The Importance of Student Cross-Racial Interactions as Part ofCollege Education: Perceptions of Faculty

Kathryn Valentine, Mary Prentice,and Mónica F. Torres

New Mexico State University

Eduardo ArellanoUniversity of Texas at El Paso

In light of Supreme Court decisions limiting diversity-related admissions processes, agrowing body of research has been conducted to ascertain academic benefits that comefrom cross-racial interactions (CRIs) that can occur only when there is diversity in thestudent body. The majority of this research has focused on student CRIs that occuroutside of the classroom. Few studies have focused on classroom CRIs. The currentstudy sought to understand how faculty on a campus designated as a Hispanic-servinginstitution perceive CRIs in their classes. Five focus groups were conducted on acampus, which houses both a community college and a university. Four conceptsemerged from these faculty conversations. Faculty spoke about the value of CRIs aswell as challenges regarding CRIs in the classroom. They also spoke of their level ofresponsibility for fostering CRIs and explained that what is perceived as diversedepends on previous faculty experiences on other campuses in other regions of thecountry. These findings suggest that institutions need to consider faculty perceptionsand concerns to foster a positive campus climate to support the full potential of studentdiversity.

Keywords: cross-racial interaction, faculty, diversity, perception, classroom

In the past 20 years, research on the value ofstudent racial and ethnic diversity as a part ofcollege education has explored the outcomesof having a diverse student body, one of whichis cross-racial interactions (CRIs) among andbetween students. The research has demon-strated that such interactions contribute to socialand intellectual benefits for all students (Chang,Astin, & Kim, 2004; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, &Gurin, 2002). The benefits associated with CRIsinclude openness to diversity and increased self-

confidence (Chang, Denson, Sáenz, & Misa,2006) and openness to different ways of thinkingand willingness to challenge one’s own beliefs(Pascarella, Edison, Nora, Hagedorn, & Terenzini,1996). In addition, CRIs contribute to studentslearning more about their own attitudes about raceand ethnicity and about these issues in society(Alimo, Kelly, & Clark, 2002; Lopez, 2004). CRIscontribute to students’ intellectual engagementand development, including problem solving, crit-ical thinking, and writing (Gurin et al., 2002).Summing up the trajectory of the research in ameta-analysis, Bowman (2010) concluded that“interpersonal interactions with racial diversity arethe most strongly related to cognitive growth” incomparison to other diversity experiences (p. 20).

Most recently, the research on CRIs has beenextended to include investigation of how suchcross-racial engagement, both in and out of theclassroom, benefits all students on campus andcontributes to a positive institutional climateregarding diversity. In the CRI research mostrelevant to our project, studies have concludedthat students do not even have to engage inCRIs to accrue their benefits. Even when they

This article was published Online First October 29, 2012.Kathryn Valentine and Mónica F. Torres, Department of

English, New Mexico State University; Mary Prentice, De-partment of Educational Management and Development,New Mexico State University; Eduardo Arellano, Depart-ment of Educational Leadership, University of Texas at ElPaso.

This research was supported in part by a grant from theCenter for Teaching Excellence at Eastern New MexicoUniversity.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressedto Kathryn Valentine, English Department, New Mexico StateUniversity, P.O. Box 30001, MSC 3E, Las Cruces, NM 88003.E-mail: kvalent@msu.edu

Journal of Diversity in Higher Education © 2012 National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education2012, Vol. 5, No. 4, 191–206 1938-8926/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0030109

191

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

personally are not part of a CRI, they gain thebenefits just by being on a campus where, onaverage, students have higher levels of CRIs(Denson & Chang, 2009). However, Densonand Chang (2009) caution that campus person-nel must be intentional in increasing the levelsof student body cross-racial engagement in or-der to increase the value of the education beingprovided. They conclude that “it is becomingincreasingly clear that the quality of undergrad-uate education is appreciably enhanced bydiversity-related efforts on colleges and univer-sities” (pp. 346 –347). With the educationalbenefit from CRIs, increasing the opportunityfor interactions would appear to be one of thosediversity efforts.

As stated, the CRI research to date supportsthe idea that interactions among students fromdifferent racial and ethnic backgrounds are ben-eficial. For the most part, however, this researchhas excluded studying the impact of CRIs in theclassroom, focusing instead on the nonclass-room, “informal spaces” of the institution (Ja-mieson, 2009, p. 120). Although the majority ofa student’s day may be spent within “informal”learning spaces, the classroom is perhaps themost obviously officially sanctioned space ineducation. Jamieson (2009), in arguing thatspace is not neutral, refers to the perception thatspace is always “an instrument of the political”(p. 121). In the formal space of the classroom,such politics may be seen in the “dominant,Euro American, Western cultural norms” thatimbue U.S. educational institutions (Hirschy &Wilson, 2002, p. 91). The classroom is, at itsessence, the space created by those in power tofacilitate student learning (Maila, 2010). If theclassroom is indeed conveying or at least oper-ating according to norms determined by thosewho have held and still hold power, then inter-actions across races and ethnicities that occur inthe sanctioned classroom space may impact thesocial and cognitive development of students inways not yet investigated.

By viewing the classroom as political space,and by viewing the instructor as an agent in thetype and amount of interactions students have inclass, the research on the faculty role in class-room CRIs seems important. The research thathas been conducted with faculty most often,however, comes from multi-institutional datasets at predominantly White institutions (PWIs)and has drawn on quantitative approaches. To

address the gap in the literature, this study useda qualitative inquiry to explore faculty perspec-tives on the importance of CRIs as part of collegeeducation on a campus with greater racial andethnic diversity than PWIs. Specifically, we ad-dressed the following research question: How dofaculty on a southwestern border campus (home toa community college and university) perceivecross-racial interactions, particularly in the contextof their teaching?

Conceptual Framework

To understand the formal space of the class-room, many lenses are available through whichto look. Sociology is one such lens, as its pur-pose is to understand social institutions or soci-etal segments as a self-contained entity. Hirschyand Wilson (2002) posited that in classrooms,sociological elements of a group are present.Classrooms, therefore, may be viewed as onetype of societal segment. Relationships amongand between group members develop over time,role relationships develop, and “norms of dis-course” (p. 87) influence interactions amonggroup participants. Hirschy and Wilson argued,therefore, that what occurs within a classroomcan be understood through the “sociology of theclassroom” (p. 87).

Viewed as such, classrooms are spaces thatcan be altered by group members. Because theWestern dominant culture norm of the class-room is that the instructor holds an “asymmet-rical power position” (Hirschy & Wilson, 2002,p. 87), understanding the instructor as a groupmember is important. Commenting on the roleof the instructor in facilitating or inhibitingclassroom interactions, Hirschy and Wilson(2002) suggested that “informed instructors canmake intentional pedagogical choices that pos-itively affect student learning” (p. 91). “Teach-ing norms” (p. 88) influence how faculty inter-act with students and how students interact witheach other. Faculty make pedagogical choicesthat create the learning environment of theclassroom; however, it remains unclear whetherfaculty are making choices that lead to class-room CRIs.

Indeed, our own experiences as faculty mem-bers in the classroom led us to investigate thisquestion on our own campus. Specifically, we,individually and in conversations, grappled withhow to define the diversity of students on this

192 VALENTINE, PRENTICE, TORRES, AND ARELLANO

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

campus and how to best make use of that di-versity in our teaching. Although we sharedsimilar concerns, we also had different back-grounds that we drew on to make sense of thoseconcerns: Three of us are female faculty mem-bers, one a male faculty member; two of usidentify as Chicano/a, two of us as White; threeof us grew up in the region, one of us in anotherstate. In addition, we have all taught 10 years ormore in a variety of settings from communitycolleges to research universities.

Literature Review

Clearly, the research literature indicates thatstudents have much to gain from interactingacross race and ethnicity as part of their collegeexperiences. However, not as much is knownabout the role faculty play in facilitating suchinteractions, and what is known has come fromthe study of institutional or multi-institutionaldata sets. In general, studies in this arena havemixed results, with researchers finding thatsome faculty support and value a racially andethnically diverse student body and other fac-ulty express ambivalence about the educationalvalue of a diverse student body or about theefforts taken to ensure and support a diversestudent body. Based on their review of a na-tional survey of faculty conducted by the HigherEducation Research Institute (HERI), Milemand Hakuta (2000) noted that although therewas agreement about the value of diversity,there was notably less agreement about the ad-missions process that led to this diverse studentbody. Over 90% of those surveyed agreed that“a racially/ethnically diverse student body en-hances the educational experience of all stu-dents,” yet 30% reported that “promoting diver-sity leads to the admission of too many under-represented students” (Milem & Hakuta, 2000,p. 48).

Almost 10 years later, in the most recentlyavailable HERI faculty survey (2007–2008),DeAngelo, Hurtado, Pryor, Kelly, and Santos(2009) found that over 75% of faculty partici-pants reported working to “enhance students’knowledge of and appreciation for other racial/ethnic groups” (Goals for Undergraduate Edu-cation, para. 1) and that over 90% believed that“a racially/ethnically diverse student body en-hances the educational experience of all stu-dents” (Attitudes and Views on Diversity, para.

1). Thus, it appears that faculty have continuedto value a diverse student body and haveworked to enhance student knowledge aboutracial and ethnic others.

Although faculty may support the idea of adiverse campus, additional research suggeststhat they do not always see such diversity af-fecting or accounted for in their approach toteaching. In a study focused specifically on fac-ulty views about the value of diversity, Maruy-ama and Moreno (2000) found that faculty theysurveyed (1,210 full-time faculty) tended to be-lieve that their institutions value diversity, withapproximately 60% confirming that a diverseenvironment was a campus priority. Althoughfaculty may have perceived that the campusadministration valued diversity, faculty them-selves varied in their beliefs that diversityhelped students achieve their educational goals,with less than half the faculty (42%) reportingthat diversity supported the development of crit-ical thinking but over two thirds of faculty(70%) reporting that diversity helped exposestudents to new perspectives. Faculty also re-ported that diversity had little effect on theirteaching, with only 25% of responses indicatingthat they changed class discussions (amongother items) in response to diversity (Maruyama& Moreno, 2000). In addition, faculty reportedbeing comfortable with teaching diverseclasses, but less than one third of participantsreported initiating discussions of race in class orhaving students work in diverse groups.

More recently, three studies found similarvariations among faculty regarding their atti-tudes toward supporting diverse groups ofstudents within the university. The findings ofFlores and Rodriguez (2006) indicated that al-most two thirds of faculty supported diversity,specifically in terms of attitudes related to affir-mative action principles, but that, as with fac-ulty in the 2000 HERI survey, their support waslower and varied, depending on which group ofstudents was being supported. In a survey of428 university faculty, Flores and Rodriguezfound that although faculty were supportive ofaffirmative action principles in general, opin-ions varied on which groups were most accept-able for receiving affirmative action benefits.Specifically, 65% of participants supported in-creasing financial support for students of colorto attend a university, whereas 84% supported asimilar increase for students of lower socioeco-

193IMPORTANCE OF STUDENT CROSS-RACIAL INTERACTIONS

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

nomic standing. Denson and Park (2009) alsoinvestigated faculty attitudes toward diversity,drawing on the HERI faculty survey conductedin 2004–2005. In particular, they analyzed thelikelihood of faculty to advocate for the impor-tance of diversity to learning environments andfound that a variety of traits, backgrounds, andvalues influences how or whether faculty wouldadvocate for diversity. Specifically, Park and Den-son found that women, faculty of color, and fac-ulty in the humanities and social sciences weremore likely to be “diversity advocates” (p. 426).

Results from a third study also revealed vari-ation in faculty attitude, this time dependent onthe home campus of the faculty. Hubbard andStage (2009) examined the variations in facultyattitudes between PWIs and minority-servinginstitutions (MSIs). They found greater differ-ences between PWIs and predominantly Blackinstitutions (PBIs) than the differences betweenPWIs and Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs).Differences emerged in the areas of faculty at-titudes, opinions about students, and career sat-isfaction. Hubbard and Stage suggested thattheir findings indicate that PBIs have benefitedfrom the cultural and historical attention to serv-ing student populations through their institu-tions, whereas other MSIs that do not share thishistory may need to do more to achieve similarbenefits.

Quantitatively, the research on CRIs and fac-ulty suggests that faculty support diversity oncampus, but have had conflicting feelings aboutthe methods used to achieve this diversity. Whatis missing in these studies, however, is the voiceof faculty themselves. In the review of litera-ture, one such qualitative study was found. In acase study of three college classrooms, PatriciaMarin (2000) explored the educational benefitsof CRIs. Most relevant to our purposes are herfindings related to faculty: “Faculty participantsindicated that a multiracial/multiethnic classroomenhances the success of their teaching methods”(p. 62). In addition, both faculty participants andstudents underscored the importance of emphasiz-ing interaction in the classroom, and Marin’s ob-servations confirmed the importance of using ex-periential learning methods, such as small-groupdiscussions, debates, role-playing, and student pa-per exchanges. Marin concluded with a workinghypothesis that suggested that the educationalbenefits of a racially and ethnically diverseclassroom are linked to faculty members’ rec-

ognition and use of diversity as an educationaltool, including the need for faculty members toincorporate content related to diversity in theircourses, to employ active learning techniques,and to create supportive and inclusive class-room environments.

Given the connection between faculty mem-bers’ recognition of the educational benefits ofCRIs and their likelihood to facilitate interac-tions as part of their students’ learning experi-ence, it is important to know more about facultyperceptions of diversity and of CRIs. The aim ofthis study was to provide a more detailed under-standing of faculty perceptions as a means ofsupporting faculty in achieving the educationalbenefits of a diverse student population. There-fore, this study builds on the efforts of quantitativeapproaches to understand faculty attitudes by of-fering a more in-depth qualitative approach thatallows for exploring how faculty think about andfacilitate CRIs in their classrooms.

Method

To achieve this aim, we present a singleinstrumental case study (Stake, 1995) based onfive focus group interviews with faculty fromone community college and one university bothlocated on a single campus. This campus wasselected because it allowed us to pursue a con-cern we had not only as researchers but also asteachers as discussed in the conceptual frame-work. In addition, we selected this site becauseit builds on our previous research (not reportedhere) in which we investigated students’ expe-riences with CRIs.

Research Site

Both the community college and the universityare designated as HSIs with full-time student en-rollments of approximately 7,000 and 18,000, re-spectively. Both institutions are located on thesame campus in a small- to mid-sized border cityin the Southwest. The city has large Hispanic andWhite populations with both English and Spanishcommonly spoken in the area.

To understand the composition of the cam-pus, we ascertained demographics for studentsat each institution, along with the demographicsfor faculty at each institution. Although thegender demographics are similar, the racialdemographics of students differ at each of the

194 VALENTINE, PRENTICE, TORRES, AND ARELLANO

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

institutions on the selected campus (see Table1). At the community college, slightly morethan half the students identify as female andslightly less than half identify as male. Stu-dents identifying as Hispanic make up thelargest ethnic group (approximately 60%).The second largest ethnic group is made up ofstudents identifying as White (approximately25%). At the university, slightly more thanhalf the students identify as female andslightly less than half identify as male. Stu-dents identifying as Hispanic and studentsidentifying as White make up the two largestethnic groups (approximately 40% for eachgroup).

Demographics of the faculty also differ be-tween the two institutions (see Table 2). Thefaculty at the community college are made up ofapproximately equal numbers of men and wo-men. In terms of ethnicity, 40% of the facultyidentify as a member of a minority group. Thefaculty at the university are made up of slightlyless than two thirds men and one third women.In terms of ethnicity, 20% of the faculty identifyas a member of a minority group.

Participants

In total, we interviewed 27 faculty members,with approximately half the participants work-ing at the community college and half at theuniversity. The gender and racial compositionof the focus groups differed from the overallfaculty demographics for each institution. Thefocus group comprised more female faculty,and although it appears that the focus groupcomprised fewer White and minority facultythan listed in the demographics of faculty at thiscampus, the fact that some members of thefocus groups opted not to answer the race/

ethnicity question prevents a direct comparisonof the racial/ethnic backgrounds of the focusgroups as compared with the overall facultydemographics (see Table 2). In addition, focusgroup faculty self-reported on their faculty rankand years of teaching at the institution. Themajority of participants were either tenured orin a tenure-track position. Almost one third(30%) indicated that they were full-time, assis-tant professors on tenure track, and 34% indi-cated that they were tenured, full-time, associateprofessors or full professors. Almost a third hadbeen teaching on campus between 1 to 5 years(37%), a quarter had been teaching on campusbetween 6 and 10 years, and slightly more thana third had been teaching on campus 11 years ormore (34%). See Table 2 for a comparison ofgender and race/ethnicity breakdowns for fac-ulty at each of the institutions on the campusand for focus group participants specifically.

Data Collection and Analysis

Initially, we recruited participants by e-mail-ing a letter describing the study to all faculty onboth campuses. Faculty who responded to theletter were then invited to participate; a smallnumber of those responding were unable toattend a focus group because of scheduling con-flicts. To have enough participants for the finalfocus group, we recruited additional partici-pants using “snowball sampling” based on sug-gestions from faculty who had attended previ-ous focus groups. Using this approach, we in-vited an additional five participants. As statedabove, a total of 27 faculty participated in thestudy.

Each focus group was conducted by at leasttwo researchers, one who facilitated and onewho assisted and took notes. There was always

Table 1Student Demographics at Each Institution

DemographicCommunity college

students (%)University

students (%)

Female 55 56Male 45 44Hispanic 60 40White 25 40Black 3 3American Indian 3 3International 8 8

Table 2Faculty and Focus GroupParticipants Demographics

Demographic

Communitycollege

faculty (%)Universityfaculty (%)

Focus groupparticipants (%)

Female 50 31 59Male 50 68 41Minority 40 20 33White 60 80 56No answer — — 11

195IMPORTANCE OF STUDENT CROSS-RACIAL INTERACTIONS

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

a Chicano/a researcher and a White researcher;in addition, in all but one focus group, theresearchers were male and female. The semi-structured interviews lasted approximately 60 to90 min and ranged in size from four to sevenparticipants. During the interview, we askedparticipants about their experiences with stu-dent interactions across race and ethnicity witha particular focus on their perceptions of whathappens in their classrooms. Examples of ques-tions asked of the participants include the fol-lowing: How do you characterize the racial orethnic diversity of students on this campus? Dostudents commonly interact across race or eth-nicity in your class? What do you think studentsare learning, if anything, from cross-racial orcross-ethnic interactions? Each interview wasaudio recorded and the recordings were tran-scribed. Each participant received a $50 giftcard to a bookstore on completion of the focusgroup.

Data analysis focused on explicating the keyperceptions that characterized participants’ un-derstanding of and experience with CRIs. Afterthe use of questioning, memoing, and reading thetranscripts as a whole, the entire research teamidentified eight descriptive categories. Any diver-gent codes were reconciled through discussionamong the research team, and throughout the restof the analysis process, the team was in agreementon the findings that emerged. The lead researcher(a White, female, composition professor) thencoded all the transcripts, totaling 144 single-spaced pages, using these categories. This initialround of coding focused on descriptive coding toidentify topics of interest based on the study’sfocus on CRIs (Saldaña, 2009). After the researchteam wrote about the study and received feedbackon the findings based on the initial coding, thesecond round of coding focused on identifyingperceptions related to the topic of interest. Thelead researcher used focused coding to identifyperceptions of the participants and to group thoseperceptions into four categories (Charmaz, 2006).She then recoded the transcripts with this focus.Two other members of the research team (oneChicano, education professor, and one Chicana,cultural studies professor) then reread the tran-scripts to verify the analysis of the lead researcher.The findings report on these four categories ofperception.

Trustworthiness

A number of strategies are commonly used inqualitative research to help establish the trust-worthiness of a research project. For this study,we used two of those strategies to ensure thecredibility of our inquiry. First, the inquiry wastriangulated through the use of multiple inves-tigators (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This also al-lowed for a form of peer debriefing (Creswell &Miller, 2000) in that one researcher (as notedabove) took the lead on designing the study andanalyzing data while the other members of theresearch team reviewed the study design andprocess and confirmed the data analysis. Sec-ond, member checks (Lincoln & Guba, 1985)were conducted with two participants, a univer-sity professor who identifies as White and acommunity college professor who identifies asIndian. Another participant, a Hispanic profes-sor, who was asked to conduct a member checkdeclined our request. These individuals wereasked to review the findings and comment onwhether they were representative of their per-spectives and what they heard of other partici-pants’ perspectives in order to ensure that theresearcher interpretation was valid from theview of those studied. The participants whoconducted the member checks found the find-ings consistent with what they recalled from thefocus groups they attended.

Findings

Faculty we interviewed had a variety of per-spectives on CRIs but four categories seemedthe most salient in terms of understanding theirperception of the role of CRIs in higher educa-tion. These four categories include how facultyperceived the value of CRIs; how they per-ceived the challenges of supporting CRIs; howthey perceived their responsibility in facilitatingCRIs, including what goals they had, if any, insuch facilitation; and finally, how they per-ceived the diversity of the student body in lightof having previously lived in different areas ofthe country.

Perceptions of the Value of CRIs

The finding that was most striking to us wasthat the faculty we interviewed seemed tostrongly value CRIs as an aspect of college

196 VALENTINE, PRENTICE, TORRES, AND ARELLANO

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

education. The general perspective was that par-ticipants felt such interactions contributed agreat deal to student learning. More specifically,participants shared their views that CRIs helpstudents gain different perspectives, prepare forlife after college, engage in critical thinking,and reflect on their own positions and assump-tions. As noted, for some participants, CRIshelped students gain different perspectives. Forexample, a community college professor de-scribed this as a benefit in terms of learning tosolve problems in new ways:

I think we can get into a kind of a narrow mindset. Andif you are working with people of different cultures,somebody else is going to look at a problem in adifferent way and see it differently. And so then that’sgoing to get you to thinking, “Oh, wow! Maybe I’mmaking these assumptions.”

Another participant, also a community col-lege professor, felt that learning about differentperspectives supported students learning aboutthe subject matter he teaches:

If I had to think from a pedagogical point of view, fromthe students learning the subject matter, what gives themost payback? I would have to say that, you know,interacting with others who are different from them-selves. And I . . . and it’s always overwhelminglypositive. And usually, unfortunately, because we livein an oppressively racist environment and culture,more than many places, it has to be initiated or primedor something.

Here, we also see that this participant valuesCRIs in the classroom in connection with hisbelief that such interaction must be “initiated” in aracist culture and the classroom presents one con-text in which to facilitate such interaction.

Another value that a number of participantsspoke about was the way CRIs prepare studentsfor life after college. For example, the view of auniversity professor was that such interactionswould enhance students’ lives in general:

I view it as one of the great things that the students get[at this school], in terms of their learning background,something that [happens because] it’s a very ethnicallydiverse campus—learning to work with others. And Ithink that that’s a very strong selling point whenthey’re going out in the job market. And I also think itmakes them be better educated. And I think they’ll livetheir lives better for having experienced it.

Another university professor also noted howCRIs prepare students to work in her field:“[E]specially in my field [. . .] I think it’s essen-tial that students have some experience of work-

ing with people that aren’t like the ones theygrew up with or went to high school with.”

Another area of value that participants per-ceived was related to critical thinking. Speaking ofthis, a university professor stated the following:

I think working in ethnically diverse or racially diverseenvironment is really an excellent way to promotecritical thinking—where you . . . you shake people upabout what their assumptions are and force them tothink them through carefully. And I think that’s themain benefit they get from working with ethnicallydiverse groups.

A community college professor shared thisperspective, underscoring her belief that CRIscontribute to critical thinking: “And I think thatcultural diversity and interaction, I believe,helps with critical thinking skills and our abilityto think in different ways and to help solveproblems and stuff. I just believe that that’s veryimportant.”

Finally, a number of participants saw value inthe way that CRIs could contribute to studentscritically reflecting on their own viewpoints andassumptions. However, of the value that partici-pants perceived CRIs to hold, this one seemedalso to be the most confusing in that participantsspoke to their uncertainty that students were actu-ally valuing this kind of critical reflection. Forexample, a university professor shared the follow-ing about what he thought students were learningcompared with his perspective on what he thoughtstudents might say they were learning:

What I think they’re learning because of things thatI’m observing is at least there’s an exposure to and anawareness of ethnicity besides Caucasian/Hispanic. Ithink that they are not taking for granted that theirviewpoint represents an entire group. I think what theythink they’re learning is stuff that they feel like theyalready know, which is more based on, “I understandthat I’m supposed to, you know, accept other people’sdifferences.” And I’m not really sure that the impact ofefforts that I may have in certain classes really showsin the class. And I hope it shows after the class. Like alleducation, I hope that if it doesn’t make sense now, ifit doesn’t change them now, that sometime in thefuture it will when they encounter it again.

Following up on this participant’s response, acommunity college professor also spoke to hisbelief that students were learning to engage incritical reflection but at the same time expressedhis uncertainty about whether they connectedthis learning with CRIs:

You know, whether they’re getting this new-foundconsciousness because of a discussion they had with

197IMPORTANCE OF STUDENT CROSS-RACIAL INTERACTIONS

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

another student in class—I’m not so sure, as [theprevious participant] was saying, who knows whatthey’re getting . . . learning from this. But what they’rewriting, what they’re turning in does demonstrate that,you know, there is a hammering away at this worldview that they have been raised with. So they arechallenged to take a look at their own belief systems.

These perceptions of the values associatedwith CRIs highlight the importance of viewingthe classroom as a space of social interaction(Hirschy & Wilson, 2002). Indeed, if CRI ispresent and effective in the classroom, our par-ticipants suggest that students are learningmuch more than the course content. Specifi-cally, they see students using the social space ofthe classroom to engage in critical thinking,self-reflection, and perspective taking, and theysee students being prepared to benefit from fu-ture interactions because of what students learnabout social and cultural dynamics. This viewof interactions in the classroom highlights theimportant role faculty can play in making themost of CRIs and in working to support CRIs aspart of their instructional responsibilities.

Perceptions of Challenges in SupportingCRIs

Along with the perception that CRIs are quitevaluable, a number of participants also spoke ofthe challenges they experienced in working tomake the most of diversity in the classroom andto support students’ interactions across race andethnicity (with a little more than a third of thefaculty we interviewed speaking to these chal-lenges or concerns directly). The most prevalentarea in terms of faculty perceptions of chal-lenges was the idea that faculty were unpre-pared or uncertain about what to do as instruc-tors. A university professor described her senseof the difficulty of working with diversity andthe questions that diversity raises for her interms of how faculty are supported to work withdiversity as part of college-level instruction:

That we’re supposed to think diversity and think rain-bows and unicorns and there’s supposed to be lovelybackground music. But, you know, the truth is it’scomplicated. It’s weird. It’s dangerous. It’s confusing.It’s foreign. And so, you know, as faculty I think: Canwe support faculty in managing the complexity thatcomes with a diverse student population, a diverseidea, a diverse curriculum?

Related to this sense of not knowing what todo in regards to supporting CRIs, a community

college professor described his experience ofworking with students who made racially biasedstatements in the classroom:

And I had had early on some students that camein—and White students as well as Hispanic students—came in with a preconceived notion about the othergroup. This is the way a White student is supposed tobe acting or should act or do. And White studentswould think a Hispanic student would act in a certainway, in a certain fashion. And, you know, some stu-dents have . . . made rather derogatory comments abouta particular ethnic group. And I didn’t . . . I was a newteacher back then, so I really didn’t understand how tohandle such comments. And, so now-a-days I kind ofmake it known . . . I don’t know somehow or other,that kind of thing has . . . has gone down. I haven’tseen that kind of activity yet.

A university professor spoke of making a mis-take in how she was assigning groups, which shelater realized limited students’ ability to engage inCRIs. Importantly, she also describes how shelearned something from this mistake:

And that is that I made a mistake one year when I wasputting folks into permanent work groups for the se-mester. I usually ask what people’s first language is. Iusually have a demographic sheet, information sheetabout students just so that I get to know them. And oneof the things I would ask . . . I asked at the time was,“What is your first language?” And so when I wasdetermining groups, I tried to make certain that folkshad at least somebody else with their first language intheir group, maybe two other people. And at one pointa group asked me, “How did you decide who went inwhat group?” And I mentioned that to them. And theygot upset with me. And they said, “We don’t. Whywould you do that? You know, it’s important thateverybody interact with everybody, and that you haveexperiences with people who are very different fromyour background.” And they were absolutely right, youknow. So they were . . . they were concerned not to belimited in that way. Not to be . . . I mean, they saw thatgroup sort of as a ghetto in some sense, I guess. So thatwas very . . . that was something they definitely taughtme about that.

Another challenge that a few participantsspoke of was when White students in theirclassrooms positioned themselves as being aminority group. This perception was unique toour campus context in that White individualscan more frequently be in the numerical minor-ity (on campus and off campus) as comparedwith other areas of the United States. However,what challenged participants who discussed thisperception was the idea that White students didnot recognize Whiteness as a form of privilegeor power. A community college professor de-scribed this as follows:

198 VALENTINE, PRENTICE, TORRES, AND ARELLANO

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

One of the other things that I find unique in this area isthat the Anglos are not the majority in number usuallyin our classes at the community college. And so whenwe get to talking about race, prejudice, discrimination. . . the conversation just kind of somehow turns upsidedown. Because when I, you know . . . of course, froma sociological standpoint, you know, White is power.And, you know, other ethnic groups are less power.And the White students just jump all over that becausethey feel that they are in the minority in this area.And they often will share experiences where they feellike they’ve been discriminated against or oppressed.And so it’s a challenge to really help students see,“Well, if that may be your experience, that may be thecase in this particular area, but this is part of a largersociety—part of a larger country.” So it’s just . . . it’sjust different when you have the majority group in yoursociety posing as a minority member in your class-room. Does that make any sense?

This concern suggests how powerfully largersocial forces can come into play in our class-rooms and influence how students act and in-teract. It connects with the larger theme of notknowing how to best support CRIs in the class-room that participants expressed and that we, asboth researchers and teachers, have experiencedin our own work. Specifically, it helps us toappreciate that as teachers we will need to con-tinually work to understand how students areexperiencing our instructional designs and alsohow they are positioning themselves in relationto the larger identity politics of our society.

Perceptions of Responsibility and GoalsRelated to CRIs

About half of the participants spoke of howthey perceived responsibilities and goals relatedto fostering CRIs. What stands out about thisperception is that the faculty who discussedtheir goals or responsibility also seemed to feela greater sense of efficacy in terms of their roleas an instructor to meaningfully support CRIs.This perception ranged from those participantswho had the general goal of ensuring interactionso that students worked across a number of dif-ferences, including race and ethnicity, to thoseparticipants who had more specific goals related toCRIs. Those more specific goals included promot-ing dialogue and listening, changing racializedpower dynamics, and encouraging students to seeeach other as resources for learning. A universityprofessor described her sense of responsibility asone of helping students make connections:

But within the context of [the courses she teaches], Ibelieve the students can learn a lot from each other.

And what I have seen is sometimes they don’t alwaysconnect. I think it’s very important that they do. And,as you said, [refers to another participant], the onus ison us to try to make that connection if we feel like it’simportant that they have that for the benefit of whatwe’re trying to instruct them in.

Similarly, another university professor de-scribed how she uses group work to fulfill thisresponsibility and how she perceives her use ofgroup work to be effective:

I set up groups every day of class. And I mix. . . . Everyday they never knew where they were going to be—they couldn’t choose. And they had exercises. And alot of the work was based on that. So by the time theygot to the end of the semester, they had mixed all the. . . You know, I made sure that there was interactionthroughout all ages, all ethnic and racial groups, ev-erything. It was interesting to see the . . . how theyweren’t forming cliques like some of the other classesat that time. They were starting to develop anunderstanding.

A community college professor spoke of hisspecific goals of using CRIs to encourage dia-logue and listening. Speaking of dialogue, heexplained, “And I engineer interracial dialogueall the time. And, you know, if I stop doing that,after a certain point it continues on its own. Butif I don’t keep it up at the beginning, it doesn’thappen on its own.” He also described his ef-forts to teach students how to learn to listen toeach other:

But when you can enforce them to listen across thoselines, so they know they’re responsible. You know,this person said it—whoever she is. And then that picksup. And then they start interacting spontaneously, ask-ing questions—even asking someone to repeat some-thing or explain something. Because, of course, it’sbasic language skills. So to articulate your ideas, speakin full sentences, it’s kind of a new experience for a lotof them. And they find they can . . . they can do that asgroup with each other. And it’s even a little moreinteresting, you know. How about this, you know,gang-banger type personality with the tattoos and ev-erything, you know. Can you really understand whatthey’re saying? And say it back to them? Or, youknow, explain what they’re . . . what they’re doing?And that also has its own momentum. It picks up very,very often.

Another participant, also a community col-lege professor, who was concerned about herperception that White students dominated classdiscussions even when they were in the numer-ical minority, had the goal of using CRIs to shiftthe power dynamics between White studentsand other racial or ethnic groups. Specifically,she perceived her responsibility as being, at

199IMPORTANCE OF STUDENT CROSS-RACIAL INTERACTIONS

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

least in part, to empower minority students toparticipate more fully:

So when I’m doing group work, one of the things I’mtrying to get people to do is I want the minoritystudents—Hispanic students—to learn to speak up.And so I’m really hands-on on the groups. I walkaround and say, “You seem to be doing all the talking.How are we going to share this?” Or the . . . the Angloperson will say, “Okay. I’ll be the . . . I’ll do all thewriting. And I’ll be the recorder.” And I’ll say, “No,no, no. We’re . . . you know, let’s move, change theseroles around.” So I feel like I’m . . . I want them to befriends. I want them to be comfortable. I want them tofunction in the world. But I want the dynamics tochange, that are so established when people come intoclass. And that doesn’t, you know, if they were allHispanics in the class, then the . . . it would be differ-ent, if people would step up—unless they’re terriblyshy. But as soon as I, as soon as we have Anglostudents, things change. And that’s what I want tobreak up by using groups.

Finally, a third participant, also a communitycollege professor, spoke of her specific goal ofencouraging interaction so that students seeeach other as resources for learning the coursematerial. She described this process as follows:

Like I said earlier, I do a lot of group work. I alwaystell them, you know, one of the biggest resources—thebest resource you have is each other. So in classroomI really encourage them to, before class, talk to eachother. And sometimes when they come to ask me aquestion, I’ll say, “Well, what does so-and-so think?Ask them.” And so, I make them rely on each other.For the beginning of class, I’ll put something up on theboard. “I didn’t get this problem.” “You come overhere.” And, “How did you do this?” And just reallyencourage them to just use each other. That helps thema lot, too, to interact. And I know they’re interactingbecause they’ll tell me, “Oh, I called so-and-so lastnight, and this is the way they were doing it.” And it’sacross . . . across age, across racial, across every kindof barrier imaginable.

What is striking about these three participantsis that their strategies for supporting CRIs aredirectly tied to specific benefits they associatewith such interaction. For example, if an in-structor believes CRIs can help students learn tolisten, these participants suggest that usingteaching strategies that support such listeningwill have the twin goal of encouraging interac-tion while at the same time teaching studentshow to listen across difference. And these in-structors seemed to have a greater sense ofefficacy in their roles than other participantswho did not seem to have as clear goals.

Notably, about half of the participants did nothave any goals or feel a responsibility to support

CRIs even though it was of value to them.Largely this was because they perceived thatstudents interact across racial and/or ethnic dif-ferences without the instructor needing to facil-itate such interaction. However, of these partic-ipants, many of them still made use of groupwork in their courses and found group work tobe an effective way to support interaction. Onecommunity college instructor described thisperspective as follows:

I don’t make a conscious effort in the classroom tohave them interact cross-culturally. I just think it hap-pens. And in some cases it doesn’t because you haveall Hispanic students. So [. . .] I don’t think I make aconscious effort, “I need to put this person. . . .” Youknow, I don’t think I do that—ever.

Our premise—that participants’ feelings of ef-ficacy are greater when they, as instructors, havespecific goals for supporting CRIs—points to therole that faculty can play in making interactionseffective in the classroom. As Hirschy and Wilson(2002) suggest, “[b]y anticipating and attending tothe social forces that occur in the classroom, fac-ulty better foster student learning . . .” (p. 97). Iffaculty reinforce behaviors that support and valueCRIs, then students will be more likely to benefitfrom them.

Perceptions of Student Diversity andParticipants’ Background Experience

One finding that emerged from our study thatwe did not anticipate was the extent to whichcurrent perceptions of student diversity are re-lated to participants’ background experienceswith diversity. For example, about half of ourparticipants spoke about the campus as a placeof limited diversity; at the same time, about halfof the participants spoke about it as a place ofgreat diversity. What emerged was that individ-uals often were drawing on their backgroundexperience, specifically their experiences inother parts of the country and, if they had beenon campus for a number of years (generally atleast 5 years), then how they had come to seethe campus over time. In part, what was strikingto us about this finding was that it mirrored ourown perspectives and was part of what had ini-tially prompted us to undertake this research—thatis, we wanted to have a better understanding ofhow to make sense of CRIs in the context of ourcampus because, as faculty ourselves, we grappledwith how to make sense of the interactions stu-

200 VALENTINE, PRENTICE, TORRES, AND ARELLANO

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

dents were experiencing and how to define orunderstand the diversity of students based on raceand ethnicity.

As noted, one issue that a number of partic-ipants discussed was their perception that thiscampus was located in a less diverse area thanwhere they previously lived or taught. For ex-ample, one community college professor dis-cussed his perspective that this campus had aless culturally diverse student population andtherefore was more challenging to work with interms of CRIs:

I come from [a southern state], which is very differentin terms of cultural groups. So I kind of see this placeas not homogenous, but kind of limited to twogroups—Mexican American and White or Caucasian.And sometimes in my classrooms I find it difficult tobring in different kinds of cultural viewpoints becausethe students don’t exist. You know, I don’t have anyAfrican Americans. I don’t have Puerto Ricans. I don’thave Cuban Americans, you know. So it’s kind of hardto give them that . . . that full experience.

Along the same lines, a university professorstruggled with characterizing the campus as di-verse because of her experience living in an-other area of the country:

I mean, I . . . it’s funny. I don’t know if I would use theword diversity. I mean, what I see is . . . there seem tobe students that are Mexican American or Chicano orChicana or however they might self-identify. But froman outsider’s view, I would say Mexican Americansand then there’s Anglos. I mean, I come from [an EastCoast city], so I wouldn’t even use the word diversity.So I think it’s interesting that the word diversity—andwhat it means here. But it seems to me that there’s two. . . two ethnic identities.

However, a number of other participants feltthe area was diverse, and they were grapplingwith what it meant that some people did notperceive it that way. For example, a universityprofessor who was new to the area discussedhow she was surprised that people who grew upin the area or had lived there some time took thecultural diversity for granted. This was in re-sponse in part to other participants’ discussionof the student population but also her perceptionof students. It also was related to a challengeshe felt in making the most of diversity in thearea. Early on she spoke about this challenge:

And I think it’s a challenge because students here takefor granted the cultural heterogeneity that exists. And ifthis is where . . . you know, so many of them have. . . .It’s been my experience thus far that, you know, notvery many of them have left [this area]. And so, I think

that perhaps, this is pure conjecture on my part, thatthey take the heterogeneity here for granted. And itkind of makes me a little bit worried if they were to gosee another part of the country. And, you know, maybea little bit larger reality check for them, if you will.

And later she discussed feeling like a newcomerand being surprised at others’ perceptions of thestudent population:

And I feel like the “newcomer/outsider” here becausepeople keep talking about the homogeneity of thestudent population. It’s all, you know, White or Mex-ican American. And like, you know, I came from [anorthwestern state]. It was very White. We had a fewBlack students, and then we had a few Asian students.So I come here, and I think this is just a very culturallydiverse population. But apparently I need to live herefor a couple more years. Because I’m thinking, “Oh,my god! You know, we have Mexican Americans. Wehave Whites. We have, you know, we have the Mex-ican, you know, Mexicans. And this is great.” This isso different than what I was used to up in [my previ-ous] state.

This participant’s perception can be con-trasted with another participant’s perception,also a university professor who has been in thearea for a much longer time and who has shiftedher perspective in terms of how she identifiesracial or ethnic diversity and how she perceivesstudent diversity on campus:

I came here 12 years ago from [a northeastern state].And I really noticed a lack of darker-skinned stu-dents. And it seemed like most students looked sortof White. And it took a while for me to recognize theHispanic students and Native American students.And so now my view is very different than it wasfrom when I first came.

In addition, she discusses perceiving greaterdiversity now than when she first came to thecampus and how sometimes that diversity is notvisible:

So, I think there’s a lot more diversity than is firstvisible to the outsider. And I think, now that I’ve beenhere for 12 years, I see a lot more diversity that I’maware of, but I think there’s even more that’s hiddenbecause it’s . . . my experience has been that studentsdon’t want to be identified as different.

Again, we see how the classroom as a com-munity—one that is influenced by the socialforces of the larger communities or contextsaround it—comes to the fore in helping usunderstand how faculty conceptualize diversityon a specific campus. In particular, it encour-ages us to consider how the social forces of thelocal context are not the only ones at play in

201IMPORTANCE OF STUDENT CROSS-RACIAL INTERACTIONS

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

making sense of CRIs. As our participants sug-gest, where we come from and how long wehave been in the local context add texture andnuances to how we define and conceptualizediversity. It also suggests that faculty are notonly negotiating the local context in address-ing diversity but also their experiences in pastcontexts.

Discussion

We initiated this study to understand facultyperceptions of CRIs in the courses they teach ona particular campus. By listening to faculty, wenow have a more developed picture of the com-plexities they are negotiating. Our study was spe-cifically situated on a campus where the enroll-ment of Hispanic/Latino(a) students is highenough to qualify it as an HSI. As student bodydiversity is higher on this campus than on thePWIs included in previous studies, the perceptionsof faculty about students’ classroom interactionsacross race and ethnicity are enlightening.

The four categories that emerged from ourconversations with faculty regarding their per-ceptions of CRIs reflected findings from pastresearch while revealing new issues to consider.Faculty in our study concurred with Marin’s(2000) earlier qualitative findings regarding thevalue that faculty perceive in classroom CRIsand the benefits of using diversity pedagogi-cally. The faculty in Marin’s study reported thattheir teaching was enhanced when they taughtclasses composed of students with various racialand ethnic backgrounds. As reported by partic-ipants in our study, faculty can decide to pur-posefully leverage classroom diversity to en-hance student learning. By paying attention tofaculty’s understanding of the social forces inthe classroom, we can begin to expand ourunderstanding of the pivotal role faculty have toplay in further promoting educational achieve-ment in the context of a diverse student popu-lation. Faculty in our study were also similar tofaculty in previous studies in not knowing howto handle classroom discussions centered onrace. Alvarez McHatton, Keller, Shircliffe, andZalaquett (2009), at the end of their study onpreparation of elementary and secondary edu-cators for classroom diversity, suggested thatfaculty be offered professional developmentthat includes skills training in areas such asfacilitating “dangerous discussions” (p. 134). A

number of our participants discussed their de-sire for more support with working with a di-verse student population, with a few even not-ing they had participated in our study because ofthis desire.

Although faculty corroborated previous re-search findings, they also spoke of perceptionsthat had not been mentioned in other studies.For us, the most informative finding was aboutviews of diversity. When we began this re-search, our assumption was that the studentbody on the selected campus was diverse. Cer-tainly, to be designated as an HSI, over a quarterof the student body self-identified as Hispanic/Latino(a). We were thus intrigued when facultyled us to see that the same student body can beviewed as more diverse or less diverse depend-ing on the perceptions each faculty brought withhim or her from previous institutions in otherregions of the country. Mayhew, Grunwald, andDey (2005) foreshadowed the impact of previ-ous experiences on shaping the campus climatewith their finding that the previous experiencesstudents brought with them to campus werefound to be important in shaping the dynamicsof that specific institution. We thus began tounderstand that efforts to create a more diversestudent body need to be localized and definedby individual institutions and not according toan external measure of what achieving diversitylooks like applied uniformly to all of highereducation. In our study, faculty did not have acommon perception that the campus had a di-verse student body. How their previous experi-ences interacted with this campus’s particularmix of students was enlightening. Some facultyperceived the student body to be richly diversecompared with past institutions, and others per-ceived the same student body as being domi-nated by only two racial/ethnic groups, unliketheir experiences at institutions with students ofmany races and ethnicities.

Another finding that seemed unique to us wasthe way in which our participants’ sense ofefficacy as instructors seemed to be related tothe specificity of the goals they held in facili-tating CRIs. Our research has helped us under-stand that making the most of student diversityin the classroom is closely tied to the intentionsof the instructor. As Hirschy and Wilson (2002)pointed out, “Teachers structure the learningenvironment by making pedagogical choices”(p. 88). Importantly, what emerged was that the

202 VALENTINE, PRENTICE, TORRES, AND ARELLANO

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

clearer instructors are on how and why to facil-itate CRIs, the more they perceive the impor-tance of doing so in the classroom. Althoughthis is based on perceptions, it does suggest thatdiversity efforts on campuses can be strength-ened by attention to how faculty perceive theirroles in the classroom.

Limitations of the Study

Before discussing the implications of thefindings, it is important to note a few limitationsof the current study. First, our study is based ona unique but limited context in terms of thetransferability of our findings to other campusesor contexts. In particular, because our researchfocuses on an HSI and a single campus, it likelyreflects the idiosyncrasies of that campus andcontext. Although we tried to capture this witha focus on perspectives or perceptions, we spec-ulate that faculty teaching at PWIs would havequite different perspectives on CRIs and grapplewith quite different challenges and responsibil-ities in regards to supporting CRIs. Second,another limitation of our study is that we de-fined the case by campus as opposed to institu-tions and therefore cannot make comparisonsacross the two institutions. We made the deci-sion to define the case by the campus becausethe two institutions are located on the samecampus and share many of the same resources,including support for teaching and faculty gov-ernance. However, future studies could explorethe difference in setting by interviewing facultyat more distinct institutions. Finally, a thirdlimitation of our study was selection bias. Al-though we invited all faculty and instructors oncampus to participate in our study, those whochose to participate did so on a voluntary basisand likely had a preexisting interest in CRIs. Inaddition, participants who chose to participatemay have been more likely to view CRIs asimportant and valuable.

Implications and Conclusion

Although the findings themselves are intrigu-ing, understanding what they suggest for edu-cational practice is essential. Echoing previousstudies (Chang et al., 2004; Gurin et al., 2002),participants in our study noted the benefits ofhaving diversity in the classroom, such as allow-ing students to learn about other ways to approachand solve problems, other ways of seeing the

world, and possibly new ways of seeing them-selves. Faculty saw the value of CRIs, and evenwhen faculty reported not being entirely sure whatthe students were taking away from classroomCRIs, there was hope that even if the interactionsdid not have an immediate effect, they would havean impact on these students in the future. At thesame time, faculty who reported having a morespecific goal in fostering CRIs also spoke of agreater sense of efficacy in terms of their impacton student learning. From this, one implication forfaculty seems clear. Faculty who want students toget the benefits that come from CRIs should beexplicit about what classroom goals these CRIsare meant to achieve. As clarity of goals is a goodpedagogical approach for any classroom strategyor method (Maila, 2010), faculty who view thefacilitation of classroom CRIs as a tool with spe-cific goals may find this to be a familiar process intheir course design.

Although student CRIs were perceived asvaluable, various faculty also mentioned thechallenges they had faced when structuringclassroom CRIs. Our participants reflected theprimary challenge mentioned by faculty in theAlvarez McHatton et al. (2009) study regardingtheir self-perceived lack of skills in facilitatingdifficult discussions. At the heart of this chal-lenge in both the Alvarez McHatton et al. studyand our study was the perceived lack of trainingor guidance on how to handle potentially vola-tile classroom conversations about race, suchas the conversation, described by one of ourparticipants, involving White students who be-lieve they are now a minority group that alsofaces discrimination. In the sociology of theclassroom, “educators have a responsibility toaddress intentional inequities so all students cantake advantage of its resources” (Hirschy &Wilson, 2002, p. 86), but this becomes difficultwhen faculty do not feel that they know how toaddress these inequities with their students.Here, the implication is unambiguous. For fac-ulty to feel comfortable with purposely struc-turing student CRIs in class, they need, and inour study want, training, guidance, and mentor-ing. Faculty were clear when they describedavoiding anything related to diversity in classbecause of fear of not knowing how to handleheated conversations. Such training is some-thing that can be easily implemented by insti-tutions as part of conveying the message that

203IMPORTANCE OF STUDENT CROSS-RACIAL INTERACTIONS

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

CRIs and diversity-related academic content arevalued and expected.

The category of faculty responsibility in facili-tating classroom CRIs also emerged from facultyperceptions. Opinions about level of responsibilityranged from none to complete. Those claiming noresponsibility reflected previous quantitative re-search (Maruyama & Moreno, 2000) in which25–30% of faculty reported that having studentdiversity in their classes had no impact on theirteaching methods. This may have important im-plications for the entire institution as well as theindividual classroom. Previous research has con-nected curriculum content and campus climateregarding diversity. Specifically, Mayhew et al.(2005) discovered that students’ perceptions of theinstitution’s ability to achieve a positive climatefor diversity was related to the degree that diver-sity-related issues were incorporated into the cur-riculum.

In addition, the individual classroom impli-cation is that faculty who perceive themselvesas explicitly responsible for facilitating class-room CRIs are, in the sociology of the class-room, developing “reciprocity and cooperationamong students” (Hirschy & Wilson, 2002, p.96), which creates an environment that fosterslearning. In light of the asymmetry of power infavor of the instructor, faculty hold the authorityto “decide how to structure classroom interac-tions by reinforcing some behaviors and deter-ring others” (p. 87). In our study, the degree towhich faculty perceive responsibility appears tobe related to both the degree to which they feelcompetent to handle difficulties that arise asthey structure these interactions into the classand how they conceptualize student diversityand the need for students to learn how to inter-act across different races and ethnicities. Al-though all of our participants found this to bevaluable, where they varied the most was onwhether or not students on the campus neededto learn this or had already learned this giventhe local demographics of the area.

These decisions about interactions around di-versity determine the climate in the classroom,and thus a decision about what responsibility aninstructor has regarding what students learn inclass is not a neutral one. As the study byBowman (2010) illustrated, because some typesof diversity experiences appear to more effec-tively promote cognitive gains than others, andbecause interpersonal interactions with racial

diversity have been found to be the “moststrongly related to cognitive development”(Bowman, 2010, p. 20), whether the instructorchooses to incorporate CRIs in his or her classwould seem to have consequences regardinghow much cognitive growth the instructor isable to facilitate in his or her students. As ourstudy indicates, such decisions are informed byfaculty background experiences and how theydefine diversity in the context of the campus.

In looking at both the desire of faculty forprofessional development and the varying lev-els of responsibility faculty feel they have forencouraging classroom CRIs, the implicationsfrom the findings of this study extend to thecampus as well as the classroom. Administra-tors who have the larger goal of creating apositive campus climate regarding diversityshould not overlook our study’s findings regard-ing faculty willingness to encourage diversity-related occurrences in class. As part of devel-oping the larger campus climate, administratorsmay need to send an unmistakable messageabout the value the college places on positivestudent experiences with diversity in the formalacademic spaces of the institution by facilitatingfaculty discussions about defining and exploringthe meaning and value of diversity within thecampus context. This clear message of importancecombined with practical training in how to facili-tate these experiences may shift perceptions ofsome faculty about the their role in facilitatingstudents’ experiences across diversity.

Certainly, to more completely address the im-plications from this study, we need to hear morefaculty voices. We need to hear more aboutwhat they perceive as necessary regarding theinstitutional support and training they wouldneed to feel comfortable in facilitating CRIs. Inaddition, we need research that sheds more lighton the different and similar perspectives of fac-ulty who teach at institutions with more andwith less student diversity. Faculty’s previousinstitutional experiences were central in shapingcurrent perceptions of diversity.

The implications of this and previous studieson CRIs suggest that students’ racial and ethnicdiversity can have a comprehensive impact oneducation. This resonates with the current direc-tion of CRIs research, which has discovered thatCRIs have benefits for all students on campus,whether or not they participate in CRIs. Weunderstand from previous research how valu-

204 VALENTINE, PRENTICE, TORRES, AND ARELLANO

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

able CRIs are in the informal settings of thecampus, and we also believe that the experi-ences students have in the classroom help feedthe campus climate. The research thus impliesthat student CRIs do not just impact studentlearning. They impact the campus environmentas a whole regarding the value of diversity andeducation. As Mayhew et al. (2005) explain, “Interms of diversity, the magnitude of an institu-tion’s commitment . . . is measured by its will-ingness to integrate different racial and ethnicperspectives into its curricular initiatives” (p.408). Faculty commitment to incorporating di-versity-related issues into academics impactsstudent learning, which in turn impacts the in-stitution’s ability to develop a positive campusclimate. In sum, CRIs simultaneously have anindividual and an institutional impact. Support-ing faculty to facilitate more of these interac-tions would appear to be beneficial to the entireinstitution as well as to individual students. In-stitutions should continue to explore and reflecton diversity while at the same time putting intopractice an emphasis on interacting across dif-ference and supporting such interaction at mul-tiple levels of the institution.

References

Alimo, C., Kelly, R., & Clark, C. (2002). Diversityinitiatives in higher education: Intergroup dialogueprogram student outcomes and implications forcampus radical climate—A case study. Multicul-tural Education, 10, 49–53.

Alvarez McHatton, P., Keller, H., Shircliffe, B., &Zalaquett, C. (2009). Examining efforts to infusediversity within one college of education. Journalof Diversity in Higher Education, 2, 127–135. doi:10.1037/a0016190

Bowman, N. A. (2010). College diversity experiencesand cognitive development: A meta-analysis. Re-view of Educational Research, 80, 4 –33. doi:10.3102/0034654309352495

Chang, M. J., Astin, A. W., & Kim, D. (2004).Cross-racial interaction among undergraduates:Some consequences, causes, and patterns. Researchin Higher Education, 45, 529–553. doi:10.1023/B:RIHE.0000032327.45961.33

Chang, M. J., Denson, N., Sáenz, V., & Misa, K.(2006). The educational benefits of sustainingcross-racial interaction among undergraduates.The Journal of Higher Education, 77, 430–455.doi:10.1353/jhe.2006.0018

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determiningvalidity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice,39, 124–130. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2

DeAngelo, L., Hurtado, S., Pryor, J. H., Kelly, K. R.,& Santos, J. L. (2009). The American collegeteacher: National norms for the 2007–2008. Re-trieved from Higher Education Research Instituteat UCLA Website: http://www.heri.ucla.edu

Denson, N., & Chang, M. J. (2009). Racial diversitymatters: The impact of diversity-related studentengagement and institutional context. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 46, 322–353. doi:10.3102/0002831208323278

Denson, N., & Park, J. J. (2009). Attitudes and ad-vocacy: Understanding faculty views on racial/ethnic diversity. The Journal of Higher Education,80, 415–438. doi:10.1353/jhe.0.0054

Flores, A., & Rodriguez, C. M. (2006). Universityfaculty attitudes on affirmative action principlestoward faculty and students. Equity & Excellencein Education, 39, 303–312. doi:10.1080/10665680600934149

Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G.(2002). Diversity and higher education: Theoryand impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Ed-ucational Review, 72, 330–366.

Hirschy, A. S., & Wilson, M. E. (2002). The sociol-ogy of the classroom and its influence on studentlearning. Peabody Journal of Education, 77, 85–100. doi:10.1207/S15327930PJE7703_5

Hubbard, S. M., & Stage, F. K. (2009). Attitudes,perceptions, and preferences of faculty at Hispanicserving and predominantly Black institutions. TheJournal of Higher Education, 80, 270–289. doi:10.1353/jhe.0.0049

Jamieson, P. (2009). The serious matter of informallearning. Planning for Higher Education, 37,18–25.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalisticinquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lopez, G. E. (2004). Interethnic contact, curriculum,and attitudes in the first year of college. Journal ofSocial Issues, 60, 75–94. doi:10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00100.x

Maila, M. W. (2010). Curriculum as open-ended in-quiry in higher education. Africa Education Re-view, 7, 263–282. doi:10.1080/18146627.2010.515385

Marin, P. (2000). The educational possibility ofmulti-racial/multi-ethnic college classrooms. InDoes diversity make a difference? Three researchstudies on diversity in college classrooms (pp.61–83). Washington, DC: American Council onEducation and American Association of UniversityProfessors.

Maruyama, G., & Moreno, J. F. (2000). Universityfaculty views about the values of diversity oncampus and in the classroom. In Does diversity

205IMPORTANCE OF STUDENT CROSS-RACIAL INTERACTIONS

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

make a difference? Three research studies on di-versity in college classrooms (pp. 9–35). Wash-ington, DC: American Council on Education andAmerican Association of University Professors.

Mayhew, M. J., Grunwald, H. E., & Dey, E. L.(2005). Curriculum matters: Creating a positiveclimate for diversity from the student perspective.Research in Higher Education, 46, 3899–412. doi:10.1007/s11162-005-2967-0

Milem, J. F., & Hakuta, K. (2000). The benefits ofracial and ethnic diversity in higher education. InD. J. Wilds (Ed.), Minorities in higher education:Seventeenth annual status report, 1999–2000 (pp.39–67). Washington, DC: American Council onEducation.

Pascarella, E. T., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn,L. S., & Terenzini, P. T. (1996). Influence onstudents’ openness to diversity and challenge inthe first year of college. The Journal of HigherEducation, 67, 174–195. doi:10.2307/2943979

Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitativeresearchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Received July 8, 2011Revision received June 25, 2012

Accepted July 9, 2012 �

206 VALENTINE, PRENTICE, TORRES, AND ARELLANO

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.