Campus. The target sample size was 40 participants and the actual
sample is 55. The researcher used voluntary response sampling for ease of access. The
researchers disseminated e-mail invitations to all faculty and staff. In addition, digital
announcements were used through intranet services for three weeks before the event. Interested
parties completed an online form to receive additional information. Once their interest was
WALK THE TALK
8
known they were sent a registration link for the Factuality event and an informed consent link.
All participants who completed an informed consent form were sent a pre-survey. At the end of
the Factuality event, participants were sent a post-survey. The survey data collection was
completed through an online survey resource. The participants who participated in the Factuality
event were also invited to the book study sessions (there are three remaining at this time) which
are conducted via Zoom. To maintain confidentiality, the researcher created a private meeting,
enabled the waiting room to function, and established ground rules for participation (no
screenshots and participants cannot record). In addition, the participants will provide consent for
cloud recording and transcript, and recordings which will be stored on the Zoom Cloud and
deleted upon receipt of the transcript (Santhos, et al, 2021). Transcription was completed by
Zoom.com and the data is being and will be analyzed through thematic content analysis and
narrative analysis. Participants were reminded of the following they should protect their privacy
with their location of the interview, understand that Zoom recordings are not private since Zoom
may have access, and the Zoom recordings (audio and video) are considered identifiable data.
The research project aims to support the University of Arizona Global Campus faculty in
their work with University of Arizona Global Campus students. Thus, this research project will
refer to the faculty as “participants”. There is the potential for some discomfort for the
participants as they discuss issues related to race. The researchers respect that they do not know
the resources and laws related to mental health treatment in the respective states of the
participants. The researchers specified to the participants that they are not providing treatment
for those who may experience stress about recalling distressing events. Instead, they contracted a
licensed clinical social worker (LCSW) who has racial trauma training to recognize when a
participant may need a break from the discussion. The researchers had the LCSW engage
everyone in five-minute deep breathing calming exercises at the end of each session. The
researchers encouraged participants to journal and engage in self-care activities (suggestions
were provided). At the beginning of each session, the LCSW introduced herself and announced
her background, and her services (to provide stress-reducing strategies, not therapy). She did not
solicit participants rather she was available for them to seek stress-reducing strategies during the
session in a private breakout room. The breakout room was a voluntary space for the participants
to use if they felt the need to take a break from the interactive game or book discussion. The
LCSW did not speak during the session. Rather she observed the group. If she believed the
WALK THE TALK
9
conversation was escalating, she intervened to offer a stress-reducing strategy. Participants were
reminded of the presence of the LCSW with notes in the chat. There was an alternative clinician
on call if needed. During each session, there is an interactive game and book discussion script
read by the researchers and the LCSW.
There are four-hour-long book discussion sessions, and each includes a five-minute stressreducing activity at the end. The first session covered the Preface and Chapters one and two.
Session two will cover Chapters three and four. Session three will cover Chapter five and the
final session is a wrap-up session where participants will share their next steps on their equity
journey. The researchers have discussion questions for each book session. However, participants
actively engaged in open discussions during the Factuality event and the one book discussion
that has taken place.
The pre-survey included a total of 19 questions. Five questions collected participant
anonymous identifiers, and demographic information which included job position, gender, ability
status, and race. Throughout this paper, comments will be shared using anonymous identifiers.
There were six Likert scale questions. These questions were scored using a 5-point Likert scale
was a five-point Please note that in the pre-survey there was a scaling issue with four questions.
The instructions were correct, but the Likert scale was inadvertently reversed. According to
Smyth and Olson (2019), errors do occur and mismatches can undermine data quality in both
mail and telephone modes, although they may be less detrimental when respondents can see both
the question stem and the response options in self-administered modes, which was the case in
this study.
Finally, there were eight long answer questions. The open-ended questions included:
•
What is your understanding of structural inequality?
•
Please provide examples of your understanding of structural inequality.
•
List systemic issues that confront University of Arizona Global Campus students.
•
What is your understanding of the intersectionality of race and poverty?
•
In what ways do you demonstrate support for diverse students in your classroom or
care?
•
Share examples of your classroom practices or student interactions that demonstrate
an understanding of structural inequality.
WALK THE TALK
•
10
What is something you don't understand or that bothers/irritates you as you engage
with students from diverse backgrounds? OR What, if any, concerns or questions do
you have as you engage with diverse students. Please feel free to be candid.
The variety in survey questions allowed participants to share their personal views more deeply.
Dego, made note that “time-on-task was more than 10 minutes (approx. 35+ min). Retention
will very much depend on the time your respondents take/need to participate. I recommend
taking a second strong look at the length of time it will take for volunteer faculty to complete
the stages.” The researchers will use that recommendation when proposing a scale-up model.
One of the questions the researchers asked participants was to “share something you
don’t understand or that bothers/irritates you as you engage with students from diverse
backgrounds – or what if any concerns or questions you have as you engage with diverse
students. Please feel free to be candid.” The researchers found the participants to be not only
candid but also vulnerable. We received over fifty responses that demonstrated future
professional development opportunities for faculty and staff who have some issues
appreciating the many facets of diversity, understanding their own biases, and the impact of
structural racism. Here are some of their responses:
•
Sometimes it seems that students simply accept their circumstances and don’t make
enough effort to think out of the box to overcome them.
•
I want to know the challenges that diverse students face. I recognize that there are
many challenges that I have not had to face, and I don’t want my ignorance of those
challenges to prevent me from helping my students overcome them.
•
I can’t say bothered, but I will say frustrating. It frustrates me when students withhold
information. On the path to building trust, I hope that I am not missing an opportunity
to help simply because I did not know or lacked information.
•
Students who are provocative by making statements such as Adolf Hitler is to be
respected as a leader and admired and respected. Students who fear retaliation for
engaging in topics related to inequality, institutionalized racism, sexism, and ageism.
•
I feel that students from diverse backgrounds may feel that I won’t be able to relate to
their situation/experience. Though I am a first-generation college graduate and came
from situational poverty.
WALK THE TALK
•
11
Things that bother me is some ethnicity feels that they are entitled to things and have
them handed to them. That bothers me that they do not feel they need to work hard like
everyone else. If you do not give them what is asked, they start sending out mixed
signals on how they are being treated.
•
It is difficult for me to know how to handle Ebonics in student writing. It’s not the
collegiate way to write, but I feel as though I am punishing them for their
culture/language. Unsure how to navigate that.
Preliminary Findings:
There have been nearly fifty thousand participants in the facilitated dialogue, virtual, and
interactive experience that simulates structural inequality in America (Factuality, n.d.). In the
unique gaming experience, participants assume the identities of characters and through the 90minute experience, they encounter a series of fact-based advantages and limitations based on the
intersection of their race, class, gender, faith, sexual orientation, age, and ability (Factuality,
n.d.). The experience at the University of Arizona Global Campus was not personalized but the
developer did connect relevant data points related to higher education. The overall feedback from
the participants who engaged in the Factuality event is indicated in Figure 1. The 55 participants
generally described the activity as overwhelmingly positive. However, there were notably a few
participants who had a different experience. Nancy (white female) and Autumn (white female)
both reported feeling sad after the interactive experience ended. Ann (a white Hispanic female)
felt overwhelmed and Sophia (a Black female) felt stressed and needed to visit the breakout
room with the LCSW. She was the only participant who visited the breakout room during the
Factuality event. As the game progressed it became increasingly clear that Black women were
marginalized and significantly impacted by structural and systemic racism.
One of the pre-survey questions asked the participants about their understanding and
ability to explain structural inequality in America. In the pre-survey responses (n=51) 58% of the
respondents indicated that they strongly agreed or agreed that they understood and could explain
structural inequality in America. In the post-survey questions (n=32) 90% of the participants
strongly agreed or agreed that they understood and could explain structural inequality in
America. Please note that no other data has been collected at this point. Participants will report
on their voluntary equity challenge and a final survey after the final book discussion. The
WALK THE TALK
12
following are reports of new learning from the participants who participated in the 90-minute
Factuality experience:
•
Redlining maps was eye-opening. (multiple responses)
•
The cost of structural inequality was new learning for me. I knew it was big, but I did not
know it was $16 billion big.
•
I need to learn more about how to support students and faculty in the area of DEI. I plan
on participating in as many sessions as this to broaden my foundation and strengthen my
role in this process.
•
I learned a lot. It was an eye-opening experience. I feel so grateful for all that I have and
have a better understanding of the sacrifices others have to make for reasons beyond their
direct control.
•
How disparate pain medications are distributed between white and black women for the
same procedure depending on the color of the prescribing doctor.
•
Affirming how we cannot truly understand anyone else’s experiences and need to honor
their journeys and perspectives.
•
I’m having very mixed feelings about being part of a society that is so obviously built on
the practice of oppressing certain groups, whether it’s based on race, country of origin, or
faith. It is so baked in.
•
New learning = now quantifying by time how long it takes women and minority women
to earn what white men earn in a year. I felt that like a punch in the gut. The training also
exposed a blind spot I did not know I had about disability impact, particularly when and
how it intersects with race and poverty.
•
When one’s personal life or experiences is impacted, one takes notice. Taking part in this
exercise helped me to develop empathy for the structural inequities that take place every
day in the lives of others.
•
I knew surface info but did not know the level of disparity in housing, healthcare, and pay
scale covered in the factuality game session 1.
•
I did not previously have much knowledge of the opioid crisis and had not made the
comparison with the treatment of crack in the 80s. It is clear that there is a difference in
the way these two types of drug abuse have been treated that aligns with race.
WALK THE TALK
•
13
Environmental justice specifics regarding green space.
The participants want to know:
•
How to translate this into university policies and classroom practices that support our
students?
•
What needs to change in our own systems?
•
Support faculty in the same manner as we support students.
•
It would be nice to have examples/best practices of how this knowledge would be best be
implemented in the classroom.
•
How does this look/sound from the student’s perspective when they experience support?
•
What is the most impactful way a single individual can make a dent in structural
inequality for our students?
•
We’ve had recent policy changes in addition to our new culture of care initiative. Are we
doing anything to address hiring practices to ensure we are growing a thoughtful student
support team that aligns with our new policies and changing culture?
•
My only question is how to make a positive impact in the brief time we have students in
the course since they already have many demands pulling them in different directions.
The researchers are optimistic that the planned book discussion will support faculty and
staff as they work to answer many of these questions. The chosen book has strategies and action
steps for HEIs to take on their equity journey. In addition, as the participants complete their
voluntary equity challenge, they will find opportunities to not only extend their learning but to
also put some of their words into action. In our final session, faculty and staff will develop and
share their action steps for their equity journey to support students in their care.
Originality/value:
The Walk the Talk study uses a multi-pronged approach to provide evidence for the types
of effective strategies needed to build capacity for faculty and staff at the University of Arizona
Global Campus. These strategies will be used to propose a best practice professional
development protocol that best supports faculty and staff in their equity work with students while
increasing their understanding of not only their role and their connection to their belief system
but also the impact of their values on the learning environment and students’ experience. As this
WALK THE TALK
14
study is ongoing, the findings in this paper are preliminary. However, the preliminary findings
have high implications for higher education institutions seeking effective and efficient
professional development models to support their equity initiatives with a dynamic staff.
The expected outcomes of the study are:
1. Faculty will demonstrate an understanding of the systemic issues that impact their students.
2. Faculty will through self-reflection explain the ways their personal experiences impact their
learning environment.
3. Faculty will describe ways they will specifically practice equity in their learning
environments.
Conclusion
The equity work at the institutional level needs to be dynamic and representative of the best
practices of equity work. The preliminary research presented in this paper indicates that using the
virtual, interactive gaming activity does increase the knowledge of systemic issues that confront
students that can support an institution’s equity work. The researchers anticipate that upon
completion of the book discussion and the voluntary equity challenge they will learn more from
the study participants to help guide their work and develop a professional development protocol
that will address the deficits and needs identified by the study participants.
WALK THE TALK
15
References
Alexander W. Astin & Helen S. Astin (2015) Achieving Equity in Higher Education: The
Unfinished Agenda, Journal of College and Character, 16:2, 6574, DOI: 10.1080/2194587X.2015.1024799
Ash, A. N., Hill, R., Risdon, S., & Jun, A. (2020). Anti-racism in higher education: A model for
change. Race and Pedagogy Journal: Teaching and Learning for Justice, 4(3), 2.
Bensimon, E. M., Dowd, A. C., & Witham, K. (2016). Five principles for enacting equity by
design. Diversity and Democracy, 19(1), 1-8.
Cahalan, Margaret W., Addison, Marisha, Brunt, Nicole, Patel, Pooja R., & Perna, Laura W.
(2021). Indicators of Higher Education Equity in the United States: 2021 Historical Trend
Report. Washington, DC: The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher
Education, Council for Opportunity in Education (COE), and Alliance for Higher
Education and Democracy of the University of Pennsylvania (PennAHEAD).
Castellanos, J., Gloria, A. M., Mayorga, M. M., & Salas, C. (2008). Student affairs professionals'
self-report of multicultural competence: Understanding awareness, knowledge, and
skills. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 44(4), 1040-1060.
Cercone, K. (2008). Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning
design. AACE Review (formerly AACE Journal), 16(2), 137-159.
Factuality. (n.d.). https://www.Factualitythegame.Com/. Retrieved April 19, 2022, from
https://www.factualitythegame.com/
Handy, T. (2022). Word cloud of the Factuality participants.
WALK THE TALK
16
Hammond, Z. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic
engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin Press.
Harrison-Bernard, L. M., Augustus-Wallace, A. C., Souza-Smith, F. M., Tsien, F., Casey, G. P.,
& Gunaldo, T. P. (2020). Knowledge gains in a professional development workshop on
diversity, equity, inclusion, and implicit bias in academia. Advances in Physiology
Education, 44(3), 286-294.
Khan, N., & Forshaw, T. (2017). New Skills Now: Inclusion in the Digital Economy.
http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/576085
Kozleski, E. B., & Proffitt, W. A. (2020). A journey towards equity and diversity in the educator
workforce. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(1), 63-84.
McNair, T. B., Bensimon, E. M., & Malcom-Piqueux, L. (2020). From equity talk to equity
walk: Expanding practitioner knowledge for racial justice in higher education. John Wiley
& Sons.
Mintz, S. (2021, April 20). How to Stand Up for Equity in Higher Education.
https://www.Insidehighered.Com. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-edgamma/how-stand-equity-higher-education
Murphy, M., & Destin, M. (2016). Promoting inclusion and identity safety to support college
success.
Prystowsky, R. (2018). A systemically collaborative approach to achieving equity in higher
education. Metropolitan Universities, 29(1), 93-102.
Santhosh, L., Rojas, J. C., & Lyons, P. G. (2021). Zooming into focus groups: Strategies for
qualitative research in the era of social distancing. ATS scholar, 2(2), 176-184.
DOI:10.34197/ats-scholar.2020-0127PS
WALK THE TALK
Figure 1
Word Cloud of Factuality Participants
17
1
Walk the Talk: Supporting the Equity Journey of Online Higher Education Institutions
Dr. Teresa Leary Handy and Dr. Tamecca Fitzpatrick
Department of Education and Liberal Arts, University of Arizona Global Campus
Author Note
We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Teresa Leary Handy, Ed.D.
Email: Teresa.Handy@uagc.edu
WALK THE TALK
2
Abstract
This ongoing qualitative research project examines the process by which faculty and staff at an
online university moved from discussions of equity to the implementation of equity practices in
the learning environment. 55 faculty and staff members participated. As these are preliminary
results, faculty and staff will complete two additional surveys after they complete their voluntary
21-day equity challenge and book discussion sessions. After participating in the virtual
interactive game, students showed an increased understanding of structural inequality, the
intersectionality between race and poverty, and the systemic issues facing them. Additionally,
preliminary results suggest that faculty and staff feel better equipped to support diverse students.
These preliminary results are discussed in terms of potential implications for institutions working
with fluctuating faculty and staff while working towards institutional equity and inclusion goals.
Keywords: diversity, equity, inclusion, gaming, higher education, professional
development
WALK THE TALK
3
Walk the Talk: Guiding the Equity Journey of Online Higher Education Institutions
Action is an essential part of equity work, but it can be challenging because it forces us to
confront and examine some of our socialization and personal biases. Mintz (2021) states that
pursuing equity can look like the pressure institutions feel to live up to their purported ideals of
merit, diversity, inclusivity, and opportunity. However, what causes the pendulum to swing
towards equity in higher education? McNair et al. (2020) suggest that a paradigm shift in
language and behavior is needed and that institutions must use an equity lens or framework to
guide their work. Hence, faculty and staff having a deep understanding of the systemic issues
that impact student success and retention in higher education are essential to the learning
environment and the institution. The opportunities to improve equity in higher education remain
at the forefront of conversations and should remain the focus of an institution’s continuous
improvement efforts. These glaring equity gaps have impacted underrepresented and
underserved students the greatest (Prystowsky, 2018). Specifically, the non-traditional adult
learners who make up 50% of students in higher education are the ones faced with the most
significant challenges. (Cahalan et al., 2021). Finally, there is significance in meeting the needs
of these students, which can support the sustainability of colleges and universities.
Introduction
Hammond (2015) reasons that intention is the starting point with self-examination of one's
cultural identity in the next stage. Notably, the University of ABC leadership team has focused
on intentionally supporting students who have been systemically marginalized. Consequently,
the researchers assert that it would be a best practice to propose the next step to be supporting
faculty through understanding their personal stories and the impact their lived experiences have
on their instructional practices. This multi-pronged approach is meaningful as it will help
institutions learn ways to support faculty as they move from an equity talk to an equity walk. The
researchers seek to provide a professional development protocol to:
•
•
•
enhance institutional and faculty equity-centered pedagogy
positively impact student retention and success.
model for institutions, equity initiatives that engage faculty stakeholders.
Dr. Teresa Leary Handy, a former Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at a private P12 school, knows first-hand the challenges of shifting a 175-year-old institution forward on
equity issues. Dr. Tamecca Fitzpatrick has diverse experiences helping individuals and
WALK THE TALK
4
organizations ensure their actions are evidence of their commitment to the students, families, and
communities that they serve. Together, this team wanted to explore a specific interactive gaming
experience followed by the book with an action framework with an optional equity challenge to
help provide faculty and staff the ignitor needed to build their capacity and fuel their equity work
in talk and action.
Literature Review
Andragogy is the learning theory that is designed to address the particular needs of the adult
learner (Cercone, 2008 & Thompson et al., 2004). As the researchers selected the tools/strategies
for this project, they wanted each to be rooted in best practices for working with adult learners.
In other words, the tools would respect the participants’ prior experiences while including what
they need to know, it had to be self-directed as well as problem-oriented with immediate
opportunities to use the new learning (Cercone, 2008).
According to McNair et al. (2020), the ten obstacles that block an institution’s journey to
racial equity are:
•
Claiming not to see race.
•
Not being able/willing to notice racialized consequences.
•
Skirting around race.
•
Resisting calls to disaggregate data by race and ethnicity.
•
Substituting race talk with poverty talk.
•
The pervasiveness of white privilege and institutionalized racism.
•
Evasive reactions to racist incidents.
•
The incapacity to see institutional racism in familiar routines.
•
The myth of universalism and seeing racial inequities as a reflection of academic
deficiency.
•
Seeing racial inequities as a reflection of academic deficiency.
So, how does one combat these obstacles? In the text, McNair et al. (2020) provides equityminded responses, but how does one develop an equity mind? Exactly what is an equity mind?
How can institutions, faculty, and staff properly execute equity initiatives if they don’t
understand equity, the toll it takes on faculty of color, and what that looks like in practice at all
levels throughout the institution (Ballard et al., 2020)? Fundamentally, the book is excellent and
there are research-supported strategies to move institutions forward on their equity journey, but
WALK THE TALK
5
how can faculty and staff explain equity in their practice with students and connect it to their
institutional work?
Bensimon, et al. (2016) defines equity-mindedness as a way of approaching educational
reform that foregrounds the policies and practices contributing to disparities in educational
achievement and abstains from blaming students for those accumulated disparities. According to
Bensimon et al., (2016) the five principles that institutional leaders can use to guide their work
are:
1. Clarity in language, goals, and measures.
2. “Equity-mindedness” should be the guiding paradigm for language and action.
3. Equitable practice and policies are designed to accommodate differences in the contexts
of students’ learning-not treat all students the same.
4. Enacting equity requires a continual process of learning, disaggregating data, and
questioning assumptions about relevance and effectiveness.
5. Equity must be enacted as a pervasive institution and system-wide principle.
These five principles, which the researchers, who have experience as diversity practitioners, find
to be ideal to help institutions move on their equity journey. However, the researchers wondered
how faculty and staff conceptualize these equity obstacles and principles. When working with
students, faculty and staff draw on their rich cultural histories. How are institutions preparing
faculty and staff to work with 21st-century students? How are faculty and staff trained to handle
the complexities of culture, diversity, and systemic oppression that are impossible to ignore as
work is done to dismantle structural inequalities that perpetuate systemic racism in higher
education (Alexander, et al., 2015, Ash et al., 2020, Castellanos et al., 2008, and Kozleski et al.,
2020)?
How do faculty and staff unpack these complex issues to become more culturally responsive
or equity-minded? What does it mean to become more culturally responsive? Kwak (2020)
asserts that culturally responsive teaching views the cultural knowledge of students as an asset
that is needed in higher education by faculty who are adept and comfortable at using that
information to scaffold the students learning. Whereas, Casetllanos et al., (2008) contend that for
student affairs professionals, training that addresses interpersonal, intrapersonal, and cultural
dynamics while also focusing on personal awareness and knowledge would maximize skill
development (field studies or a practicum). Furthermore, how do faculty and staff engage in this
WALK THE TALK
6
deeply personal work that requires them to be not only aware but comfortable connecting with
the cultural background of the students they engage within the learning environment. If faculty
and staff have not increased their cultural awareness and engaged in not only a critical reflection
but also a personal reflection they will not realize their experiences reflect their cultural values
and norms and in many cases those cultures and norms are varied from those of the students they
serve (Kozleski et al., 2020). We know that how faculty and staff think about ability,
intelligence, and academic talent has important implications for students’ motivation and
performance (Murphy & Destin, 2016). Accordingly, having a growth mindset, one that
identifies challenges, knows which strategies to use with students, flexible, curious, open, and
receptive to change is a necessary 21-century skill our faculty and staff will need as they work
with the 21-century student (Khan & Forshaw, 2017).
Purpose
The purpose of the study is to examine the process by which faculty and staff move from
the discussion of equity to the implementation of equity practices in the learning environment.
Students need higher education institutions (hei’s) to see all their identifiers in the classroom and
during their interactions. HEIs that can understand marginalized students' racialized experiences,
resiliency, and persistence will demonstrate the cultural competency, cultural humility, and
culturally responsive teaching practices these students need. Furthermore, developing a faculty
and staff with this skill set supports the 21st-century skills our global students will need to be
global leaders (Khan & Forshaw, 2017). For faculty and staff to see the complete student, they
must examine their personal stories, biases, and practices while assessing the impact each could
have on the institution's equity work. Leaders in higher education are hiring consultants, reading
books, and conducting professional development to meet their initial goals. However, it remains
to be seen if this is the most effective way to help faculty become more culturally responsive and
equity-centered. In fact, after experiencing several lecture-style trainings and book studies, the
researchers were curious if a combination of learning experiences could ignite the action needed
to move equity forward. They sought to explore, what is the ignitor for movement from talk to
action? What is an effective way to help faculty and staff become more culturally responsive and
equity-centered in both talk and action?
Design/Methodology/Approach
WALK THE TALK
7
This study first engaged Factuality, a timed online interactive gaming experience that
simulates structural inequality in America. While participating in Factuality, participants
assumed the identities of specific characters encountering a series of fact-based advantages and
limitations based on the intersection of their race, class, gender, faith, sexual orientation, age, and
ability. Next, participants will read and discuss the book, From Equity Talk to Equity Walk by
Tia Brown McNair, Estela Mara Bensimon, and Lindsey Malcom-Piqueux. There are three more
sessions of this book discussion left. Participants were provided a reflective opportunity, by
participating in a 21-day equity walk, where they have a chance to demonstrate their equity
practices in their learning environments. IRB approval (IRB no. 22-0004-UAGC) was received
from the University of ABC Institutional Review Board.
The researchers sought to answer:
a. A What effect does the Factuality the Game have on the understanding full-time faculty
have of systemic issues that affect students in the College of Arts and Sciences?
b.
How do University of ABC faculty members demonstrate culturally responsive teaching
and how do they practice equity in their learning environments?
c.
How do University of ABC faculty members explain their equity walk?
d. How do a framework-focused book and equity challenge support their work with
students?
The methods utilized are Pre and Post Surveys and small group discussions. The pre-survey
will be used to gather baseline information before the interactive game and book study. The postsurvey will be used to gather follow-up information. Finally, small group discussions will be
used to explain, explore, and understand the faculty members’ opinions, behavior, and
experiences. The researcher developed a list of semi-structured questions for the book study
discussions. The survey and small discussion group questions were tested by a panel of experts
to ensure the inter-rater reliability of the questions.
The population of the study is all full-time faculty, Associate faculty, and staff at the
University of Arizona Global Campus. The target sample size was 40 participants and the actual
sample is 55. The researcher used voluntary response sampling for ease of access. The
researchers disseminated e-mail invitations to all faculty and staff. In addition, digital
announcements were used through intranet services for three weeks before the event. Interested
parties completed an online form to receive additional information. Once their interest was
WALK THE TALK
8
known they were sent a registration link for the Factuality event and an informed consent link.
All participants who completed an informed consent form were sent a pre-survey. At the end of
the Factuality event, participants were sent a post-survey. The survey data collection was
completed through an online survey resource. The participants who participated in the Factuality
event were also invited to the book study sessions (there are three remaining at this time) which
are conducted via Zoom. To maintain confidentiality, the researcher created a private meeting,
enabled the waiting room to function, and established ground rules for participation (no
screenshots and participants cannot record). In addition, the participants will provide consent for
cloud recording and transcript, and recordings which will be stored on the Zoom Cloud and
deleted upon receipt of the transcript (Santhos, et al, 2021). Transcription was completed by
Zoom.com and the data is being and will be analyzed through thematic content analysis and
narrative analysis. Participants were reminded of the following they should protect their privacy
with their location of the interview, understand that Zoom recordings are not private since Zoom
may have access, and the Zoom recordings (audio and video) are considered identifiable data.
The research project aims to support the University of Arizona Global Campus faculty in
their work with University of Arizona Global Campus students. Thus, this research project will
refer to the faculty as “participants”. There is the potential for some discomfort for the
participants as they discuss issues related to race. The researchers respect that they do not know
the resources and laws related to mental health treatment in the respective states of the
participants. The researchers specified to the participants that they are not providing treatment
for those who may experience stress about recalling distressing events. Instead, they contracted a
licensed clinical social worker (LCSW) who has racial trauma training to recognize when a
participant may need a break from the discussion. The researchers had the LCSW engage
everyone in five-minute deep breathing calming exercises at the end of each session. The
researchers encouraged participants to journal and engage in self-care activities (suggestions
were provided). At the beginning of each session, the LCSW introduced herself and announced
her background, and her services (to provide stress-reducing strategies, not therapy). She did not
solicit participants rather she was available for them to seek stress-reducing strategies during the
session in a private breakout room. The breakout room was a voluntary space for the participants
to use if they felt the need to take a break from the interactive game or book discussion. The
LCSW did not speak during the session. Rather she observed the group. If she believed the
WALK THE TALK
9
conversation was escalating, she intervened to offer a stress-reducing strategy. Participants were
reminded of the presence of the LCSW with notes in the chat. There was an alternative clinician
on call if needed. During each session, there is an interactive game and book discussion script
read by the researchers and the LCSW.
There are four-hour-long book discussion sessions, and each includes a five-minute stressreducing activity at the end. The first session covered the Preface and Chapters one and two.
Session two will cover Chapters three and four. Session three will cover Chapter five and the
final session is a wrap-up session where participants will share their next steps on their equity
journey. The researchers have discussion questions for each book session. However, participants
actively engaged in open discussions during the Factuality event and the one book discussion
that has taken place.
The pre-survey included a total of 19 questions. Five questions collected participant
anonymous identifiers, and demographic information which included job position, gender, ability
status, and race. Throughout this paper, comments will be shared using anonymous identifiers.
There were six Likert scale questions. These questions were scored using a 5-point Likert scale
was a five-point Please note that in the pre-survey there was a scaling issue with four questions.
The instructions were correct, but the Likert scale was inadvertently reversed. According to
Smyth and Olson (2019), errors do occur and mismatches can undermine data quality in both
mail and telephone modes, although they may be less detrimental when respondents can see both
the question stem and the response options in self-administered modes, which was the case in
this study.
Finally, there were eight long answer questions. The open-ended questions included:
•
What is your understanding of structural inequality?
•
Please provide examples of your understanding of structural inequality.
•
List systemic issues that confront University of Arizona Global Campus students.
•
What is your understanding of the intersectionality of race and poverty?
•
In what ways do you demonstrate support for diverse students in your classroom or
care?
•
Share examples of your classroom practices or student interactions that demonstrate
an understanding of structural inequality.
WALK THE TALK
•
10
What is something you don't understand or that bothers/irritates you as you engage
with students from diverse backgrounds? OR What, if any, concerns or questions do
you have as you engage with diverse students. Please feel free to be candid.
The variety in survey questions allowed participants to share their personal views more deeply.
Dego, made note that “time-on-task was more than 10 minutes (approx. 35+ min). Retention
will very much depend on the time your respondents take/need to participate. I recommend
taking a second strong look at the length of time it will take for volunteer faculty to complete
the stages.” The researchers will use that recommendation when proposing a scale-up model.
One of the questions the researchers asked participants was to “share something you
don’t understand or that bothers/irritates you as you engage with students from diverse
backgrounds – or what if any concerns or questions you have as you engage with diverse
students. Please feel free to be candid.” The researchers found the participants to be not only
candid but also vulnerable. We received over fifty responses that demonstrated future
professional development opportunities for faculty and staff who have some issues
appreciating the many facets of diversity, understanding their own biases, and the impact of
structural racism. Here are some of their responses:
•
Sometimes it seems that students simply accept their circumstances and don’t make
enough effort to think out of the box to overcome them.
•
I want to know the challenges that diverse students face. I recognize that there are
many challenges that I have not had to face, and I don’t want my ignorance of those
challenges to prevent me from helping my students overcome them.
•
I can’t say bothered, but I will say frustrating. It frustrates me when students withhold
information. On the path to building trust, I hope that I am not missing an opportunity
to help simply because I did not know or lacked information.
•
Students who are provocative by making statements such as Adolf Hitler is to be
respected as a leader and admired and respected. Students who fear retaliation for
engaging in topics related to inequality, institutionalized racism, sexism, and ageism.
•
I feel that students from diverse backgrounds may feel that I won’t be able to relate to
their situation/experience. Though I am a first-generation college graduate and came
from situational poverty.
WALK THE TALK
•
11
Things that bother me is some ethnicity feels that they are entitled to things and have
them handed to them. That bothers me that they do not feel they need to work hard like
everyone else. If you do not give them what is asked, they start sending out mixed
signals on how they are being treated.
•
It is difficult for me to know how to handle Ebonics in student writing. It’s not the
collegiate way to write, but I feel as though I am punishing them for their
culture/language. Unsure how to navigate that.
Preliminary Findings:
There have been nearly fifty thousand participants in the facilitated dialogue, virtual, and
interactive experience that simulates structural inequality in America (Factuality, n.d.). In the
unique gaming experience, participants assume the identities of characters and through the 90minute experience, they encounter a series of fact-based advantages and limitations based on the
intersection of their race, class, gender, faith, sexual orientation, age, and ability (Factuality,
n.d.). The experience at the University of Arizona Global Campus was not personalized but the
developer did connect relevant data points related to higher education. The overall feedback from
the participants who engaged in the Factuality event is indicated in Figure 1. The 55 participants
generally described the activity as overwhelmingly positive. However, there were notably a few
participants who had a different experience. Nancy (white female) and Autumn (white female)
both reported feeling sad after the interactive experience ended. Ann (a white Hispanic female)
felt overwhelmed and Sophia (a Black female) felt stressed and needed to visit the breakout
room with the LCSW. She was the only participant who visited the breakout room during the
Factuality event. As the game progressed it became increasingly clear that Black women were
marginalized and significantly impacted by structural and systemic racism.
One of the pre-survey questions asked the participants about their understanding and
ability to explain structural inequality in America. In the pre-survey responses (n=51) 58% of the
respondents indicated that they strongly agreed or agreed that they understood and could explain
structural inequality in America. In the post-survey questions (n=32) 90% of the participants
strongly agreed or agreed that they understood and could explain structural inequality in
America. Please note that no other data has been collected at this point. Participants will report
on their voluntary equity challenge and a final survey after the final book discussion. The
WALK THE TALK
12
following are reports of new learning from the participants who participated in the 90-minute
Factuality experience:
•
Redlining maps was eye-opening. (multiple responses)
•
The cost of structural inequality was new learning for me. I knew it was big, but I did not
know it was $16 billion big.
•
I need to learn more about how to support students and faculty in the area of DEI. I plan
on participating in as many sessions as this to broaden my foundation and strengthen my
role in this process.
•
I learned a lot. It was an eye-opening experience. I feel so grateful for all that I have and
have a better understanding of the sacrifices others have to make for reasons beyond their
direct control.
•
How disparate pain medications are distributed between white and black women for the
same procedure depending on the color of the prescribing doctor.
•
Affirming how we cannot truly understand anyone else’s experiences and need to honor
their journeys and perspectives.
•
I’m having very mixed feelings about being part of a society that is so obviously built on
the practice of oppressing certain groups, whether it’s based on race, country of origin, or
faith. It is so baked in.
•
New learning = now quantifying by time how long it takes women and minority women
to earn what white men earn in a year. I felt that like a punch in the gut. The training also
exposed a blind spot I did not know I had about disability impact, particularly when and
how it intersects with race and poverty.
•
When one’s personal life or experiences is impacted, one takes notice. Taking part in this
exercise helped me to develop empathy for the structural inequities that take place every
day in the lives of others.
•
I knew surface info but did not know the level of disparity in housing, healthcare, and pay
scale covered in the factuality game session 1.
•
I did not previously have much knowledge of the opioid crisis and had not made the
comparison with the treatment of crack in the 80s. It is clear that there is a difference in
the way these two types of drug abuse have been treated that aligns with race.
WALK THE TALK
•
13
Environmental justice specifics regarding green space.
The participants want to know:
•
How to translate this into university policies and classroom practices that support our
students?
•
What needs to change in our own systems?
•
Support faculty in the same manner as we support students.
•
It would be nice to have examples/best practices of how this knowledge would be best be
implemented in the classroom.
•
How does this look/sound from the student’s perspective when they experience support?
•
What is the most impactful way a single individual can make a dent in structural
inequality for our students?
•
We’ve had recent policy changes in addition to our new culture of care initiative. Are we
doing anything to address hiring practices to ensure we are growing a thoughtful student
support team that aligns with our new policies and changing culture?
•
My only question is how to make a positive impact in the brief time we have students in
the course since they already have many demands pulling them in different directions.
The researchers are optimistic that the planned book discussion will support faculty and
staff as they work to answer many of these questions. The chosen book has strategies and action
steps for HEIs to take on their equity journey. In addition, as the participants complete their
voluntary equity challenge, they will find opportunities to not only extend their learning but to
also put some of their words into action. In our final session, faculty and staff will develop and
share their action steps for their equity journey to support students in their care.
Originality/value:
The Walk the Talk study uses a multi-pronged approach to provide evidence for the types
of effective strategies needed to build capacity for faculty and staff at the University of Arizona
Global Campus. These strategies will be used to propose a best practice professional
development protocol that best supports faculty and staff in their equity work with students while
increasing their understanding of not only their role and their connection to their belief system
but also the impact of their values on the learning environment and students’ experience. As this
WALK THE TALK
14
study is ongoing, the findings in this paper are preliminary. However, the preliminary findings
have high implications for higher education institutions seeking effective and efficient
professional development models to support their equity initiatives with a dynamic staff.
The expected outcomes of the study are:
1. Faculty will demonstrate an understanding of the systemic issues that impact their students.
2. Faculty will through self-reflection explain the ways their personal experiences impact their
learning environment.
3. Faculty will describe ways they will specifically practice equity in their learning
environments.
Conclusion
The equity work at the institutional level needs to be dynamic and representative of the best
practices of equity work. The preliminary research presented in this paper indicates that using the
virtual, interactive gaming activity does increase the knowledge of systemic issues that confront
students that can support an institution’s equity work. The researchers anticipate that upon
completion of the book discussion and the voluntary equity challenge they will learn more from
the study participants to help guide their work and develop a professional development protocol
that will address the deficits and needs identified by the study participants.
WALK THE TALK
15
References
Alexander W. Astin & Helen S. Astin (2015) Achieving Equity in Higher Education: The
Unfinished Agenda, Journal of College and Character, 16:2, 6574, DOI: 10.1080/2194587X.2015.1024799
Ash, A. N., Hill, R., Risdon, S., & Jun, A. (2020). Anti-racism in higher education: A model for
change. Race and Pedagogy Journal: Teaching and Learning for Justice, 4(3), 2.
Bensimon, E. M., Dowd, A. C., & Witham, K. (2016). Five principles for enacting equity by
design. Diversity and Democracy, 19(1), 1-8.
Cahalan, Margaret W., Addison, Marisha, Brunt, Nicole, Patel, Pooja R., & Perna, Laura W.
(2021). Indicators of Higher Education Equity in the United States: 2021 Historical Trend
Report. Washington, DC: The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher
Education, Council for Opportunity in Education (COE), and Alliance for Higher
Education and Democracy of the University of Pennsylvania (PennAHEAD).
Castellanos, J., Gloria, A. M., Mayorga, M. M., & Salas, C. (2008). Student affairs professionals'
self-report of multicultural competence: Understanding awareness, knowledge, and
skills. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 44(4), 1040-1060.
Cercone, K. (2008). Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning
design. AACE Review (formerly AACE Journal), 16(2), 137-159.
Factuality. (n.d.). https://www.Factualitythegame.Com/. Retrieved April 19, 2022, from
https://www.factualitythegame.com/
Handy, T. (2022). Word cloud of the Factuality participants.
WALK THE TALK
16
Hammond, Z. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic
engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin Press.
Harrison-Bernard, L. M., Augustus-Wallace, A. C., Souza-Smith, F. M., Tsien, F., Casey, G. P.,
& Gunaldo, T. P. (2020). Knowledge gains in a professional development workshop on
diversity, equity, inclusion, and implicit bias in academia. Advances in Physiology
Education, 44(3), 286-294.
Khan, N., & Forshaw, T. (2017). New Skills Now: Inclusion in the Digital Economy.
http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/576085
Kozleski, E. B., & Proffitt, W. A. (2020). A journey towards equity and diversity in the educator
workforce. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(1), 63-84.
McNair, T. B., Bensimon, E. M., & Malcom-Piqueux, L. (2020). From equity talk to equity
walk: Expanding practitioner knowledge for racial justice in higher education. John Wiley
& Sons.
Mintz, S. (2021, April 20). How to Stand Up for Equity in Higher Education.
https://www.Insidehighered.Com. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-edgamma/how-stand-equity-higher-education
Murphy, M., & Destin, M. (2016). Promoting inclusion and identity safety to support college
success.
Prystowsky, R. (2018). A systemically collaborative approach to achieving equity in higher
education. Metropolitan Universities, 29(1), 93-102.
Santhosh, L., Rojas, J. C., & Lyons, P. G. (2021). Zooming into focus groups: Strategies for
qualitative research in the era of social distancing. ATS scholar, 2(2), 176-184.
DOI:10.34197/ats-scholar.2020-0127PS
WALK THE TALK
Figure 1
Word Cloud of Factuality Participants
17
Media of