Data Collection and Accessibility for Inclusive Excellence Lindsay Murdock Kayley Robsham

Presenters Kayley Robsham Lindsay Murdock Engagement Specialist Community Engagement Manager Inclusion Strategist she/hers Lindsay Murdock Engagement Specialist Inclusion Strategist she/hers

Starting Point Rigid, less inclusive demographic markers Census style data can: Create gender binaries Confuse gender & sex Confuse race & ethnicity Fail to provide comprehensive racial & ethnic breakdowns

Benefits from Inclusive Practices Provides strategic direction forward as campuses make inclusion mission critical Supplements current accountability measures to improve experiences of at-risk students Serves as a starting point for the interpretation of campus climate Helps inform and align campus policies to reflect inclusive student experiences

Important Considerations Implicit Bias Trainings to accompany data accessibility Data Negligence

Challenges to gathering & Sharing data Top Down Approach Rigidity of Student Information Systems (SIS) Functional areas & different softwares

Theoretical Framework

Shifts in EDI Work Trend shifts since 70’s Next Steps? More integrated social justice work Outcomes central to practice Developing Internal capacity for systemic change Top down, well integrated From stereotypes to patterns of treatment “Good one” to organizational change Single issues to intersectionality Silence to competence

Moving Forward Broadened data = more nuanced understanding Implications of self report Expressions of fear Role of Faculty Students data use expectations

Student Expectations Proximity to differences Demonstrated Action Appreciation Collective consciousness Make efforts more visible to students

ADA & Disabilities Accommodations Culture, norms & practices LGBTQ Identities Multiracial students in a mono-racial world

In Practice

In Practice | Gender Identity Campuses using Presence Utilizing Gender identity Tracked involvement based on these demographics Tailored engagement for marginalized LGBTQ population Identified needs, improved retention

In Practice | Campus Climate Surveys Effectiveness of outcomes improves with inclusive data as starting point Intersection of race, gender & class Intersection of LGBTQ identities and sexual violence

In Practice | Preferred Name Policies Following State of Oregon HEC lobby - preferred names in Banner Several states have followed suite See example policies in handout

In Practice | Campus Inclusion Plan Tie data collection goals to overarching inclusion plan, Metrics Accountability measures

Overarching strategies for success

Top 3 Consistent collection of data at events Building a culture of inclusive assessment Access to assessment policies Data sharing Constant review & iteration Collaboration & integration with internal software & third party vendors

Departmental Implementation Provide templates with exhaustive or near exhaustive demographics Departmental Collaboration on forms, data sharing

Divisional Implementation Intersectionality trainings Identifying opportunities for expanded demographics in admissions Strategic initiatives to increase diversity and inclusion, add in goals and metrics that focus on data collection

Campus Wide Implementation Preferred name policies Tracking consistent data processes from applicant stages to alumni databases Partnering with academics - personalized learning Expand data collection in campus climate plan selection and development

Ethical Data Use

Discussion Prompts Ethics surrounding practitioner use of data In what ways do you raise awareness around the importance of these policies or practices on your campus? What trainings have you found effective around EDI and data usage and analyzation? What gaps in training can you identify on your campus? Integrity and responsibility of data utilization and reporting What are some of the effective ways your department trains employees on effective data utilization and reporting? How can these trainings be improved?

References Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: a developmental theory. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308. Barton, D. (2015). The most important factor in a college student’s success. blogs.wsj.com/experts/2015/09/16/the-most-important-factor-in-a-college-students-success/ Kuh, et al. (2006). What matters most to student success: a review of the literature. Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Milem, et al. (2005) Making diversity work on campus: A research-based perspective. https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/mei/milem_et_al.pdf 2016-17 DLE Survey Changes http://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/surveyAdmin/dle/2017/DLE-2017- Survey-Changes.pdf Elliot, et. al. (2013) Institutional barriers to diversity change work in higher education. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244013489686 Johnston, Sara (2015) Unequal Treatment or Uneven Consequence: A Content Analysis of Americans with Disabilities Act Title I Disparate Impact Cases from 1992 – 2012 http://dsq- sds.org/article/view/4938 Obear, K (2012) Reflections on our practice as social justice educators: How far we have come, how far we need to go http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=jctp

For More Information Handout URL for more copies: Inclusive Data Blogs/ Inclusivity Page Lindsay Murdock lindsay@presence.io @linds_murdock Kayley Robsham kayley@presence.io @kayleyrobsham