Literaturnachweis - Detailanzeige
| Autor/in | Griffith, Matthew |
|---|---|
| Titel | Chess, Not Checkers: How Chief Diversity Officers Navigate the Political Terrains of the University Leadership Structure |
| Quelle | (2023), (200 Seiten)
PDF als Volltext Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles |
| Sprache | englisch |
| Dokumenttyp | gedruckt; online; Monographie |
| ISBN | 979-8-3776-2289-5 |
| Schlagwörter | Hochschulschrift; Dissertation; Diversity (Institutional); College Administration; Political Influences; Leadership; Administrator Role; Educational Change; Power Structure; Professional Autonomy; Equal Education; Inclusion; Administrator Attitudes |
| Abstract | Advancing diversity efforts in higher education has long been a complicated, nearly impossible political terrain for senior leaders to navigate (Kezar, 2007). Though still politically fraught, institutional and organizational investments reflect the growing institutional responsibility and accountability around DEI work (Havey et al., 2022; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). However, with these investments come heightened expectations, heightened consequences, and heightened discourse. In recent years, with the emergence and focus on Chief Diversity Officers (CDOs) as senior-level leaders within institutions, the conversation and focus have shifted toward them and their role in creating change. While these roles are commonly viewed as solutions to improving and forwarding institutional responsibility to DEI efforts (Arnold & Braun, 2015), there are ongoing questions about their access and relationship to power and their ability to successfully work toward their institutional charge. The central charge of this study was to examine power and agency in institutional leadership and the unique ways in which CDOs understand, experience, and navigate their dynamics. Additionally, it sought to examine how institutional structures and practices advance or impede CDOs' navigational needs and tactics. The study findings illuminate the various ways in which CDOs understand, experience, and navigate power and agency within their institutional contexts. Moreover, the findings reveal a more nuanced perspective on institutional power dynamics than typically asserted about CDOs and further illustrate how the role is evolving within the university leadership structure. This study contributes to the emerging body of literature on chief diversity officers and qualitative social network scholarship. The study finds that while CDOs have ascended into the senior and executive leadership circles, and thus they hold greater access and sometimes greater influence within the institution, they do not hold unilateral power. Moreover, they oftentimes cannot make the broad, bold changes they may want to make to move efforts forward. Instead, this study finds that through relationship and relational power, even in difficult political terrains, CDOs navigate and create conditions where they can do meaningful work on behalf of their respective institutions. While scholars have long characterized the CDO role as complex because of its unique positioning and institutional charge (Nixon, 2017), this dissertation study is particularly significant as it explores these institutional dynamics directly, seeking to provide more color and specificity to extant scholarship. More directly, it makes a case for political acumen and understanding institutional context as core competencies or needs in these roles. These points build off one another as this political acumen must be situated in contexts that both empower and disempower as CDOs navigate complex, varying, and ever-changing institutional and organizational dynamics. Moreover, it highlights the need for more scholarship, more discussion, and more support for CDOs on managing these interpersonal relationships and their varying orientation to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) work. Moreover, as more CDOs' roles take office in all sectors, this study seeks to extend the discussion about the role of the chief diversity officers in university leadership structures, their power and agency, and the extent to which our systems are willing to change. My hope is that this work, along with the current and emerging scholarship, will be critical in moving forward discussions of DEI leadership, power, and organizational change. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.] (As Provided). |
| Anmerkungen | ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Tel: 800-521-0600; Web site: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml |
| Erfasst von | ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC |
| Update | 2024/1/01 |
Literaturbeschaffung und Bestandsnachweise in Bibliotheken prüfen
Permalink als QR-Code
Inhalt auf sozialen Plattformen teilen (nur vorhanden, wenn Javascript eingeschaltet ist)
Teile diese Seite:
