Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LaDonna R. Moore
A Dissertation
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
May 2016
Committee:
Nicholas Bowman
Patrick Pauken
© 2016
LaDonna R. Moore
backgrounds “describe their work climate as hostile, invalidating, and insulting because of
microaggressions that assail their race, gender, or sexual-orientation identities” (Sue, 2010a, p.
213).
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between microaggression and
the work experience of mid-level student affairs professionals within higher education,
specifically those from marginalized populations that pertain to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual
measured their interactions with microaggression and its relationship with their leadership
practices. Descriptive statistics and multiple regression analyses were performed to analyze the
The results of this study confirm what the extant literature, focused on the experience of
higher education professionals, has demonstrated. Prior studies have found that administrators
within higher education encounter microaggression (Alabi, 2014; Garvey & Drezner, 2013).
Within this study, 78.3% of participants reported that they have experienced microaggression
within the workplace. These individuals also revealed that the forms of microaggression they
populations were different in studies prior, the extant literature does reflect higher occurrences of
microinvalidations and microinsults (Clark et al., 2014; Garvey & Drezner, 2013; Grier-Reed,
iv
2010; Guzman et al., 2010; Harwood et al., 2012; Minikel-Lacocque, 2012; Poolokasingham et
al., 2014; Yosso et al., 2009). The findings of this study offer compelling suggestions for the
This is for all of those individuals who feel voiceless. I pray that my words represent your stories
express how grateful I am for the two of you. Mom, I am so thankful for the sacrifices that you
have made for me. Your unconditional love and support inspire me to continue moving forward.
You have said that I was your miracle baby, but little do you know that you are my miracle
mother. You are such a wonderful example of what it means to give endlessly and for that I truly
appreciate you. Danny, I wholeheartedly appreciate you for embracing me as your daughter.
Your continuous support and affirmation means more to me than you’ll ever know. There have
been many times throughout this process when I’ve felt like quitting and I picked up a greeting
card from you or read a message that inspired me to press on. Your efforts to demonstrate your
support and confidence in me have often served as the fuel to keep me going. Thank you so
Clinton and Mary Ann Bailey, my grandparents, helped my parents reinforce the value
and importance of education. Although my Nana never had the opportunity to see me pursue this
degree, I know that she would be more than proud of me. Clinton or “Bubba”, you and I have
always had a jokingly antagonistic relationship. But I truly thank you for challenging me to read
numerous books, and allowing me to inquisitively follow you around while you were tinkering in
the yard. I hope that this degree serves as validation that I was listening and paying close
Clare, Mary Kay, Amy and Mary Lynn thank you for the positive words, listening ears, and the
willingness to support me in this process whenever necessary. A special thank you to Derm
Forde, without your encouragement I would not have had the confidence to pursue this degree.
vii
Thank you for your support, sense of humor, encouragement, words of wisdom, and selflessness.
You are the true definition of servant leadership. Thank you for all that you have done!
I am forever grateful to my awesome committee for their support in the completion of this
program and dissertation! Dr. Dafina-Lazarus Stewart, the standards you set have inspired me to
grow in ways I never anticipated. From introducing me to the Socratic Method in Foundations,
to using a box as a metaphor for the construction of knowledge in Qual, you are a phenomenal
educator! You have offered the perfect amount of challenge and support in the very moments
when I needed it most. Thank you for your encouragement, words of wisdom, and prayers. Dr.
Patrick Pauken, genius doesn’t even begin to describe the depth and breadth of your knowledge.
Your passion for law and education is truly inspiring; and your ability to communicate your
knowledge with such humility is remarkable. Thank you for your support and wisdom. Dr.
Judith Jackson May, it was your Leadership Theories class that spurred my curiosity for Kouzes
and Posner’s Leadership Practices. The positive energy that you brought to this process is
appreciated. Thank you for your honesty, sincerity, and support. A special thank you to Dr.
Nicholas Bowman for your continued support, guidance, and commitment to my academic
success. Your passion for statistics is infectious. I sincerely appreciate your decision to remain
on my committee, even though you moved on to a new opportunity at the University of Iowa.
From one Wolverine to another, ‘For today, goodbye; for tomorrow, good luck; and forever, GO
BLUE.’
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Definition of Terms.................................................................................................... 1
Microaggressions ........................................................................................... 2
Taxonomies of Microaggression...............…………………………………………. 16
Leadership ............................................................................................................ 41
Servant Leadership......................................................................................... 43
Summary ............................................................................................................ 53
x
Methodology……………………………………………………………………… .. 57
Explanation of Variables………………………………………………………….... 60
Instrumentation .........................……………………………………………………. 67
Procedures………………………………………………….. .................................... 68
Recruitment Process....................................................................................... 69
Limitations………………………………………………….. ................................... 72
Age ............................................................................................................ 74
Gender ............................................................................................................ 76
Disability ........................................................................................................ 80
Race ............................................................................................................ 84
xi
Religious/Worldview Identification............................................................... 86
Microassaults ................................................................................................. 91
Microinsults ................................................................................................... 92
Microinvalidations ......................................................................................... 92
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………… 134
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
17 Regression Model for Leadership Practices: Inspiring a Shared Vision ................... 101
18 Regression Model for Leadership Practices: Challenging the Process ...................... 101
19 Regression Model for Leadership Practices: Enabling Others to Act ....................... 101
20 Regression Model for Leadership Practices: Encouraging the Heart ........................ 101
21 Regression Model for Leadership Practices: Modeling the Way .............................. 101
xiv
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
This study investigated the relationship between microaggression and the leadership
discrimination that permeates systems, organizations, and individual interactions (Sue, 2010a).
Specifically, the purpose of this study was to examine the connection between microaggressive
confrontations, and how they relate to the work experiences as well as the leadership practices of
those who encounter this type of discrimination. This investigation explored the types of
microinvalidations. The population selected for this study was mid-level student affairs
professionals. This study utilized survey methodology to examine the relationship between
microaggression and leadership practices, specifically for mid-level student affairs professionals
Definition of Terms
In order to understand the context of the research, it is necessary to define several key
terms that will be used throughout this study. The terms below provide an explanation of the
Functional Area
activities, programs, and services within higher education that can be differentiated from other
groups (e.g., departments) by its purpose, mission, focus, policies, practices, staff, budget, and
the professional interests and background of its practitioners” (Council for the Advancement of
Institutional Racism
such as policies and processes that systemically subordinate marginalize, and exclude non-
dominant groups and mediates their experiences with racial microaggressions” (Huber &
Microaggressions
Microaggressions are “the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs,
messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership” (Sue,
2010a, p. 3).
Mid-level Professionals
Personnel Association (ACPA), are those individuals who have five years of experience within
higher education, but do not hold senior leadership positions (ACPA, 2014c).
Power, privilege and oppression are common features of everyday life for those from
social arrangements by which members of one group are exploited and subordinated while
members of another group are granted privileges” (Bohmer & Briggs, 1991, p. 155). The
relationship between oppression and privilege demonstrates a power imbalance, in which one
group possesses the ability to obtain and maintain advantages, relative to other groups (Glasberg
& Shannon, 2011). These scholars stated “the power imbalances of oppression also mean that
3
one group enjoys unearned privileges or undeserved enrichment and others unjust
occurrences are often manifested at both the systemic and individual levels. The prejudices and
biases that permeate institutions and systems socialize individuals to maintain oppressive
worldviews (Sue, 2010a). Such worldviews influence institutional racism, which encompasses
policies, practices, procedures, or structures that exist within an institution. These worldviews
may unfairly subordinate persons of color while allowing other groups to benefit from the
form of microaggression. “When biases and prejudices become institutionalized and systemized
into the norms, values, and beliefs of society, they are passed on to generations of its citizens via
socialization and cultural conditioning” (Sue, 2010a, p. 112). The biases and prejudices that
exemplify impoverishment and deprivation for certain groups are reflected in the
institutionalized and systemized values that become norms at the individual level.
phenomena that describe the experience of oppressive worldviews that occur at the individual
level. Internalized oppression is the acceptance of the prejudices and biases against them by
those individuals within oppressed groups (Tappan, 2006). Similarly, horizontal oppression is a
concept in which members of an oppressed group engage in prejudices and oppressive behaviors
against other members of their own group (Tappan, 2006). Conversely, internalized dominance
pertains to the acceptance and incorporation, by those individuals within dominant groups, of
biases against others (Tappan, 2006). Internalized domination perpetuates oppression against
those who belong to marginalized groups, and coincides with microaggressive behaviors.
4
“Microaggressions reflect the active manifestation of oppressive worldviews that create, foster,
Microaggression is a construct that is both salient and relevant for individuals from
marginalized backgrounds (Wong, Derthick, David, Saw & Okazaki, 2013). As society has
deviated from overt, blatant, and conscious discrimination against minoritized individuals, it has
resurfaced in the form of subtle, covert, and in some cases, unconscious biases, otherwise known
college campuses throughout the nation. This type of subtle discrimination manifests itself in
everyday interactions for minority populations (Sue, 2010a, 2010b), and has become particularly
prevalent within higher education. There are three forms of microaggression, which include:
university context would include a faculty of color being mistaken as a member of the janitorial
staff. Although seemingly innocent, this action speaks to the perception that people of color are
college student being asked, “How did you become so good in science?” The hidden message in
this question is the assumption that women cannot be good at science. Both of these examples
In addition to these examples, there are other instances that demonstrate the presence of
microaggression within the university context. For example, a student at Fordham University
has created a digital photo project to represent racial microaggressions that other minority
students have encountered at the institution (Vega, 2014). Similarly, students at Brown
members of the campus community have a space to discuss incidents and thoughts on
5
Microaggression Project, where readers can read about microaggressive experiences that
These examples and news reports serve as indicators of how pervasive microaggressions
are on college campuses (Flaherty, 2013; New, 2014, 2015; Svokos, 2015; Vega, 2014). This
increase in awareness of covert discrimination on college campuses has brought about the
impetus for the examination of microaggression. In addition to microaggression, there are other
ways in which discrimination manifests within the university environment. Moon Johnson
(2015) stated that inclusive language, microaggressions, and cultural appropriation are all
important issues within postsecondary education, and they have “direct effects on the lives of
Several specific accounts have illustrated how microaggressions exist inside the social
atmosphere that college students participate in on their respective campuses (Byng, 2013; Gold,
2014; Ryman, 2014; Zucchino, 2013). Most recently, themed-campus parties have garnered
attention, at which students mocked their peers from marginalized populations by wearing
stereotypical clothing or blackface (Byng, 2013; Gold, 2014; Ryman, 2014; Zucchino, 2013).
Byng (2013) argued that these types of parties invoke cultural stereotypes and reflect racial
institutions. Consequently, the students planning and participating in these events encountered
backlash from their peers, faculty, and administrators on their campuses (Ryman, 2014;
African American students at Harvard University. Lee reported that these experiences were
represented by overt and covert discrimination, students feeling disconnected from the campus
6
community, and the scrutiny of race-conscious admission polices (e.g., Fisher vs. University of
Texas at Austin). Although these examples portray the narratives of college students, there are
other segments of the campus community that experience microaggression as well. These other
Although there are some studies that represent the faculty experience with
microaggression (Boysen, 2012; Constantine, Smith, Redington, Owens, 2008; Frazier, 2011;
Pittman, 2012), a smaller number of studies exist concerning university administrators (Alabi,
2014; Garvey & Drezner, 2013; Young, Anderson, & Stewart, 2015). Studying this subset of the
university population is important as they are charged with providing institutional leadership to a
wide range of organizational members; and it will provide a comprehensive picture of the
microaggressions that occur against marginalized populations within the university context.
experiences may relate to their institution of employment. Hirt (2006) determined that the
experience of student affairs administrators can vary based upon their institutional type of
employment. Presumably, not only does the kind of institution influence the type of experience
a student affairs professional has within their work environment, but the work experience of a
professional could also be related to the functional area within which they are employed at their
Moreover, Mather, Bryan and Faulkner (2009) asserted that there is an absence of
support mechanisms for university administrators in mid-level student affairs positions. Mid-
level professionals (e.g., directors, associate directors, etc.) comprise the largest administrative
group in most college and university systems, and they are integral to life at an institution. In
7
addition, mid-level college and university administrators serve the “formidable role of bridging
the gap between university policy makers and front line staff” (Mather et al., 2009, p. 244). This
bridge is not the only way in which mid-level professionals serve their institution; they also have
2009, p. 245). The placement of mid-level administrators and their organizational position
provides “unique access to both the decision-making processes and the on-the-ground realities”
that exists within their campus environment (Mather et al., 2009, p. 248). Additionally, mid-
level student affairs professionals essentially lead from the middle, which may encompass the
promotion of their organization’s vision. This vision is developed from another individual’s
agenda (e.g., university president, vice president, etc.), and mid-level professionals are tasked
with “leading and influencing others beyond the formal scope of their position” (Mather et al.,
2009, p. 249). It is for this reason that Mather et al. (2009) stated leadership skills are the most
that leadership skills are particularly critical for mid-level student affairs administrators, the need
for understanding how microaggressive experiences may relate to this population’s leadership
invalidating, and insulting because of microaggressions that assail their race, gender, or sexual-
orientation identities” (Sue, 2010a, p. 213). It is for this reason that examining this relationship
critical, specifically for mid-level student affairs administrators. Based on my review of the
8
administrators in student affairs that were likely to encounter microaggressions. This included
those with minoritized identities of race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, gender identity, sexual
Moreover, it has been noted that microaggression plays a pronounced role in the creation
of disparities within the workplace (Sue, 2010a; Young, Anderson, & Stewart, 2014). These
disparities in employment are readily apparent in the recruitment, retention, and promotion of
individuals from marginalized groups. In order to confront these disparities, understanding the
different forms of microaggression that occur within the workplace is important (Sue, 2010a).
The employment disparities and raced-themed parties reflect some of the oppressive
biases, stereotypes and preconceived notions that people may consciously or unconsciously hold
regarding marginalized populations. Sue (2010b) explained “the power of microaggressions lies
in their invisibility to perpetrators and oftentimes the recipients” (p. 6). The deconstruction of
The lack of awareness and invisibility of microaggression are reasons why the deconstruction of
this issue is important. Furthermore, the lack of acknowledgment for race, gender, sexual
respective populations. Sue (2010a) expressed “it is the unconscious and unintentional forms of
bias that create the overwhelming problems for marginalized group” (p. 23).
There are several ways in which microaggression affects those who do not belong to
for perpetrators (Bowser & Hunt, 1981; Freire, 1970; Goodman, 2001; Hanna et al., 2000; Sue,
9
2003; Sue, 2011a). Sue (2010a) highlighted these disadvantages by suggesting that oppression
affects perpetrators cognitively (e.g., having a false sense of reality), emotionally (e.g., guilt or
worldviews that create, maintain, and perpetuate marginalization (Sue, 2010a). The impact of
demonization” (Sue, 2010a, p. 112), and negatively affects all populations who are involved.
Sue (2010b) stated that oppression “is the act of imposing on another or others an object, label,
role experience, or set of living conditions that is unwanted, needlessly painful, and detracts from
physical or psychological well-being” (p. 6). Thus, “the cycle of oppression is strengthened and
continues to operate when microaggressions go unaddressed” (Rivera, Forquer, & Rangel, 2010,
p. 59). If we begin to scrutinize and challenge some of these pervasive issues (e.g., racial
insensitivity and cultural misappropriation) within the framework of higher education, then
perhaps the deconstruction of microaggression will inspire change in this space and improve
populations, but it must also be understood and addressed for the benefit of those outside these
populations. Understanding microaggression is pertinent because it involves the way that people
who are different from one another interact, encounter, and experience each other. Therefore,
addressing microaggression is not only for the advantage of marginalized populations; but it is
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between microaggression and
the work experience of mid-level student affairs professionals within higher education,
specifically those from marginalized populations that pertain to race, ethnicity, nationality, sex,
gender identity, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, or disability. In addition, this research
examined the issue of microaggression and how it relates to leadership practices for mid-level
student affairs professionals who are minoritized. Kouzes and Posner (2002) developed a model
modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, and
encouraging the heart. Through this exploration of the relationship between leadership practices
and microaggression, I hope to expound on what is known about minoritized populations and
their experiences with leadership. In addition, the insight gained from this study can be used as a
means to counteract the behaviors, systems and structures that are oppressive towards
marginalized populations. It is my intention that the findings of this research will be used to
develop seminars or institutes, and initiate discourse that educates others about the experiences
of student affairs practitioners with marginalized identities. The first objective was to investigate
microaggressions.
microaggression and its relationship with their leadership practices. Descriptive statistics and
multiple regression analyses were performed to analyze the data for this study. I hypothesized
11
that those mid-level student affairs professionals who indicated higher frequencies of
experiences with microaggression were less likely to display Kouzes and Posner’s five practices
of exemplary leadership.
Research Questions
inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, and
gender, disability, sexual orientation, age, religious affiliation, educational level, and
student affairs professionals will further help scholars and practitioners understand the landscape
all populations in this environment. Additionally, this study could influence the way higher
12
education institutions develop and support professionals. If participants in the study indicate
common key issues that are represented across institutions, then the case can be made for
universities to have workshops, training sessions, and open forums that address the topics that
are being discussed by respondents. Moreover, the information derived from this study may be
used in trainings and workshops for those who belong to and work with this population,
Furthermore, this study is significant because it builds upon the quantitative research
that is available on microaggression. At the time of their publication, Lau and Williams (2010)
referenced only 20 published papers on the topic of microaggression; ten of those studies were
quantitatively focused. Within the last five years, additional quantitative research has been
published (Basford, Offermann, Behrend, 2014; Boysen, 2012; Comeaux, 2012; Mercer, Zeigler-
Hill, Wallace & Hayes, 2011; Nadal, Wong, Griffin, Davidoff, & Sriken, 2014; Offermann,
Basford, Graebner, DeGraaf, Jaffer, 2013; Smith, Hung & Franklin, 2011; Torres-Harding,
Andrade, Jr. & Romero Diaz, 2012); however, the number of quantitative studies should be
increased, since much of the literature is based in qualitative research. Lau and Williams (2010)
argued “future research could adopt quantitative methods as a way of validating existing
qualitative findings” (p. 325). The majority of the quantitative studies specifically pertained to
verifying the reliability and validity of microaggression scales that were created for measuring
the experience of marginalized individuals. The findings of the current study have significant
implications for the overall literature on microaggression, marginalized populations, and new
The scope of this study focused on mid-level student affairs professionals who supervise
other full-time professionals and report to a supervisor, have been employed within higher
education for at least five years or more, but who are not in executive level positions. Although
titles may vary depending on the structure of the institution, participants may hold positions such
as: Assistant Director, Associate Director, Director, Assistant Dean of Students, or Dean of
Students. Again, this study does not include individuals who hold entry-level, executive, or
The other parameter that was set for this study is including only those who are likely to
marginalized population, whether by race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, gender identity, sexual
Overview of Study
This study has five chapters. Chapter One discusses the problem as well as the
importance of this study. Chapter Two explores the current literature on microaggression and
leadership practices. Chapter Three discusses the methods that were used in order to conduct
this study. Chapter Four reports the findings of this study after data was collected. Chapter Five
discusses the findings of the study as it relates to the extant literature on microaggression. The
final chapter also provides implications for future practice and research in higher education.
14
The purpose of this study is to understand how mid-level student affairs professionals
experience microaggression within their work environment. In order to guide this study, the
current chapter begins with a review of the literature that examines how microaggression is
defined. Next, an overview of the extant literature on the various forms of microaggression will
microaggression, the apparent impact of microaggression upon these individuals, and coping
mechanisms associated with microaggression will be explored. In order to narrow the focus of
this study, only the literature applicable to the field of higher education will be thoroughly
practices within the context of education will also be presented. Lastly, the remainder of this
chapter will address how this study fits within the landscape of current research and explores the
contribution that this study has to what is currently known about microaggression and leadership
practices.
Microaggression Defined
over time. Chester Pierce initially presented the term, racial microaggression, in the 1970s in
order to explain the subtle insults experienced by Black Americans (Pierce, Carew, Pierce-
Gonzalez, & Willis, 1978). Pierce and colleagues defined microaggression as automatic,
stunning, subtle, and non-verbal exchanges that are ‘put downs’ of African Americans (Pierce et
al., 1978). Almost ten years later, Davis (1989) introduced a modified definition of
that emanate from subconscious attitudes of white superiority and verification of black inferiority
15
(Davis, 1989). Although the definition created by Davis focuses on race, similar to Pierce’s
definition, Davis acknowledged that microaggression stems from attitudes or biases. Going
beyond the experience of Black Americans, Sue and colleagues established a more expansive
definition for microaggression. Sue et al. (2007) stated that microaggressions are “the everyday
Sue et al.’s (2007) definition has served as the foundation for expanded definitions
included in more recent studies on microaggression (Guzman, Trevino, Lubuguin, & Aryan,
2010; Hill, Kim, & Williams, 2010; Johnston & Nadal, 2010; Keller & Galgay, 2010; Kim &
Kim, 2010; Lin, 2010; Nadal, Issa, Griffin, Hamit, & Lyons, 2010a; Smith & Redington, 2010).
Accordingly, Guzman et al. (2010) provided a revision of the definition constructed by Sue et al.
(2007). The definitions are similar, however the language used to describe microaggression by
Sue et al. (2007) and Guzman et al. (2010) is slightly different. Guzman et al. (2010) asserted
“microaggressions occur in everyday interactions between people who represent different groups
and convey powerful yet subtle derogatory messages about the subordinate status of
marginalized groups” (p. 147). Hill et al. (2010) maintained this inclusivity by defining
microaggression as marginalized groups in the US withstanding daily slights and insults that
which focused on race. Similarly, in a study that examined people with disabilities (PWD),
Keller and Galgay (2010) applied the experience of microaggressions to those individuals with
disabilities. Keller and Galgay (2010) stated disability microaggressions are “distorted
16
assumptions and beliefs that fuel negative attitudes and behaviors toward PWDs…that operate in
a much more subtle, secretive, and covert manner” (p. 244). Additionally, in applying Sue et
al.’s (2007) definition of microaggression toward classism, Smith and Redington (2010)
explained that classist microaggressions are “everyday life and ordinary language abound with
class-based indignities and affronts” (p. 269). Smith and Redington (2010) also argued that
classist microaggressions are comparable to racial microaggressions, but this type of subtle
discrimination devalues the poor and working class. Likewise, Nadal et al. (2010a) applied the
“Religious microaggressions can be defined as subtle behavioral and verbal exchanges (both
conscious and unconscious) that send denigrating messages to individuals of various religious
groups” (p. 297). The definition corresponds closely with Sue et al.’s (2007) definition for
microaggression; however, Nadal et al. (2010a) concentrated on religious group affiliation. This
definition as well as the others that have been mentioned exemplifies the broadening in the
represents a shift from the primary focus on racial microaggression to a more expansive and
inclusive representation for all those who may belong to a marginalized group.
Taxonomies of Microaggression
In addition to expanding upon the original definition for microaggression, Sue (2010a,
2010b) presented a taxonomy for microaggression. The literature that discussed the taxonomy of
microaggression is heavily based upon microaggressions concerning racism and directed against
people of color; although people of color can experience different types of microaggression
based upon other salient social identities (i.e., sexuality, gender, disability, etc.). However, many
of the themes and examples used to describe this taxonomy are focused on race. Several
17
scholars have used this taxonomy of microaggression as a means to classify the behaviors
encountered by their participants as well as to create new taxonomies related to the population
being examined (Capodilupo et al., 2010; Nadal et al., 2010a; Nadal et al., 2010b). In order to
gain a better understanding of the taxonomy that was developed by Sue (2010a, 2010b), the
literature related to this classification system will be reviewed. The taxonomy for
microaggression has been applied to specific forms of microaggression that exist, with each type
pertaining to an ascribed set of behaviors (Sue, 2010a). These organized ascription of behaviors
help delineate between the actions and attitudes associated with each type of microaggression.
subtle or explicit, and represent racially, gendered, or sexually oriented biased attitudes, beliefs,
microassault would be displaying a Klan hood, noose, or the hanging of Playboy playmate
pictures on the office wall of a male manager (Sue, 2010a). The specific intent of microassaults
is to attack or harm a person from a marginalized group. “They are meant to attack the group
identity of the person or to hurt/harm the intended victim through name-calling, avoidant
behavior, or purposeful discriminatory actions” (p. 28). Another example that reflects a
microassault would consist of using a derogatory name when referring to someone from a
specific race or ethnicity. Individuals who commit microassaults harbor conscious biases against
socially devalued groups, which are based on strong beliefs of inferiority (Sue, 2010b).
Microassaults are comparable to “old fashioned” discrimination associated with racism, sexism,
The way in which microassaults are different from “old fashioned” practices of
discrimination is that they are more likely to be expressed in a way that provides the perpetrator
with protection. Likewise, microassaults are committed when the perpetrator feels safe enough
to express his or her beliefs, or has lost control (Sue, 2010b). First, individuals committing
microassaults may feel a certain degree of anonymity and assurance when their actions are
concealed (Sue, 2010a). An example of this action would include writing a racial epithet on the
wall of a public restroom. Next, a perpetrator may feel safe when he or she is in the presence of
others who share their perspective and beliefs. This environment would allow the perpetrators to
get away with offensive words and actions. Lastly, individuals perform microassaults when they
lose control and allow their, otherwise privately biased, attitudes to be revealed. As described by
Sue (2010a), these conditions allow perpetrators to remain unidentified when committing
microassaults.
unconscious, demeaning and insulting messages that convey rudeness and insensitivity to
include a white woman clutching her purse tightly in the presence of a Latino person; or when
the term “gay” is used to describe the nonconformist behavior of someone. There are four
second-class citizen, pathologizing cultural values, and assumption of criminal status. The
ascription of intelligence describes messages that assign a degree of intellect to a person based
upon an associated social identity. An example of this would involve an assumption such as all
individuals from Asian backgrounds are good at math or science. This illustration is
representative of the ascription of intelligence because the assumption is based upon race. Next,
19
the second-class citizen theme involves treating individuals from marginalized groups as a lesser
person. This premise encompasses treating people as if they are unwelcome within a given
space. The third point that falls under the microinsult category is pathologizing cultural values
or communication styles. The underlying meaning of this notion is that the values or
communication styles for marginalized groups are perceived to be abnormal. The difference in
style is seen as not being normal or correct, and so it has a negative connotation attached.
Finally, the concept that is often attributed to people of color is the assumption of criminal status.
associated with an individual’s race. An example of this microinsult would be when people of
color are followed while shopping because of the presumption that individuals with a certain
negate, nullify, or exclude the psychological thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and experiences of the
group that is being targeted (Sue, 2010b). For instance, a microinvalidation would occur when
an Asian American person is complimented for speaking good English. A second example of a
microinvalidation would occur if a person of color is told, “When I look at you, I don’t see
color” (Sue, 2010a). This form of microaggression can be understood through the identification
of several themes. The first premise for microinvalidation includes being an alien in one’s own
land. Being an alien in one’s own land occurs when visibly racial or ethnic minorities are treated
like foreigners. This concept communicates that people with certain racial group identities do
not belong, regardless of being born in the United States. Second, the idea of color-blindness is
also a form of microinvalidation, which is represented when a perpetrator denies seeing color or
race. There are several messages that coincide with this concept: the denial of the experience for
20
people of color; the assimilation or acculturation of the dominant culture; and the denial of the
individual as a racial or cultural being. The third tenet associated with microinvalidations is the
myth of meritocracy. This perspective emphasizes progress or accomplishments that are based
completely on ability or talent and therefore underestimates the influence of social capital.
“Meritocracy is a pejorative term used to describe a social system that develops based on
intelligence testing and educational testing” (Liu, 2011, p. 385). Sue (2010a) suggested that the
microaggressors fail to recognize how the group identification of marginalized individuals may
influence his or her experiences. Essentially, the idea of meritocracy minimizes the impact of
accomplish goals and become successful, in many cases their group identification may influence
their experiences. Statements that suggest race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, or
religious affiliation play a minor role in the lives of marginalized individuals represent the myth
of meritocracy.
Finally, the last kind of microinvalidation is committed when a person denies behaviors
as well as actions that represent biases against other individuals. The denial of individual biases
is represented through statements that are made when an individual is denying a biased attitude.
An example of an associated statement would be, “I am not racist. I have three Black friends.”
Despite initially being provided as a justification for the lack of bias, these words illustrate a
comment.
21
The literature revealed several other taxonomies that have been developed to describe the
following kinds of microaggressions: gender (Capodilupo et al., 2010), sexual orientation and
transgender identification (Nadal, Rivera, & Corpus, 2010b) and religious affiliation (Nadal et
Capodilupo et al. (2010) proposed the taxonomy of gender microaggressions. This taxonomy for
gender microaggression focuses on the exploitation and objectification of women and does not
being treated as a sexual object, communicates that a woman’s value is her body, and her
purpose is to entertain men. Next, the second-class citizen theme occurs when women are
overlooked or when men are given preferential treatment over women. This idea sends the
message that the contribution of women is not as valuable as what men have to contribute.
Third, assumptions of inferiority transpire when women are assumed to be less competent than
men, and the meaning being shared is that women are incapable of performing at the same level
or better than men. The next inference is the assumption of traditional gender roles. This theme
materializes when it is assumed that a woman should maintain traditional gender roles such as
femininity. With this assumption comes the expectation that women should exude stereotypical
feminine characteristics. The fifth theme within the taxonomy of gender microaggressions is the
use of sexist language. The terminology associated with sexist language is derogatory toward
women and implies that they are inferior in some way or held to a different set of standards than
22
men. The final theme, environmental invalidations, includes “macrolevel aggressions that occur
workplace or low numbers of women in executive level positions within an organization. These
environmental cues convey the message that women are inferior and do not belong.
The central message of gender microaggressions is that women provide limited value, are
inferior, and possess fewer capabilities than men. The provided taxonomy on gender is different
from the taxonomy on microaggression because the focal point is gender; and this taxonomy
comparable to Sue and Capodilupo’s (2008) taxonomy in several ways. The second-class citizen
theme in the gender taxonomy system corresponds directly with the respective category in the
original taxonomy. Both classification systems expressed that individuals are treated as a lesser
person or group (Sue, 2010b). The second area in which the two taxonomies are analogous is
that the assumptions are made based on the social identity of the individual or group. In the
taxonomy developed by Sue and Capodilupo (2008), one of the themes is ascription of
intelligence, and it coincides with the assumption of inferiority in Capodilupo et al.’s (2010)
gender taxonomy. One taxonomy is concerned with assigning a degree of intelligence, and the
other deals with assigning a level of competence according to gender. Although there are
similarities that exist between the two taxonomies, the clear difference is the focus on one
Another taxonomy was created with sexual orientation and transgender identity as the
focal points, which was also influenced by Sue and Capodilupo (2008). This taxonomy was
23
developed by Nadal et al. (2010b), and the following themes were identified: use of heterosexist
heterosexism, and environmental macroaggressions. The first category in the sexual orientation
derogatory language is used towards a sexually and/or gender diverse person. This type of
speech transmits the message that sexually and/or gender diverse individuals are bad or inferior.
communicates that heterosexuality and cisgender identities are moral, while everything else is
not. This premise sends the message that those who do not identify as heterosexual or as
Next, Nadal et al. (2010b) described the third idea as the assumption of the universal
LGBT experience; this occurs when it is assumed that all sexually and/or gender diverse persons
are the same. Aside from treating sexually and/or gender diverse individuals the same, the
exoticization theme occurs when members of this marginalized group are dehumanized or treated
like objects. The ideas behind this theme include: the presence of sexually and/or gender diverse
individuals persons is for the entertainment of non-sexually and gender diverse individuals; and
the perception that people who identify as sexually and/or gender diverse are sexual objects.
The fifth characterization within the taxonomy of sexual orientation and transgender
itself when sexually and/or gender diverse individuals are treated with condemnation or
disrespect. The implication of this point is that sexually and/or gender diverse persons are
24
contagious, immoral, or evil. Additionally, two of the themes within this taxonomy are closely
related, and they focus on the denial of heterosexism and transphobia. The denial of societal
and/or gender diverse persons that their heterosexist or homophobic experiences are present.
The denial of individual heterosexism or transphobia ensues when a heterosexual person denies
their biases or prejudices. Both of these premises transmit messages that negate the thoughts and
feelings of sexually and/or gender diverse persons. The final category within this taxonomy is
the assumption of sexual pathology or abnormality. The belief aligned with this area is the
presumption that sexually and/or gender diverse individuals are oversexualized and/or sexual
deviants. Although this taxonomy focuses on sexual orientation and transgender identities, it
Nadal also created a second taxonomy. Nadal et al. (2010a) used Sue and Capodilupo’s (2008)
pathology of different religious groups, assumption of one’s own religious identity as the norm,
assumption of religious homogeneity, and denial of religious prejudice (Nadal et al., 2010a).
Several of the categories identified in this classification system for marginalized religious groups
correspond with themes that were included in the taxonomies mentioned above.
The exoticization category applies to both the taxonomy on religious, and/or sexual
included in each taxonomy; however, this notion is specific to the particular type of
25
certain characteristic that is seen as abnormal, incorrect, or wrong. For instance, when
examining the assumption of sexual pathology/abnormality theme within the taxonomy of sexual
orientation and transgender, LGBT persons are assumed to be abnormal sexual deviants because
of different religious groups exemplifies the notion that individuals who do not practice
Christianity are abnormal (Nadal et al., 2010a). The last commonality among these taxonomies
is the denial of individual prejudice or the perpetuation of this bias. In the original taxonomy for
microaggression, the denial of individual racism theme was included (Sue, 2010b). Similarly,
the taxonomy of sexual orientation and transgender microaggressions contains the denial of
religious microaggressions is concerned with the denial of religious prejudices. Although these
themes may address different issues for each marginalized population, their cohesion rests upon
the idea that in denying individual biases and societal inequities, non-marginalized populations
are denying their power and privilege as well as their personal responsibility to take action (Sue,
2010b).
marginalized groups within higher education. There are environmental as well as institutional
policies and practices that communicate the message that these groups are not welcome members
of their campus communities (Sue, 2010a; Watkins et al., 2010). Accordingly, it is important to
review the manifestation of microaggressions inside the university context. The extant literature
26
revealed that microinsults and microinvalidations are common occurrences within the academic
and social spaces at universities, with microassaults occurring less frequently (Grier-Reed,
2010). Additionally, the current literature on microaggression emphasized the experiences of the
education. Sue (2010a) stated that microaggressions affect “the student body composition
through recruitment (which students are selected), retention (which students drop out), and
promotion (graduation rates)” (p. 235). Moreover, the messages that microaggressions send may
marginalized populations in administrative, faculty, and support staff positions (Sue, 2010a).
students from marginalized backgrounds encounter this type of discrimination within the
classroom (Morales, 2014; Solórzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000; Sue, 2010a). For example,
Solórzano et al. (2000) found that African American students felt invisible within the classroom
setting. These students reported feeling like their experiences were “omitted, distorted, and
stereotyped” when studying their course curriculum (Solórzano et al., 2000, p. 65). Additionally,
college students who were victims of microaggression indicated feelings of isolation (Solórzano
et al., 2000; Morales, 2014) as well as self-doubt and frustration (Solórzano et al., 2000). The
study group formation of non-marginalized peers personified these feelings of isolation for
minority students (Solórzano et al., 2000). In identifying study group formation as an issue
intelligence theme, a type of microinsult (Sue, 2010b). These students perceived that their non-
27
marginalized person and failed to include them in the formation of study groups (Solórzano et
al., 2000).
(Platt & Lenzen, 2013, p. 1015) reiterated these feelings of isolation and frustration related to
their interactions with microaggressors. Platt and Lenzen (2013) found that the LGBTQ students
in their study discussed themes specifically recognized by the literature on sexual orientation
microaggressions. The areas that were discussed are as follows: endorsement of heteronormative
& Lenzen, 2013). These categories that were identified by participants aligned with the
classifications indicated in Nadal et al.’s (2010a) taxonomy of sexual orientation and transgender
microaggressions.
The college classroom is not the only setting in which microaggressions occur within the
includes campus residence halls. Harwood et al. (2012) studied minority students enrolled at
predominantly White institutions and their exposure to the various forms of microaggressions
within the residence hall environment. These students indicated that the microassaults they
experienced were reflected in the racial jokes and verbal comments made by their peers residing
in their residence hall (Harwood et al., 2012). These jokes and comments sometimes originated
as microinsults, but they developed into microassaults after becoming more overt (Harwood et
al., 2012). In addition to jokes and comments, students reported witnessing racial slurs written in
the common areas of their residence halls (Harwood et al., 2012). These areas included the
doors of residents’ rooms, study lounges, or elevators (Harwood et al., 2012). By writing the
28
racial slurs in public spaces, the perpetrator intended to embarrass, harm, or offend those that the
comments were directed toward. Additionally, by leaving the slur in a public space for the
victims to discover, it allowed the perpetrator to maintain a sense of anonymity because the
victims were harmed, but they did not know who the microaggressors were. Sue (2010a) alleged
prejudice, or in this case, racial slurs. For the participants in this study, the racial slurs served as
indicators that they were unwelcome and did not belong in that space (Harwood et al., 2012).
In the same manner that students pinpointed microassaults, the current literature also
exposed microinsults as a reality for college students. This form of microaggression was
disclosed when Latina/o students enrolled at predominantly White institutions were confronted
with racial stereotyping (Minikel-Lacocque, 2012; Yosso, Smith, Ceja, & Solórzano, 2009).
This marginalized student population reiterated feelings of being unwelcomed by the campus
community as well as feelings of isolation, similar to the participants in other studies (Minikel-
Lacocque, 2012; Morales, 2014; Platt & Lenzen, 2013; Solórzano et al., 2000). Additionally, the
literature affirmed that microassaults and microinvalidations were present in the experience of
encountered race-related issues, which were minimized by residential staff (Harwood et al.,
2012). When students reported racial slurs to residential staff, they subsequently encountered
microinvalidations, as the residence hall staff minimized the microassault and thus attributed the
experience to pranks (Harwood et al., 2012). The lack of acknowledgement by staff members
denigrated the reality of students who felt that a microassault was committed, while indirectly
color also felt diminished when staff trivialized racial microaggressions” (p. 168). In other
words, in their attempt to address the first form of microaggression, students experienced a
second form of microaggression from the residence hall staff. Additionally, residence halls
(Harwood et al., 2012). The participants revealed “the residence halls on campus appeared to be
segregated by race” and the facilities where the population predominantly consisted of minority
students were perceived to be inferior to the other residence halls (Harwood et al., 2012, p. 167).
These two examples represent segregated spaces and unequal treatment in housing assignments.
The message that these factors communicate is that students of color do not belong in these
spaces (Harwood et al., 2012). The perceived racial segregation and quality of facilities were
environmental cues that broadcasted messages that these marginalized students did not belong.
The occurrence of microaggression is not only present at the undergraduate level, as the
literature reflected that graduate students encounter microaggression as well. Specifically, the
experiences for students of color who were pursuing doctoral degrees. Guzman et al. (2010)
illustrated that the doctoral students in their study encountered discouragement from faculty and
advisors based upon assumptions about their level of intelligence and abilities; questioning from
faculty and fellow students regarding the authenticity of their qualifications and
accomplishments; requests to provide the student-of-color perspective for committees; and the
In reaching beyond the experience of U.S. students, the extant literature reflected that
Kleiman, Spanierman, Isaac, & Poolokasingham, 2014; Kim & Kim, 2010). Not only do these
30
students experience microaggressive behaviors on an individual level, but they also experience
microaggression at the institutional level (Kim & Kim, 2010). International students are
confronted with microaggression at the institutional level through “a lack of culturally relevant
resources, an inhospitable campus climate, and little structural support” (Kim & Kim, 2010, p.
182). In examining the experience of international students, this study does not categorize their
microinvalidations. Kim and Kim (2010) related the participants’ experiences to themes that
were identified by Sue et al. (2007); however, the authors did not explicitly categorize the
microinsults, or microinvalidations).
In a study by Clark et al. (2014), students reported being spontaneously mocked and culturally
appropriated by non-Aboriginal students and faculty. One participant described an incident that
Turquoise described a specific incident in lecture on a stormy day when a professor “was
making jokes about Natives doing rain dances.” Having felt insulted and demeaned by
this experience, she reported feeling uncomfortable with the idea of asking the professor
This type of behavior reflects both a microinsult and microinvalidation because the participant
encountered a “hidden insulting message” (Sue, 2010a, p. 31) as well as the nullification of the
experiential reality for the Aboriginal students in the classroom. Consistent with the findings of
Clark et al.’s (2014) study, Poolokasingham, Spanierman, Kleiman, and Houshmand (2014)
31
found that South Asian Canadian students also encountered microinsults and microinvalidations
as a result of the racial microaggressions they experienced within their Canadian institution.
Moreover, a subset of the literature explores racial microaggression within the context of
therapy (Gonzales, Davidoff, Nadal, & Yanos, 2014; Nadal, Wong, Sriken, Griffin, Fujii-Doe,
2014b; Owen, Wampold, Tao, Imel, and Rodolfa, 2014). Since this study focuses on higher
education, details regarding the therapy context will not be thoroughly reviewed. However, one
such study examined the therapy environment through the lens of a university counseling center,
so the clients or participants included graduate and undergraduate students. Owen et al. (2014)
found that when clients perceived racial and ethnic microaggression, the quality of the working
alliance with their therapists decreased. Specifically, the participants felt a decline in the
agreement with their therapist on the goals set for their sessions and the methods through which
the goals were to be attained (Owen et al., 2014). The authors of this study did not mention the
forms of microaggression that were present in the therapy sessions. However, this research
confirms that the microaggressions students face within the university environment occurs in
Similar to the student perspective described above, faculty who belong to marginalized
Black faculty who work within counseling and counseling psychology programs experienced
2008). Constantine et al. (2008) maintained that as a result of the microinsults Black faculty
encountered, the participants felt unwelcomed and invisible by their colleagues in their
departments. Participants reported that White faculty and administrators did not notice or
32
acknowledge their presence on campus until it was necessary to use their expertise. Being asked
to assist in the recruitment of new faculty only when the potential faculty member was a person
of color was mentioned by one participant in the study. A second example mentioned by
participants includes having their racial or ethnic-related research valued only during academic
accreditation processes. These feelings were further personified when Black faculty
encountered trouble with finding available mentors who were willing to support them as they
navigated the environment of higher education (Constantine et al., 2008). Because it can be
challenging for faculty to find mentors and peers with similar interests and goals, the need to
seek mentorship outside of their work environment can increase feelings of isolation
(Constantine et al., 2008). These are commonalities between the microaggressive experiences of
In addition, the extant literature demonstrated that faculty members in higher education
are confronted with microaggression in a variety of ways. Scholars provided multiple examples
(2008) found that Black faculty participants felt their credentials were challenged by other
faculty, staff members and students because of their racial group identification. Participants in
this study also described experiencing a lack of respect for their scholarship and research.
Furthermore, participants described their experience of being assigned to teach all multicultural-
related courses for their departments based on the assumption that being a person of color means
that they inherently have expertise and competence in teaching these topics independent of their
research agenda (Constantine et al., 2008; Guzman et al., 2010). Although these studies by
Constantine et al. (2008) and Guzman et al. (2010) explored faculty experiences with
microaggression, the overall extant literature is lacking in scholarship that thoroughly captures
33
microaggression and how it impacts the experience of marginalized faculty. The current
literature that explores the experience of faculty with microaggression fails to go beyond race.
Examining microaggression through the lens of those faculty members with salient social
microaggression.
In the same way that the current literature inadequately addresses the experience of
faculty with microaggression, this is also the case for administrators in postsecondary education.
There are few studies that offer the perspective of administrators within higher education
environment. Of the studies that focus on this population, Garvey and Drezner (2013) examined
university advancement staff that discussed the prevalence of discrimination and oppression at
their institution. Although these participants did not explicitly label the forms of
microaggression, the descriptions they provided indicate the presence of microinsults and
microinvalidations. For example, one advancement staff member, who worked with the
LGBTQ-alumni-affinity group at his institution, did not receive approval for an order of t-shirts
that contained the institution’s name plus the word “gay”, and subsequently the manufacturing of
gay-themed t-shirts was prohibited by the president of the alumni association (Garvey &
Drezner, 2013). Although the president of the alumni association did not explicitly insult the
advancement staff member, forbidding the employee from printing a t-shirt that aligned with one
microinvalidations are environmental or interpersonal cues that negate, nullify, or exclude the
psychological thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and experiences of the group that is being targeted
(Sue, 2010b). The participants reported that this experience was devastating and had a lasting
34
Similarly, in a study that examined the experience of university librarians, Alabi (2014)
found that racially minoritized academic librarians encountered racial microaggression from their
colleagues within the workplace and identified the specific forms of microaggression (i.e.,
provided by participants in this study included one librarian being told that they did not belong in
higher education and he or she was only hired because of affirmative action. This comment
assumes that the participants have been given an unfair advantage and negates this individual's
education or professional experience. A second example from this study that illustrated a
microinsult included another librarian witnessing her colleagues showing a lack of respect
toward an African American dean (Alabi, 2014). This instance reflects a microinsult, because it
consisted of a demeaning message that conveyed rudeness and insensitivity to someone from a
marginalized background (Sue, 2010a). Examples such as the two provided above demonstrate
Impact of Microaggression
discrimination can impact victims in a variety of ways. Sue (2010b) indicated that despite being
described as banal and trivial by people, “microaggressions have major consequences for
marginalized groups” (p. 14). Numerous studies have identified the specific areas in which
microaggression has effected marginalized individuals (Allen, Scott & Lewis, 2013;
Houshmand, Spanierman & Tafarodi, 2014; Nadal et al., 2012; Nadal, Wong, Griffin, Davidoff,
& Sriken, 2014b; Offermann et al., 2013; Owen et al., 2014; Sue, 2010a). Collectively, the
participants were affected by microaggression in the following areas: emotions, mental capacity,
35
performance, retention, overall health, work performance, and work productivity (Allen et al.,
2013; Houshmand et al., 2014; Nadal, 2012; Nadal et al., 2014b; Offermann et al., 2013; Owen
The outcome that has appeared consistently throughout the literature is the impact of
that microaggression has a cumulative negative affect on the psychological well-being of victims
(Platt & Lenzen, 2013). Research has revealed that the nature of covert daily microaggressive
experiences can amass to become more harmful than overt, infrequent acts of discrimination
(Sue, 2010a). Similar to other studies on microaggression, Keller and Galgay (2010) confirmed
the psychological wear upon victims who experience microaggression because of ableism.
These authors contend that the energy required for the processing of these negative experiences
could cause prolonged psychological wear (Keller & Galgay, 2010). Furthermore, Nadal et al.
(2010a) speculated that physical and psychological effects are areas of concern for victims of
interfering with their cognitive processes, thereby hindering their learning and academic
performance” (Lin, 2010, p. 96). Microaggressions also impact students’ learning and
performance because a large amount of their cognitive energy is focused on coping with these
encounters rather than their studies (Lin, 2010). Particularly important for college students after
graduation, microaggression could inhibit targets’ education and career development, which is
Additionally, Watkins et al. (2010) identified the emotional and cognitive ways in which
36
institutions. These researchers reported that individuals who experience microaggression expend
a large amount of cognitive energy as a result of their encounters with aggressors (Watkins et al.,
2010). Cognitive energy is depleted in the attempt to determine the intention behind a
microaggression, contemplating how to respond, and determining the cost of the response, all
while trying not to align with negative stereotypes about Black people (Watkins et al., 2010).
Furthermore, Harwood et al. (2012) discussed the impact of racial microaggressions on students
their residential life experience and sense of belonging to the university. In addition, racial
microaggressions caused Latina/o college students a great amount of stress (Yosso et al., 2009).
Work Performance
Particularly important for university faculty and administrators, Lin (2010) argued that
diminished productivity. Other scholars who examined subtle prejudices reiterated the findings
of Lin’s (2010) research within the work environment (Franklin, 2004; Hinton, 2004; Rowe,
1990). Another study, focused on microaggression, examined the specific ways in which gender
Further, in one study that examined the dynamic between supervisors and supervisees,
researchers found that participants’ perception of discrimination was based upon their
equitable beforehand, then he or she was less likely to identify an act of discrimination
In their discussion on the impact of microaggression for LGBT individuals, Nadal et al.
(2010b) maintained that these groups experience mental health disparities and physical health
depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and internalized homophobia among members of the
LGBT community; whereas physical health issues involve a weakened immune system and
homophobic microaggression. Platt and Lenzen (2013) pointed out “the impact of
attitudes and assumptions regarding one’s sexual orientation” (p. 1022). In recognizing the
substantive impact that sexual orientation and transgender microaggressions have upon those
significant.
Not only does the current literature address the impact that microaggression can have on
individuals from marginalized populations, it also examines the ways in which individuals cope
with microaggression. The literature demonstrates that those who encounter microaggression
use a variety of mechanisms to manage their experiences. Several studies have explored the
coping mechanisms that victims of microaggression employ as a way to handle the subtle
38
discrimination they face (Grier-Reed, 2010; Johnston & Nadal, 2010; Keller & Galgay, 2010;
Lewis et al., 2013; Solórzano et al., 2000; Sue, 2010a; Watkins et al., 2010).
education is through the creation of counterspaces and sanctuaries (Grier-Reed, 2010; Solórzano
for Black students at a predominantly White institution. The African American Student Network
and growth-promoting college environment” (Grier-Reed, 2010, pp. 181-182). These safe
spaces may be present on and off campus (Solórzano et al., 2000), and they provide victims of
microaggression with safety by allowing them to make sense of their experiences, determine
whether microaggression has occurred, find support or validation for their experience as well as
collective wisdom provided within the context of counterspaces offers marginalized populations
facilitated dialogue, support and connections that intentional spaces deliver, counterspaces serve
Those that encounter microaggression use a variety of other mechanisms to manage their
experiences. Watkins et al. (2010) discussed the ways in which Black college students at
predominantly White institutions cope with microaggression. Participants in this study revealed
that they rely on religious and spiritual beliefs, social support from friends and family, and
Participants also explained that they felt their peers of color were better prepared to discuss and
39
relate to them because of their shared experiences with microaggression. Additionally, the Black
college students in this study identified White allies as sources of support and friends. The
authors described that the Black college students reflected an orientation towards future success,
Another means of coping with microaggression is the use of humor and sarcasm. Keller
and Galgay (2010) purported that the incorporation of humor may serve “to diminish or reduce
the negative psychological and emotional impact of the microaggression on targets” (p. 258).
These scholars suggested that group affinity for people with disabilities help mitigate the impact
diminish the prevalence of this issue is more advantageous for marginalized populations.
Consequently, examining the literature for methods that have been employed to measure and
Microaggression Measurement
Since the construct of microaggression has emerged, researchers have developed tools to
help measure the occurrence and effects of microaggression. As stated by Nadal (2011), “it is
imperative for researchers to produce quantitative studies to empirically support the presence of
microaggressions and their influences on mental health, physical health and other variables like
self-esteem, self-efficacy, and performance” (p. 471). In order to accomplish this goal of
empirically studying microaggression, researchers have created instruments that measure racial
and ethnic microaggression (Balsam et al., 2011; Mercer et al., 2011; Nadal, 2011; Torres-
40
Harding et al., 2012). These instruments also include: the Index of Race-Related Stress (Utsey,
1999), the Racism and Life Experiences scale (Harrell, 2000), and the Perceived Ethnic
microinsults, they do not assess microinvalidations specifically against Blacks (Mercer et al.,
2011). One particular instrument, the Inventory of Microaggressions Against Black Individuals
(IMABI), was created for the purpose of assessing microinsults and microinvalidations against
African Americans. Mercer et al. (2011) conducted an exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory
factor analysis, and item response theory analysis to test the reliability and validity of 45 items
on the IMABI.
Similarly, Nadal (2011) used exploratory principal component and confirmatory factor
analyses for the creation of the Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS). The
researcher tested the reliability and validity of the instrument and subsequently categorized the
45 items from the instrument into six areas: assumptions of inferiority, second-class citizen and
confirmatory factor analyses to create as well as test the validity and reliability of the Racial
Microaggression Scale (RMAS). Somewhat different from the previously mentioned scales, the
RMAS seeks to evaluate how often a person experiences microaggression and the distress that
results from the incident. The analyses for this study resulted in a 32-item scale, which was
categorized into the following six factors: invisibility, criminality, low achieving/undesirable
Likewise, the remaining scale that has been developed to measure racial microaggression
also includes the identification of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) individuals
(Balsam et al., 2011). Balsam et al. (2011) developed this scale to measure the experience of
microaggression for people of color who are also members of the LGBT community. The
researchers used a mixed-methods approach, which consisted of focus groups, interviews, survey
dissemination, and subsequent exploratory factor analysis. From these analyses, the researchers
developed an 18-item scale that can be used with the previously mentioned population. The
scales that have been developed seek to measure and ascertain the microaggressive experiences
of the respective populations. Based on the extant literature that focuses on scales created to
for mid-level student affairs professionals. Additionally, the literature does not discuss scales
that can be used to assess the leadership experiences of mid-level student affairs professionals.
This factor is significant because Mather et al. (2009) stated that mid-level professionals have
phenomenon of leadership.
Leadership
There are many ways in which leadership has been conceptualized, which includes a
focus on group processes, personality attributes, and actions or behaviors (Northouse, 2013).
Furthermore, leadership has been described as a process, involving influence that occurs in
groups, and focuses on common goals. These components are essential to the phenomenon of
a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 5). Leaders negotiate with their followers
42
on the interpretations of their power (Cohen & March, 2000). These interpretations can also be
The current literature on leadership describes various types of theories and frameworks
for understanding the phenomenon. There are multiple theories on leadership, which include
contingency theory, path-goal theory, and leader-member exchange theory. Additionally, there
are several frameworks that can be used to understand leadership that involve authentic
Authentic Leadership
leader is genuine (Northouse, 2013). This type of leadership “is about the authenticity of leaders
and their leadership” (Northouse, 2013, p. 253). Authentic leadership is effective when real
concerns are defined, and both leaders and followers determine the correct solution (Northouse,
2013). Since this framework is fairly new, there are multiple definitions for this type of
knowledge, self-regulation, and self-concept of a leader. Within this perspective “a leader’s life
experiences and the meaning that he or she attaches to those experiences” are significant to the
authenticity of a leader (Northouse, 2013, p. 254). The second viewpoint for authentic
relational and co-created by both leaders and followers (Northouse, 2013). The interpersonal
perspective describes authentic leadership as being a reciprocal process that occurs between
followers and leaders. The remaining viewpoint for authentic leadership is the developmental
43
perspective. According to this approach, authentic leadership can be developed and nurtured
Servant Leadership
Servant leadership is reflected when leaders focus on the concerns of followers, and seek
to empathize with and nurture them (Northouse, 2013). Within this type of leadership, leaders
“put followers first, empower them, and help them develop their full personal capacities”
(Northouse, 2013, p. 219). There are 10 characteristics that relate to servant leadership, which
foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community. These
criterions are influenced by culture and organizational context. There are three outcomes
performance, and societal impact. As the focal point of servant leadership is the empowerment
of followers, transformational leadership makes an impact on both the leader and the follower.
Transformational Leadership
connection that improves their level of motivation and morality for both parties (Northouse,
2013). This type of leadership emphasizes intrinsic motivation, follower development, and
motivating followers to accomplish more than what is expected of them. In order to further
understand transformational leadership, Kouzes and Posner (2002) conducted content analysis
for their research that outlined the specific behaviors associated with their model of leadership.
This research resulted in the identification of five behaviors that can be practiced in order to be
an effective leader.
44
operationalizes how effective leaders behave. This leadership model was developed from
conducting interviews with over 1,300 middle and senior level leaders from a variety of
leaders, Kouzes and Posner constructed a model for leadership (Northouse, 2013). The
researchers expounded on their framework for leadership in their book, The Leadership
Challenge (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). In this book, Kouzes and Posner (2002) stated that
leadership practices can be used to assist any leader in mobilizing followers for the purpose of
accomplishing extraordinary things within their organization. The five practices of exemplary
leadership can serve any leader who wishes to encourage group members. These practices of
exemplary leadership encompass the following: modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision,
challenging the process, enabling others to act, and encouraging the heart (Kouzes & Posner,
2002).
Model the way. When leaders are modeling the way, they are effectively demonstrating
the behaviors that they expect of followers (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). “Leaders’ deeds are far
more important than their words when determining how serious they really are about what they
say. Words and deeds must be consistent” (Kouzes & Posner, 2002, p. 14). In order to model
the way for followers, leaders must first find their voice through the clarification of their values
and being self-expressive (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Furthermore, “exemplary leaders know that
if they want to gain commitment and achieve the highest standards, they must be models of the
behavior they expect of others. Leaders model the way” (Kouzes & Posner, 2002, p. 14).
Leaders display behaviors associated with modeling the way when they “follow through on their
45
promises and commitments and affirm the common values they share with others” (Northouse,
2013, p. 198).
Inspire a shared vision. The process of inspiring a shared vision begins with leaders
imagining opportunities, possessing the desire to make these things happen, and then sharing this
vision with others. Kouzes and Posner (2002) stated “to enlist people in a vision, leaders must
know their constituents and speak their language” (p. 15). The two critical components of
inspiring a shared vision are having the capacity to envision the future and enlisting others by
developing a shared sense of destiny (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Communicating this vision to
direction the department or organization is headed. Leaders must create and communicate a
vision that inspires followers. “Leaders cannot command commitment, only inspire it” (Kouzes
& Posner, 2002, p. 15). Kouzes and Posner (2002) described the process of inspiring a shared
Leaders breathe life into the hopes and dreams of others and enable them to see the
exciting possibilities that the future holds. Leaders forge a unity of purpose by showing
constituents how the dream is for the common good. Leaders ignite the flame of passion
in others by expressing enthusiasm for the compelling vision of their group. Leaders
communicate their passion through vivid language and an expressive style. (p. 16)
Challenge the process. Despite having a clear vision in mind, and being able to
communicate this vision, leaders must also possess a willingness to challenge the process. This
exemplary practice of leadership refers to a leader’s ability to object to the way in which existing
systems prevent growth and change (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Challenging the process means
leaders must search for opportunities, experiment, and take risks (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). This
46
openness for creativity welcomes the freedom for followers to participate and contribute ideas
that may challenge existing processes, but also lays the foundation for an improved and
innovative way of doing things. Additionally, this openness allows others to be proactive in
Enable others to act. By enabling others to act, a leader demonstrates the capacity to
engage everyone that is necessary in order to work toward the vision (Kouzes & Posner, 2002).
In exercising this exemplary leadership practice, leaders make others feel capable, and do not
hoard the power they have (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). The two ideals behind this practice are
fostering collaboration and strengthening others (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). With this practice,
the leader’s focus is on others and the ability to enable others to act.
Encourage the heart. The last exemplary practice of leadership is encouraging the heart.
Kouzes and Posner (2002) described this practice as being critical to helping followers move
forward; it involves actions that reflect care, encouragement, and the uplifting of followers’
spirits. In order to exhibit this practice, it is important for leaders to recognize contributions that
followers make to the organization as well as celebrate values and victories (Kouzes & Posner,
2002). By showing appreciation to followers, leaders are able to further motivate them to
continue working toward the shared vision that has been communicated.
These five exemplary leadership practices represent the behaviors, skills, and abilities
associated with mobilizing and motivating followers (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). As previously
stated, leadership skills are highly important to those in mid-level student affairs positions
(Mather et al., 2009). Presumably, the leadership practices outlined by Kouzes and Posner
(2002) are the type of behaviors that are critical for the effectiveness of mid-level student affairs
professionals within higher education. Furthermore, Kouzes and Posner (2002) identified
47
specific behaviors for leaders to practice in order to get things done within an organization.
These scholars proposed ten commitments that guide leaders on how to accomplish goals within
an organization. As indicated by Kouzes and Posner (2002), the ten commitments of leadership
are:
5. Search for opportunities by seeking innovative ways to change, grow, and improve.
6. Experiment and take risks by constantly generating small wins and learning from
mistakes.
10. Celebrate the values and victories by creating a spirit of community. (p. 22)
These ten commitments represent behaviors that are embedded within the five practices of
exemplary leaders (i.e., model the way, inspire a shared vision, challenge the process, encourage
the heart, and enable others to act) and coincide with how leaders may employ these practices
Several research studies have examined Kouzes and Posner’s leadership practices
framework within the context of higher education. These studies mainly focus on the student
48
population within the higher education context (DiChiara, 2009; Grandzol, Perlis, & Draina,
Students and leadership practices. Among the extant literature that has analyzed
leadership practices within the postsecondary environment, there are several studies that
explored how this model of leadership applies to students in higher education (DiChiara, 2009;
Grandzol et al., 2010; Kelley, 2008; Tingle et al., 2013). The Leadership Practices Inventory
(LPI) has been assessed to determine whether the instrument is an appropriate fit for students
(Posner, 2012). The Student Leadership Practices Inventory helps identify the specific behaviors
that students report when discussing their roles as leaders (Posner, 2012).
Grandzol et al. (2010) studied Division III student athletes and the presence of the five
exemplary leadership practices. These researchers concluded that each of the five practices were
more likely to be demonstrated by team captains of athletic teams than other members of the
team. Additionally, when examining the results for all student athletes, Encouraging the Heart
and Enabling Others to Act occurred more frequently, and Challenge the Process was displayed
and the relationship to Kouzes and Posner’s leadership practices. Kelley’s (2008) study revealed
slightly different results than the study conducted by Grandzol et al. (2010). Kelley (2008)
examined former fraternity presidents and their leadership practices in their post-graduation
careers. This study reported that the length of service as a fraternity president and Inspiring a
Shared Vision were positively correlated (Kelley, 2008). Likewise, DiChiara (2009) studied
students who were members of the governing councils for undergraduate fraternities and
sororities. Although the study determined that they were no significant differences between the
49
leadership practices for the various councils (DiChiara, 2009), it is important to note that the
extant literature has repeatedly explored the experiences of fraternity and sorority members and
The research focused on students and leadership practices extends beyond the
undergraduate college student population. Hillman, Jr. (2008) described the experiences of non-
traditional students enrolled in seminary school. In this research study the only factors that
indicated a significant difference was age. Hillman, Jr. (2008) found that seminary students, who
were age 40 years or older scored significantly higher for Challenging the Process, Enabling
Others, Modeling the Way, and Encouraging the Heart than younger seminary students. The
results of this study demonstrate that Kouzes and Posner’s model of leadership can be applied to
leadership practices framework has been explored in higher education contexts outside of the
United States. Gebremariam (2014) compared the leadership practices of leaders within three
Ethiopian public institutions. The findings revealed that the five leadership practices were
present within each institutional environment. The presence of these practices exemplifies the
Similarly, in a study that compared American and Argentinean MBA students, Aimar and
Stough (2007) found that statistically significant differences existed for the following leadership
practices: challenging the process, inspiring a shared vision, enabling others to act, and modeling
the way. This research reiterated the transferability of leadership practices to cultures outside of
There are multiple research studies that explore the leadership practices within secondary
education and specifically for principals (Mason, 2010; Pugh, Fillingim, Blackbourn, & Thomas,
2011; Taylor, Martin, Hutchinson, & Jinks, 2007). Pugh et al. (2011) conducted research in
which the Leadership Practices Inventory was validated for use with secondary school principals.
Studies such as Pugh et al.’s (2011) strengthen the application of the LPI in the secondary
education setting.
Another study examined the relationship between servant leadership and Kouzes and
Posner’s leadership practices for public school principals. Taylor et al. (2007) found that
principals who were labeled as servant leaders were rated as more effective in their use of the
five exemplary leadership practices by the teachers they supervised. The principals who
practiced servant leadership displayed higher scores for all five leadership practices than those
principals who did not employ servant leadership (Taylor et al., 2007).
Moreover, Mason (2010) expressed the connection between leadership practices and
school counseling in a large-scale study. The researcher found that in order to align with school
improvement goals, it is necessary for school counselors to display effective leadership practices
(Mason, 2010). This study also determined that a positive relationship was associated with
Other studies have explored the presence of leadership practices for various populations
outside of higher education. Tourangeau and McGilton (2004) investigated the reliability of the
five exemplary leadership practices for a population of nurses. This study resulted in the
identification of a three-factor solution that was better suited to fit the sample being examined.
51
The researchers devised three new labels for the practices that can be used with the nursing
population: cognitive (i.e., challenging the process, inspiring a shared vision), behavioral (i.e.,
enabling others to act, modeling the way), and supportive (i.e., encouraging the heart).
Tourangeau and McGilton (2004) stated that this three-factor solution is more conceptually
Kouzes and Posner’s leadership practices have been widely used as a means of
identifying leadership effectiveness for leaders. This model of leadership helps specify the
behaviors and actions that are exercised by effective leaders across different types of
environments.
After reviewing the extant literature on microaggression and leadership practices, there
are several areas in which the scholarship is lacking. Overall, the research on microaggression is
heavily concentrated on race. Although race is an important aspect of social identity, more
research on other types of microaggression (e.g., gender, disability, religion, sexual orientation,
etc.) must be conducted (Platt & Lenzen, 2013). This research would be beneficial for
understanding all marginalized populations and the complexity of their experiences with
minoritized populations face is the need for a more thorough analysis on the taxonomies of
microaggression that have been identified within the literature. For example Capodilupo et al.
(2010) introduced the taxonomy of gender microaggression. If the researchers intend to focus on
sex-based microaggressions, then they should revise the name of the taxonomy they created.
However, assuming that Capodilupo et al. (2010) are using the term gender broadly, then it is
important for the themes that are discussed within this taxonomy to be more inclusive. The way
52
in which their research details this taxonomy implies that there are only two “categories” for
gender (i.e., man and woman). Further study is needed on gender microaggression in order to go
beyond the binary gender roles of man and woman that are presented by Capodilupo et al.
(2010). In describing gender through this binary perspective, the researchers practice
genders other than man and woman (i.e., transgender, genderqueer, etc.). A similar argument
can be made for the taxonomy of sexual orientation and transgender microaggressions by Nadal
et al. (2010b). Perhaps further research on sexual orientation and gender identity
microaggression would lead to the development of separate taxonomies that better describe the
literature for both faculty and administrators who work in postsecondary education. As indicated
by the literature review in this chapter, several studies have been conducted on students (Boysen,
2012; Grier-Reed, 2010; Lewis et. al., 2013) and faculty members (Pittman, 2012; Rollock,
2012) who have encountered microaggression. Many of the studies on microaggression focus on
students, both undergraduate and graduate alike. This was also the case when examining the
literature on five exemplary leadership practices within the context of higher education. Many of
the studies focused specifically on the experiences of students. Additional research is needed to
capture the faculty and mid-level professional experience with the five practices of exemplary
leadership. Moreover, university administrators and staff members make up the remaining
population within the university structure, when considering the overall population of individuals
present on a college campus. Most relevant to this study is the need for research on mid-level
student affairs professional and their experience with microaggression. The literature fails to
53
adequately acknowledge this group of individuals and it does not provide an in-depth
understanding of their experiences. Capturing these individuals’ experiences will further provide
the full picture of all populations present on college campuses. This missing gap in the literature
is why the current study examined the experience of mid-level student affairs professionals
within higher education and how they encountered various types of microaggression, including
In addition, as presented by the literature, microaggression has an impact upon those who
experience it in a variety of ways. These areas of impact include: emotional, mental, cognitive,
retention, overall health, work performance and work productivity. When examining these areas
of impact, the research does not articulate how experiencing microaggression may impact
leadership behaviors or practices for those who may be serving in such capacities.
Specifically, the extant literature fails to make a connection between the five exemplary
leadership practices and microaggression. Therefore, the aim of this study was to establish a
Summary
Microaggressions are every day, brief interpersonal “exchanges that send denigrating
messages to certain individuals because of their group membership” (Sue, 2010a, p. 24).
Multiple news outlets have demonstrated that microaggression is present within postsecondary
education (Flaherty, 2013; New, 2014, 2015; Svokos, 2015; Vega, 2014). Those who encounter
performance, retention, overall health, work performance, and work productivity (Allen, Scott &
54
Lewis, 2013; Houshmand, Spanierman & Tafarodi, 2014; Nadal et al., 2012; Nadal, Wong,
Griffin, Davidoff, & Sriken, 2014; Offermann et al., 2013; Owen et al., 2014; Platt & Lenzen,
2013; Sue, 2010a). In order to counteract the ways in which microaggression impacts victims,
coping mechanisms have been employed by some populations who experience microaggression.
professionals. Further research is needed to examine this population and the relationship with
microaggression.
The following chapter details the methodology for examining the relationship between
the leadership practices and the microaggression that mid-level student affairs practitioners
encounter. Chapter Three contains the research questions, research design, information about the
population and sample, an explanation of the variables, instrumentation, procedures and steps for
As demonstrated by the extant literature, there has been little research produced
and how these experiences relate to their leadership practices. This topic is relevant to
understanding campus climate, because it provides insight into the environment for a subset of
the university population that remains understudied. Rosser (2004) stated “midlevel leaders lack
the visibility throughout the academy and have been of little concern to educational researchers”
(p. 318). Current research does not adequately address the experiences of mid-level student
support mechanisms for professionals in these roles (Mather et al., 2009). To begin
understanding the type of support mechanisms that can be implemented for mid-level student
affairs professionals, three objectives were identified for this study: (1) to determine if
microaggression is present within higher education; (2) to understand the relationship between
microaggression and the leadership practices of mid-level student affairs professionals; (3) to
examine the types and forms of microaggression that may be present within an institutional
environment. Particularly, this study focused on the experience of mid-level student affairs
professionals with microaggression in their work environment and whether or not their
leadership practices were related. The specific sample that was used for this study included mid-
level student affairs professionals who are members of the professional organization, ACPA-
College Student Educators International, and who have identified as mid-level professionals.
Quantitative methods were used to understand the experiences for the sample of mid-level
student affairs professionals who elected to participate in this study. This chapter includes a
review of the research questions, research design, population and participants, survey
56
Additionally, this chapter provides descriptive information for the sample used in this study.
overall response rate of 17%. I used the survey method to capture information regarding the
experiences with microaggression and leadership practices for the sample. In addition to the
question items that asked participants to select the most appropriate response choice that aligned
with their experience, respondents were also asked to complete open-ended questions. These
questions asked participants to describe their experiences with microaggression, and how has
microaggression impacted their work experience. Participants’ responses to these questions are
interspersed throughout Chapter four and five. Although my focus was on the relationship
between microaggression and leadership practices for this group of individuals, I did perform
Research Questions
The literature review in the previous chapter identified the gaps within the literature on
microaggression and leadership practices. Based on these gaps the following research questions
inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, and
disability, gender, sexual orientation, age, religious affiliation, educational level, and
degree level and student body size) predict their experiences with microaggressions?
Methodology
A nonexperimental research design was used for this study. This study is considered a
nonexperimental design because I did not manipulate the independent variables; however, the
relationship between the independent and dependent variables was examined. For
nonexperimental designs, a presumed cause and effect is identified and measured, but random
assignment of the participants is not carried out (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002).
Additionally, pretest or control groups were not included as design elements for this study.
Survey methodology is appropriate for this study because it captured mid-level student affairs
whether or not microaggression was related to the leadership practices of the participants.
Moreover, the survey was disseminated through the internet. The decision to create a
web-based survey, using Qualtrics online survey software, met my objective of remaining cost
effective as well as efficient for the data collection process. In addition, using Qualtrics software
for the survey questions provided a more efficient process when coding the data for statistical
analysis. Additionally, the web-based survey method was appropriate for this type of population
58
because it aimed to collect information from mid-level student affairs professionals, through the
use of technology, who are located all over the world. Essentially, professionals who were
Purposive sampling was used in the identification of participants for the current study.
This type of sampling required me to define characteristics that were applicable to the population
in order to select a sample that aligned with the target population. It is important to note that the
results of this study cannot be generalized to the entire population of mid-level student affairs
professionals within all of higher education, only those within the target population. As
previously mentioned, the target population studied was mid-level student affairs professionals
with minoritized identities who work within postsecondary education and belong to ACPA. The
individuals in this target population are employed at a variety of higher education institutions
throughout the world. For example, the mid-level student affairs professionals included in this
study work at public or private institutions, and the institutions had student enrollments that
ranged from somewhere in between fewer than 1,000 to at least 40,000 students. The differences
in institutional control may be related to the experiences of the sample, making institutional
Hurtado (1992) asserted “institutional contexts are largely responsible for setting the stage for
conflict” (p. 542). The conflict that mid-level student affairs professionals experience through
necessary to analyze this relationship by asking this group of professionals about their institution
of employment.
59
This professional population was selected, because these individuals are often working to
find the balance between the direction of superiors, the employees they supervise, and the
students that receive support from the functional areas they oversee (Rosser, 2004). Therefore,
the work experience of mid-level student affairs professionals may encompass a dynamic level
selected for the exploration of their encounters with microaggression because of their multi-
The specific sampling frame for this study was identified through the selection of a
professional organization, specifically for professionals that work within higher education. The
and engages students for a lifetime of learning and discovery” (ACPA, 2014a, para. 1). This
Additionally, “ACPA members include graduate and undergraduate students enrolled in student
affairs/higher education administration programs, faculty, and student affairs educators, from
entry level to senior student affairs officers, and organizations and companies that are engaged in
exist, we define mid-level as more than five years of fulltime experience and not senior
professionals” (ACPA, 2014c, para. 1). Despite the importance of this study, only a fraction of
Sample Characteristics
Although the overall sample included 212 total participants, the results of some variables
do not equal 212 because of missing values. The survey was distributed to a target population of
1,273 ACPA members who indicated that they were mid-level professionals. There were a total
of 212 respondents for the survey, resulting in 17% response rate. It is important to note that the
initial question on the survey described microaggression, and asked participants if they had ever
experienced microaggressive behaviors. Out of the 212 respondents, 166 participants (78%)
indicated yes, and 46 individuals (22%) indicated no. Only those individuals who indicated that
When examining the racial/ethnic composition for the participants, only 143 (86%) out of
166 provided some indication of their race or ethnicity. Based on this information the
distribution of race/ethnicity for the 166 participants is as follows: 1.4% American Indian/Pacific
Indian (3), 1.8% Asian American/Pacific Islander (4), 12.2% Black/African American (27), 2.7%
Latino/Hispanic (6), 0.5% Middle Eastern/Arab (1), 45.2% White/Caucasian (100), and .9%
Other (2).
Explanation of Variables
The variables that were identified for this study represent the objectives stated in the
beginning of Chapter Three. The intention of this research was to examine the experience of
mid-level student affairs professionals with microaggression and to understand how their
experiences predicted their leadership practices. In order to meet this goal, the study included
Independent Variables
demographic information for the sample. These variables included: race/ethnicity (i.e.,
woman, or not listed), disability (i.e., yes or no), sexual orientation (i.e., asexual, bisexual, gay,
(i.e., Baptist, Buddhist, Church of Christ, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopalian, Hindu, Jewish, LDS
(Mormon), Lutheran, Methodist, Muslim, Presbyterian, Quaker, Roman Catholic, Seventh Day
Other Religion, or None), years of experience in higher education, and educational level (i.e.,
high school diploma or GED, some college but less than a bachelor’s degree, Bachelor’s degree,
Other independent variables focused on the institutions that employ the sample and
included the following: institutional type (i.e., four-year or two-year and private or public) and
or people external to the institution). A correlation matrix for the independent variables in this
Dependent Variables
Moreover, the dependent variables for this study were leadership practices (i.e., modeling
the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, and
encouraging the heart) (Kouzes & Posner, 2002) and the various forms of microaggression (i.e.,
During the process of analysis, I reviewed the data for errors, missing cases and
violations of assumptions for regression. Although there were a number of missing cases, these
cases can be attributed to the respondent’s failure to answer certain question items. I did not
determine any patterns that would have contributed to biases with missing data.
With multiple regression, many of the assumptions concerning this type of analysis are
robust to violation (Mertler & Vannatta, 2010); however analyses were run to determine if the
assumptions for regression were being met. The data was reviewed to ensure that the following
assumptions were being met: the presence of no significant outliers, the linear relationship
between the predictor and dependent variables, normality among the residual errors, little to no
Moreover, dummy coding was used for several of the predictor variables included in
research question four. The purpose of question four was to examine the relationship between
and institutional characteristics. The variables that pertain to participant demographics include:
race/ethnic, gender, disability, sexual orientation, age, religious affiliation, educational level, and
years of experience. Both the age and years of experience variables were not dummy coded.
The variables related to institutional characteristics that were dummy coded include: degree level
65
and institutional control. Dummy coding involves the process of assigning the value of 1 to
those responses that align with the variable, and the value of 0 to all other responses. For
example, for those individuals who indicated that they possess a disability, they were dummy
coded as 1, and all respondents who indicated that they did not have a disability were given a 0.
In addition, for categorical variables with more than one response level, it is necessary to select a
referent group. For instance, when recoding the racial/ethnicity category, White/Caucasian was
selected as the referent group, meaning it was assigned a value of 0. All other categories for race
Islander), assigning a value of 1 for each respective race, and 0 for those individuals who did not
identify with that specific race. When examining the education level for the participants, only
one individual earned a Bachelor’s degree within the sample, therefore that person was removed.
Likewise, when examining the participants’ genders, there was one person who identified as
transgender. This person was removed from the sample as well. Tables 2 and 3 list the variables
that were dummy coded and indicate the group for the corresponding variables that served as the
referent group.
66
Table 2
Dummy Coding for Participant Demographics
Demographics Referent Group
Educational Level Master’s degree
Master’s degree
Doctoral/Professional degree
Disability Non-disabled
Disabled
Non-Disabled
Gender Man
Man
Woman
Race/Ethnicity White/Caucasian
American Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian American/Pacific Islander
Black/African American
Latino/Hispanic
Middle Eastern/Arab
White/Caucasian
Other
Table 3
Dummy Coding for Institutional Characteristics
Characteristics Referent Group
Degree Level 4-year Degree
2-year Degree
4-year Degree
Instrumentation
The survey instrument that respondents completed was the Mid-level Student Affairs
Leadership Practices survey (see Appendix A). Dillman et al. (2009) stated “visual design
features can help guide respondents to self-administered surveys” (p. 90). As a result, the visual
design elements were taken into strong consideration during the construction of the survey
instrument. The font of the main question for each item was bolded to make sure that
respondents read this area clearly. The font size was also increased to bring the readers’
attention to the main question area, ensuring that participants were cognizant of what the
researcher was asking. Aside from increasing the font size and bolding the main questions, the
background that displayed behind each question was orange. This magnified the white box,
which contained the survey questions, making it less likely for a respondent to unintentionally
Likewise, many of the questions for the survey were displayed in a matrix format. This
format added to the visual design of the survey because it made the survey appear to have fewer
questions than it actually did by grouping related items. This decreased the chance that the
length of the survey deterred respondents from completing it. It is important to note that the use
of matrixes is not wholly supported for surveys. Dillman et al. (2009) expressed “we propose
68
reducing rather than eliminating the use of matrixes because in some surveys the complexity of
information asked for can be best communicated in simple matrixes” (p. 180). Accordingly, I
felt that using matrixes was the best way to present related question items and response choices
The response choices for matrix questions included a 7-point Likert-type scale (e.g.,
never, less than once a month, once a month, 2-3 times per month, once a week, 2-3 times per
week, daily). I decided to use the Likert-type scale for the corresponding response choices,
because it is likely that the sample is familiar with this scale due to its level of popularity.
Bradburn, Sudman, and Wansink (2004) determined, in reference to response scales, that “the
most popular is the Likert scale” (p. 126). Furthermore, the decision to use a 7-point scale for
the response options is supported by Bradburn et al. (2004). In addition, the 7-point scale was
used for this study because I felt it was important to provide respondents with appropriate
response choices that may reflect how often they encounter microaggression. In the case of the
response choices that have a 7-point scale, I did not find a persuasive reason not to offer
participants this number of options. Lastly, pre-testing was conducted with a convenience
sample of 7 education professionals. This initial review of the survey instrument resulted in the
revision of several question items. Definitions were added to the question stem of survey items
four through twelve to provide participants with clarification on what was being asked.
Procedures
The first step for this study was to submit an application to BGSU’s Human Subjects
Review Board (HSRB) for approval to conduct the research. After approval was received from
HSRB (see Appendix D), a subsequent request was submitted to ACPA to disseminate an email
for the recruitment of participants who have self-identified as mid-level student affairs
69
professionals. The initial invitation to participate in this study was sent through an email listserv
maintained by ACPA (see Appendix B). Two reminders were sent through ACPA to solicit
additional participants (see Appendix C). After being available for a period of three weeks, the
Recruitment Process
As previously stated, the email invitation to complete the survey instrument was
disseminated to mid-level student affairs professionals (see Appendix B) through ACPA. The
role of sending the survey invitation through the email listserv for mid-level student affairs
professionals was critical for the recruitment process. Disseminating this survey through
ACPA’s email listserv helped create buy-in from the participants, because of the connection to
the professional organization of which participants are members. Presumably, the members of
the email listserv were more likely to respond to a survey request through the professional
Seven days after the first email was sent, an email reminder was sent again to the
members of the email listserv (see Appendix C). The timeframe between the invitation email
and reminder email provided participants with adequate time to respond to the survey. I believe
that this timeline was an appropriate amount of time for the duration of data collection. No
optimal timeframe has been established for sending follow-up emails and reminders for web-
based surveys; the best approach is dependent upon the population. Dillman et al. (2009)
reported “the optimal timing sequence for the web survey has not, we believe, been determined
yet. Moreover, the timing will depend on the nature of the survey and the population being
surveyed” (p. 279). Since the population that was surveyed consisted of working mid-level
student affairs professionals, nonrespondents were given seven days before receiving an
70
additional reminder e-mail. The purpose of sending the reminder several days apart was to
ensure that the web survey was fresh in the memory of recipients, without overwhelming or
frustrating them with the receipt of multiple email messages regarding the survey.
Data Analysis
After the data collection period closed, the data were imported into Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences 23.0 (SPSS) for data analysis. The first step after importing the data was to
clean the data. Frequencies and descriptive statistics were conducted to better understand the
sample for the study. The type of analyses included descriptive statistics and multiple
regressions. The results of these analyses are provided in chapter four. However, a description
for the type of analyses that correspond to each research question is described in Table 4.
Research questions 1 and 2 were answered using descriptive statistics. Questions 3 and 4 were
Table 4
Research Questions & Corresponding Statistical Tests
Research Questions Statistical Test
1.To what extent do mid-level student affairs
professionals who hold supervisory positions Descriptive Statistics
encounter microaggression?
2.Which of the 3 forms of microaggression
(i.e. microassaults, microinsults, and
Descriptive Statistics
microinvalidations) are most common among
the respondents?
3. To what extent are mid-level student affairs
professionals’ experiences with
microaggressions related to their leadership
practices (i.e. modeling the way, inspiring a Multiple Regression
shared vision, challenging the process,
enabling others to act, and encouraging the
heart)?
4. To what degree do these mid-level
professionals’ demographics (e.g.
race/ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual
orientation, age, religious affiliation,
educational level, and years of experience in Multiple Regression
higher education) and institutional
characteristics (e.g. control, degree level or
student body size) predict their experiences
with microaggressions?
72
Limitations
One of the limitations of this study is coverage error. Coverage error can be attributed to
the “frame and target population for a specific statistic” (Groves et al., 2009, p. 55). In order to
minimize coverage error, it was necessary for the target population to be congruent with the
sample. By making sure that the target population of mid-level student affairs professionals at
higher education institutions matched the sampling frame, the coverage error was minimized.
An attempt to minimize coverage error for this web-based survey included ensuring that all
respondents have been employed with higher education for at least five years, but do not hold
senior-level positions, as defined by ACPA. Therefore participants were asked to report their
position title, the number of years they have been employed in higher education, and the number
of full-time professionals they supervise. This helped make sure that the target population and
Sampling error (more specifically, sampling bias) posed to be problematic for this web
There are two types of sampling error: sampling bias and sampling variance. Sampling
bias arises when some members of the sampling frame are given no chance of
selection…Sampling variance arises because, given the design for the sample, by chance
many different sets of frame elements could be drawn. (Groves et al., 2009)
Selecting a larger sampling frame, and potentially increasing the sample that completes the
survey, could have minimized sampling error. However, this would have required contacting
mid-level student affairs practitioners outside of ACPA, which was not feasible for me.
Likewise, selecting the sampling frame through the use of a random sampling procedure can
numerous institutions for individuals who have experienced microaggression would have been
difficult. Therefore, the decision to obtain a sample from ACPA was made.
The costs and benefits of this web survey design were weighed for this study. In hopes of
presenting an appropriate balance between realistic parameters, cost effectiveness, and time
constraints, the necessary decisions were made to carry out the objectives of this study.
As with any survey used for the collection of data, the web-based approach also
presented limitations. One of the known limitations for web surveys is the decrease in response
rates. This decrease could be attributed to the additional effort it requires for the respondents to
navigate to the questionnaire (Dillman et al., 2009). Furthermore, Dillman et al., (2009)
suggested that in cases where researchers disseminate a web survey using email as the only
method, the limitation of achieving high response rates becomes a reality. As a result, a well-
developed web survey implementation plan that encompassed multiple attempts of contacting the
sampling frame was extremely critical to the success of data collection for this study. The
invitation to participate in this study included specific language that communicated the
relevance, importance, and timeliness of completing the survey (see Appendices B & C).
74
professionals, descriptive statistics and multiple regression analyses were conducted. The results
of this study indicate that 78.3% of participants have experienced microaggression within the
workplace. These individuals also revealed that the most common forms of microaggression
Participant Demographics
Although this study was primarily concerned with microaggression and leadership
practices, respondents were asked a series of survey questions that captured demographic
information. The type of information that was asked included the following: age, gender,
sexual orientation. This section begins with an overview of this information as well as related
Age
The ages for those included in this study ranged from 24-29 to those individuals who
were 66 or older. The modal age range for the mid-level student affairs professionals who
participated in this study was 30-35. Narratives that illustrate the microaggressions that
participants face because of age, both young and old, are included below:
The microaggression I deal with the most comes from my age. I look younger than I
actually am, and therefore, I feel that often my opinions and/or views are not taken
seriously. At least once a month over the last three months, someone (outside my
department) has said something to the effect of, you look so young, how do you know
about that or you seem too young to be able to take that on, etc.
75
I have been passed up for promotion because of my age, even though I am more qualified
with more years of higher ed experience. In that case I was told by the hiring manager
that "people just won't respect a director who looks like she just graduated herself. You
have too much of a baby face to be a senior administrator right now, but maybe in a few
years." At another time, I was hired as an associate director at the same time as another
associate director in the department. We had the same job description and same level of
experience. In conversations with the male who had been hired for the other position, I
discovered that he had been hired in at a salary that was $8,000 higher than what I had
been offered. I asked if he had negotiated it up, and he replied, "No, that was their initial
offer and I thought it was fair, so I didn't negotiate more." I am also an adjunct faculty
member and have been told by students that I "look too young to be a professor".
Students have commented on my clothing and looks, for instance one student telling me I
"look super hot today". One student even wrote on an end-of-course evaluation form that
microaggression. A recent supervisor would often pat me on the head and call me "Little
Miss <first name>" when he walked past me in hallways, at conference tables, etc. He
Being older, the microaggressions I experience often are ones that convey an assumption
that I have not kept up with technology, or that I would not understand/relate to young
students, or that I am out of touch with today's students. I also observe with others in my
76
age range, that we are often placed in categories based on assumptions: "Afraid of
change," "Grumpy Old Person," "Not promotable because they'll retire sooner than a
younger person."
Based on these excerpts, it is evident that age microaggression can occur for those who are
considered younger and older within higher education. Specific amounts and percentages for the
Table 5
Age Demographics for Participantsa
Demographics N %
Under 18 0 0
18-23 0 0
24-29 17 13.0
30-35 44 33.6
36-41 30 22.9
42-47 22 16.8
48-53 12 9.2
54-59 4 3.1
60-65 0 0
66 or older 2 1.5
Note. aMissing values results in some variables not adding up to the total sample of 212.
Gender
The gender identity for the participants within the current study was heavily concentrated
in one gender category, with 71.5% of the respondents identifying as women; while 27.7%
identified as men and 0.8% identified as transgender. According to the responses, participants
with physicians and the medical field is not a place where change is welcomed with open
phones, typing their papers and serving them. I have repeatedly explained that I have a
master's degree, have been in this field for several years and take pride in what I have
accomplished.
In my current role and institution, I have experienced this mostly around a new
gender. My knowledge base or level is often questioned, and/or spoken over unless I
Mainly gender based and concerns the stereotypes of what a woman should be like in the
clothes - for example skirts and "power suits" and should be more aggressive/show less
empathy or emotion
The culture at my current institution is very sexist - I've experienced everything from
men here referring to me as "support personnel" (even though my actual place in the
organization was the same or higher than the person); men who only speak to other men
in the room and ignore the women, men to thank each other for a job well done but leave
The most recent experience I had involved a conversation with a senior administrator
when I called him to talk about sponsoring a program. He laughed when he heard it was
me and said, "You're worse than my wife, always asking for money!" He did not have ill
intent, and is someone whom I would consider works toward a diversity conscious
workplace, but that comment stuck with me and has affected the way I approach him for
support. In my previous work place, when I was a newer student affairs professional, I'm
not sure how you would categorize this, but I had the VP of Advancement pull me aside
before we were to sit at a panel in front of several external constituents and tell me "be
sure and keep your legs together up there, they can see under the table." I didn't even
know how to respond, and I never reported it. He continued to make comments like this
(sexist) in our interactions, which were unavoidable due to the nature of our two jobs on
campus. I still think about that moment, over 10 years later. Another memory that sticks
79
out was when I was a new Director at a previous institution and was asked to attend a
President's cabinet meeting where I would share enrollment and other data. When I got to
the meeting room (I was first to arrive), the President handed me a pink spreadsheet and
said, "I made yours pink!" and I noticed all the others were white. I was stunned and,
once again, didn't know how to respond. I didn't want to confront the President and I'm
not sure any of the others in the room noticed my different colored paper. I was 20-
something at the time and afraid of jeopardizing my new promotion I had worked so hard
to earn...not that I would have been retaliated against necessarily, but I was afraid I
wouldn't be asked back to the table if I confronted him and I needed the experience.
There is a male co-worker who clearly creates a gender hostile environment for women.
For example, he has a calendar of Kate Middleton on the outside of his door. That is
clearly objectifying a female body. He also thinks it is ok to use slang that refers to male
genitals in conversations and walks around in purple spandex/running tights that are so
tight a female student worker told him it was unprofessional. I have voiced 3 complaints
about him to my various supervisors... he is "friends" with them so nothing gets done.
Actual counts and percentages for the gender identity of those within this study are provided in
Table 6.
Table 6
Gender Demographics for Participantsa
Demographics N %
Men 21 27.7
Transgender 1 .8
Women 91 71.5
Note. aMissing values results in some variables not adding up to the total sample of 212.
80
Disability
Several of the respondents indicated that they possessed a disability (i.e., 8.4% of
participants). 27.3% of those reporting this information about their disability indicated that this
disability was not listed in the response choices. Two of these individuals recorded that their
disabilities were related to size and autoimmune issues. Despite those who revealed their
disability, only one participant mentioned their experience with disability microaggression in
that single out different individuals based on physical ability (different ability levels).
Although this narrative does not discuss the participant’s experience with microaggression
because of a disability, it does reveal that disability microaggression is present within the higher
Table 7
Disability Demographics for Participantsa
Demographics N %
Disability 11 8.4
Learning 3 27.3
Mobility 2 18.2
Neurological 0 0
Psychological 2 18.2
Sensory (i.e. vision or
1 9
hearing)
Note. aMissing values results in some variables not adding up to the total sample of 212.
Education Level
The results of the study demonstrated that .8% of the participants had a Bachelor’s
degree. The majority, or 74%, of the participants held a Master’s degree, while 25.2% held a
81
Doctoral or Professional degree. The exact amounts and percentages for education level are
listed in Table 8.
Table 8
Education Level for Participantsa
Demographics N %
High School Diploma/GED 0 0
Some college 0 0
Bachelor’s degree 1 0.8
Master’s degree 97 74.0
Doctor/Professional Degree 33 25.2
Note. aMissing values results in some variables not adding up to the total sample of 212.
Employment Status
When observing the employment status for the sample, 99.2% of the participants
indicated that they are employed full-time, or work at least 40 hours per week. Specific counts
Table 9
Employment Status for Participantsa
Demographics N %
Full-time 130 99.2
Part-time 1 0.8
a
Note. Missing values results in some variables not adding up to the total sample of 212.
Functional Area
The participants within this study were employed in various functional areas across their
respective institutions. Respondents were able to select from the following functional areas
(participants were able to select more than one functional area): academic advising, admissions,
career services, counseling and psychological services, disability services, financial aid, greek
affairs, orientation, recreation and wellness, residence life and housing, service learning, student
activities, student conduct, student leadership or other. The most frequently selected functional
area was residence life and housing, which comprised 18.5% of the participants. Those
82
respondents who indicated that their functional area was not included as a response option on the
survey, listed the following functional areas: dean of students administration, sexual violence
student affairs leadership, TRIO, student union, undergraduate research, academic support,
bursar/registration, first-year programs, academic affairs, student support & advocacy, and
religious & spiritual life. The specific amounts and corresponding percentages for functional
Table 10
Functional Area of Participantsa
Demographics N %
Academic Advising 20 9.0
Admissions 7 3.2
Career Services 15 6.8
Counseling & Psychological
4 1.8
Services
Disability Services 2 .9
Financial Aid 2 .9
Greek Affairs 6 2.7
International Student Services 4 1.8
LGBT Services 3 1.4
Multicultural Affairs 18 8.1
Orientation 16 7.2
Recreation & Wellness 2 .9
Residential Life & Housing 41 18.5
Service Learning 7 3.2
Student Activities 29 13.1
Student Conduct 19 8.6
Student Leadership 26 11.7
Other 34 15.3
Note. aParticipants were allowed to select more than one area if applicable.
84
Race
The racial and ethnic composition for the sample includes individuals from various
White Caucasian, and Other. The racial/ethnic composition for the participants included in this
study has already been described; however, 45.2% of the sample identified as White/Caucasian,
participants who discussed racial microaggression, their experiences were described as follows:
Because individuals who work in higher education and student affairs professions tend to
cultivate relationships in unique ways, I think for many people the lines can be blurred in
terms of what is work-place appropriate and what it not. So, while we preach being
inclusive and sensitive to difference with our students - we often forget that we should
treat each other similarly. Thus, I have been on the receiving in of microaggressions
regarding my orientation and in the past my race. These experiences can easily be
Questions about and even touching of my hair from colleagues. Expressed assumptions
shouldn't expect it. Being a POC with a very Anglo-Saxon name and seeing students
walk up to my very small office (occupied solely by me) and state that they're looking for
<insert my name>, as if I, sitting at my desk, am not the person who's name is on the
door. Being asked how I got my job by a student at least 15 yrs my senior, because I
85
"looked so young". Seeing the shock on some people's faces when they are informed of
my level and quality of education. Having someone come to a meeting of the newly-
minted staff of color group on campus and suggest that we name it something else so as
not to alienate others. Receiving very underhanded "shade" from an individual with a
shared ethnic background for not being "radical" enough by their own personal
definition.
Have been called to meetings to discuss situations that have included African American
students only but excluded initially when white students were primarily involved. In
doing exercises like the "Privilege Line" people are surprised (almost shocked) when I
describe myself as a "Cosby Kid". Two college educated professional parents in the
I have experienced micro aggressions within the last year. I worked in a rural area and the
values of the institution were not lived out. I identify as African American and the N
These racial/ethnic backgrounds as well as the others are described in Table 11.
Table 11
Racial/Ethnic Demographics for Participantsab
Demographics N %
American Indian/Alaskan Native 3 1.4
Asian American/Pacific Islander 4 1.8
Black/African American 27 12.2
Latino/Hispanic 6 2.7
Middle Eastern/Arab 1 0.5
White/Caucasian 100 45.2
Other 2 .9
a
Note. Missing values results in some variables not adding up to the total sample of 212.
b
Participants were allowed to select more than one area if applicable.
86
Religious/Worldview Identification
Respondents were asked to select the religious or worldview they identified with the
most. There were 25.6% of the participants who reported that they did not associate with any
religion or worldview (i.e., none). There were several respondents who indicated they identified
with other Christian groups that were not listed as response choices. These individuals wrote in
Christian, Free Evangelican [sic], General [sic], Pentecostal, and Church of God in Christ. The
most frequently reported religion was Roman Catholic with 19.4% of the participants identifying
as such. Several respondents included details on the microaggression that they encounter
Needing to remind same staff (after 10 years) to not schedule major student
I am an atheist and have had multiple experiences with some regularity with colleagues
who make an issue of my atheism or point it out for no reason. I once had a
communication issue with a staff member and when consulting with a close colleague
about how to approach the situation he implied that the issue occurred because of my
atheism. Several other colleagues always make a point of calling out my atheism when
they discuss their personal religious beliefs. Another example is a staff member who
At work, I observe and hear things that are said that are inappropriate or insensitive.
There is a definite bias towards white, Catholic, straight men in the area…assuming all
Christian students and faculty making comments about how their God is the only God.
Being asked repeatedly to go to Church, when I have made it clear several times I do not.
Being told I don't have good values for because of where in the country I am originally
from.
Assumption that everyone is Christian; assumption that all Jewish holidays involve a
atheism, it often is invalidation, but is sometimes forward remarks as well. I often feel
unwelcome when my campus has events that include a prayer or invocation or are held in
houses of worship - and receive many stares and glares for my non-participation or
vocalization of discomfort. One time I was basically accosted for not accepting a Bible
on campus grounds.
The breakdown of religious background or worldview identification for those who responded to
this question item is reported in Table 12.
88
Table 12
Religious/Worldview Identification of Participantsa
Demographics N %
Baptist 10 7.8
Buddhists 0 0
Church of Christ 2 1.6
Eastern Orthodox 0 0
Episcopalian 4 3.1
Hindu 0 0
Jewish 8 6.2
LDS (Mormon) 0 0
Lutheran 6 4.7
Methodist 14 10.9
Muslim 1 0.8
Presbyterian 1 0.8
Quaker 0 0
Roman Catholic 25 19.4
Seventh Day Adventist 0 0
Unitarian/Universalist 2 1.6
United Church of Christ 1 0.8
Other Christian 18 14.0
Other Religion 4 3.1
None 33 25.6
Note. aMissing values results in some variables not adding up to the total sample of 212.
89
Sexual Orientation
Respondents were also asked to identify their sexual orientation. Those individuals who
responded, selected from the following options: Asexual, Bisexual, Gay, Heterosexual, Lesbian,
Questioning or Unsure, and Not Listed. Those participants who indicated that their sexual
orientation was not listed described themselves as queer or pansexual. Additionally, those
individuals who provided accounts of their experience with sexual orientation microaggression
Also, I've received critical feedback from parents/families about how our orientation
program focuses too much on LGBTQ issues. One father asked if we were trying to
"convert" students to be LGBTQ; a mother said she was uncomfortable with the amount
That mother's comment started out with, "I don't have a problem with gay people, but..."
and later in the conversation she remarked, "when I went to <institution name> my
roommate was gay - you can look it up!" - as if the university keeps statistics on how
students identify, and whose roommates are part of the LGBTQ community. I supervise
orientation leaders, and they commonly experience microaggressions in their work with
90
When I started at my institution, I was pressured into changing the drag show hosted by
"extreme" and "not helpful." Then, once I came out to several supervisors, I was then told
that I should know better than anyone the "damage" a drag show might do.
The types of microaggression I face are when a coworker may say, "don't worry he is
gay." This happens in particular when our colleagues are doing an icebreaker and we
were blindfolded. I accidentally grazed a female coworkers chest and my other coworker
was taken aback as was I but my other coworker screamed out "don't worry he is gay"
which was awkward and uncomfortable. Often times I also get asked about females
clothing options at work which I hate but I don't feel comfortable saying anything to
anyone since I'm new. Also, having male heterosexual boss is a struggle for me because
the ones I have had in past don't really make an effort to get to know me, they want to
discuss sports or football in our 1:1s when I really want to talk about work or other things
going on around campus. I had one male boss who said he wasn't allowing his son to
paint his fingernails because it wasn't ok which of course alienated me from ever opening
up to him in the least bit. But I also think there is just a disconnect between heterosexual
men and homosexual men when it comes to supervision and I usually just end not telling
Table 13 outlines the number and percentage of individuals who identify with the options that
Table 13
Sexual Orientation Demographics for Participantsab
Demographics N %
Asexual 0 0
Bisexual 8 6.2
Gay 20 15.4
Heterosexual 94 72.3
Lesbian 3 2.3
Questioning or Unsure 1 0.8
Not Listed 4 3.1
Note. aMissing values results in some variables not adding up to the total sample of 212.
Microaggressive Experiences
The demographic characteristics for the sample are influential in understanding the
participants’ experiences with microaggression. Based on what has been described within the
current literature, the participants were asked to report the frequency of their experience with the
findings for these variables are listed below and the specific amounts and percentages are
Microassaults
conscious behaviors, either subtle or explicit, and represent racially, gendered, or sexually
oriented biased attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors (Sue, 2010a). When it comes to experiencing
microassaults, 25.3% of the respondents reported that they have experienced this form of
microaggression within their work environment to some degree. Participants indicated that they
encountered microassaults less than once a month (18%), once a month (6%), two to three times
per month (2.7%), once a week (0.7%), and two to three times per week (0.7%). Details
92
regarding how often mid-level student affairs professionals experience microassaults are listed in
Table 14.
Microinsults
Microinsults are considered unconscious, demeaning, and insulting messages that convey
rudeness and insensitivity to someone from a marginalized background (Sue, 2010a). The results
of the current study indicated that 69.3% of the sample experienced microinsults while at work.
Participants expressed that they came across microinsults at the following rates: less than once a
month (40.4%), once a month (16.4%), two to three times per month (17.8%), once a week
(2.1%), and two to three times per week (1.7%). Details on how often the respondents
Microinvalidations
exclude the psychological thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and experiences of the group that is being
targeted (Sue, 2010b). When observing the sample for this study, 71.6% of respondents
indicated that they encounter microinvalidations. These participants described that they
experienced microinvalidations at the following rates: less than once a month (40.8%), once a
month (19%), two to three times per month (15.6%), once a week (2.7%), two to three times per
week (1.4%), and daily (1.4%). The exact counts and percentages of the frequencies for
Table 14
Forms of Microaggressiona
Forms N %
Microassaults 42 25.3
Never 108 72.0
Less than Once a Month 27 18.0
Once a Month 9 6.0
2-3 Times per Month 4 2.7
Once a Week 1 0.7
2-3 Times per Week 1 0.7
Daily 0 0
Sources of Microaggression
Participants were asked to record from whom they experienced microaggression and how
often these experiences occurred. The results of this study revealed that 71.7% of respondents
experience microaggressions from co-workers, 41.6% indicated they came from supervisors,
63.2% from students, and 73.4% reported that they experience microaggressions from people
Table 15
Sources of Microaggressiona
Source N %
Co-Worker 119 71.7
Never 24 10.9
Less than Once a Month 65 29.4
Once a Month 35 15.8
2-3 Times per Month 12 5.4
Once a Week 2 .9
2-3 Times per Week 5 2.3
Daily 0 0
Supervisor 69 41.6
Never 72 32.6
Less than Once a Month 34 15.4
Once a Month 19 8.6
2-3 Times per Month 9 4.1
Once a Week 3 1.4
2-3 Times per Week 3 1.4
Daily 1 0.5
Type of Microaggression
I also asked participants to report how often they experienced various types of
identification (47.6%), sex (72%), sexual orientation (44.6%), socioeconomic status (51.2%),
and other (31.9%). Several individuals who expressed that they experienced other types of
microaggression provided the following types as examples: age (5%), body image/size (2.3%),
campus role/hierarchy (1.4%), educational attainment (0.5%), disability (0.5%), political views
(0.5%), gender/gender identity (1.4%), and health issues. Those reporting that they have never
experienced a specific type of microaggression may not possess a salient social identity that
aligns with a respective type of microaggression. For example, the respondents who do not
belong to a marginalized group, based on their racial or ethnic background, were more likely to
Specifically for racial microaggression, 39.8% of participants reported that they have
never encountered this type of microaggression. This is likely because 60.2% of the sample
experience microaggression due to their social identity. 10.1% of the sample reported that they
microaggression reported by the mid-level student affairs professionals within this study was
microaggression because of sex, with only 14.5% indicated that they have never experienced this
listed that they identified as a woman. Therefore, the composition of the sample, mostly women,
could be related to the result of never experiencing this type of microaggression. Lastly, 39.4%
97
of the participants reported that they have never experienced microaggression because of their
sexual orientation. It is important to note that 72.3% of the respondents indicated that they
identified as heterosexual. More information regarding the specific amounts and percentages for
Table 16
Type of Microaggressiona
Type/Frequency N %
Racial 64 39
Never 88 39.8
Less than Once a Month 33 14.9
Once a Month 13 5.9
2-3 Times per Month 11 5.0
Once a Week 5 2.3
2-3 Times per Week 1 0.5
Daily 1 0.5
Religious/Worldview 79 47.6
Never 70 31.7
Less than Once a Month 47 21.3
Once a Month 19 8.6
2-3 Times per Month 6 2.7
Once a Week 5 2.3
2-3 Times per Week 2 .9
Daily 0 0
Sex 119 72
Never 32 14.5
Less than Once a Month 48 21.7
Once a Month 35 15.8
2-3 Times per Month 20 9.0
Once a Week 11 5.0
2-3 Times per Week 4 1.8
Daily 1 0.5
Type/Frequency N %
2-3 Times per Week 0 0
Daily 1 0.5
Other 53 31.9
Never 14 6.3
Less than Once a Month 5 2.3
Once a Month 9 4.1
2-3 Times per Month 3 1.4
Once a Week 4 1.8
2-3 Times per Week 3 1.4
Daily 2 .9
Note. aMissing values results in some variables not adding up to the total sample of 212.
As previously mentioned, the third research question for this study examined the
relationship between experiences with microaggression and leadership practices for mid-level
student affairs professionals. Specifically, to what extent were mid-level student affairs
modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, and
encouraging the heart)? Five multiple regression analyses were run in order to determine if the
that represented microaggression for each regression model were experiences with each of its
models in SPSS, Cronbach’s Alpha (.701) was run to determine how closely related the predictor
variables (i.e., microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations) are to each other. This
numerical value for Cronbach’s Alpha indicates an acceptable internal consistency for the
independent variables. Each time a regression model was run, a different dependent variable
(i.e., leadership practices) was used. Leadership practices were defined as modeling the way,
100
inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, and encouraging the
heart.
The overall regression model when examining the relationship between participant
experiences with the forms of microaggression and the Inspiring a Shared Vision leadership
practice was statistically significant, F(3,132)=3.434, p<.05. As such, 7.2% of the variance in
the leadership practice, Inspiring a Shared Vision, can be explained by the forms of
regression coefficients for this model is presented in Table 17 and indicates that only one out of
the three predictor variables (microinvalidations) significantly contributed to the model. For
every one standard deviation increment on the microinvalidation predictor variable, Inspiring a
Shared Vision increased by .235 standard deviations. Conversely, the other regression models
that examined the relationship between participant experiences with the forms of
microaggression and the remaining leadership practices (i.e., Challenging the Process, Enabling
others to Act, Encouraging the Heart, and Modeling the way) all had a p-value above .05.
Therefore, these models were not found to be statistically significant. However the practical
significance will be discussed in Chapter Five. It is important to note that the regression models
that analyzed the forms of microaggression as predictors of enabling others to act (see Table 19)
and modeling the way (see Table 21) did indicate statistical significance for microinvalidations.
Details regarding all regression models can be found in Tables 17 through 21.
101
Table 17
Regression Model for Leadership Practices: Inspiring a Shared Vision
Predictor Variables B SE B ᵦ
Microassaults .167 .172 .094
Microinsults -.051 .129 -.040
Microinvalidations .292 .125 .235*
2
*p<.05, R =.072
Table 18
Regression Model for Leadership Practices: Challenging the Process
Predictor Variables B SE B ᵦ
Microassaults .201 .171 .117
Microinsults -.036 .126 -.029
Microinvalidations .211 .123 .178
2
*p<.05, R =.057
Table 19
Regression Model for Leadership Practices: Enabling Others to Act
Predictor Variables B SE B ᵦ
Microassaults .039 .181 .021
Microinsults .007 .134 .006
Microinvalidations .276 .130 .220*
*p<.05, R2=.054
Table 20
Regression Model for Leadership Practices: Encouraging the Heart
Predictor Variables B SE B ᵦ
Microassaults .226 .171 .132
Microinsults -.058 .127 -.047
Microinvalidations .177 .123 .150
*p<.05, R2=.048
Table 21
Regression Model for Leadership Practices: Modeling the Way
Predictor Variables B SE B ᵦ
Microassaults .019 .167 .011
Microinsults -.130 .125 -.105
Microinvalidations .318 .121 .266*
2
*p<.05, R =.056
102
The purpose of research question four was twofold: (1) to examine the relationship
between the sample’s demographic characteristics and participants’ reported experiences with
microaggressions and (2) to explore the relationship between institutional characteristics (see
Table 22) and participants’ reported experiences with microaggressions. I sought to know to
what degree did these mid-level professionals’ demographic characteristics (i.e., race/ethnicity,
gender, disability, sexual orientation, age, religious affiliation, educational level, and years of
experience in higher education) and institutional characteristics (i.e., control, degree level, and
student body size) predict their experiences with microaggressions? When reviewing the results
of the regression model that analyzed whether or not participants’ characteristics were predictors
for microinvalidations (Table 24), the overall regression model was not statistically significant.
103
Table 22
Institutional Characteristicsa
Demographics N %
Institution Control
Public 79 47.6
Private, for-profit 2 1.2
Private, not-for-profit 48 28.9
Degree Level
2-year degree 5 3.0
4-year degree 124 74.7
and microassaults, the overall regression model was statistically significant, F(13,115)=1.990,
p<.05. The participants’ demographic characteristics were predictors of the reported experiences
with microassaults and 18.4% of the variance in reported experiences with microassaults can be
explained by the predictor variables. These results mean that respondent demographic
professionals. Only one individual characteristic, disability, was a significant predictor for the
regression model. While holding all other predictor variables constant, participants who
identified as having a disability were significantly more likely to report experiences with
Table 23
Regression Model for Microassaults & Participant Demographics
Predictor Variables B SE B ᵦ
Age .154 .121 .245
Disability -.955 .285 -.300*
Educational Level
-.053 .195 -.026
(Doctoral/Professional)
Gender (Women) -.107 .095 -.107
Race/Ethnicity
American Indian
.616 .537 .105
/Alaskan Native
Asian American/
Pacific Islander .085 .446 .017
Black/African
American .134 .235 .062
Latino/Hispanic
-.391 .360 -.093
Middle Eastern/Arab
-467 .871 -.046
Other -.331 .633 -.046
Table 24
Regression Model for Microinvalidations & Participant Demographics
Predictor Variables B SE B ᵦ
Age .069 .179 .078
Disability -.488 .423 -.108
Educational Level
-.362 .289 -.126
(Doctoral/Professional)
Gender (Women) -.003 .141 -.002
Race/Ethnicity
American Indian
1.006 .796 .121
/Alaskan Native
Asian American/
Pacific Islander .432 .661 .060
Black/African
American .073 .349 .024
Latino/Hispanic
.729 .534 .122
Middle Eastern/Arab
-1.551 1.291 -.108
Other -.026 .938 -.003
Other Religion -.108 .536 -.023
Sexual Orientation
.194 .124 .149
(Non-Heterosexual)
Years of Employment -.002 .040 -.010
*p<.05, R2=.107
107
the participants and microinsults, the overall regression model was statistically significant,
reported experiences with microinsults and 23.8% of the variance in reported experiences with
microinsults can be explained by the predictor variables. These results mean that respondent
significant predictor for the overall regression model. While holding all other predictor variables
constant, participants who identified as having a disability were significantly more likely to
Table 25.
108
Table 25
Regression Model for Microinsults & Participant Demographics
Predictor Variables B SE B ᵦ
Age .096 .159 .113
Disability -1.449 .376 -.337*
Educational Level
-.305 .258 -.111
(Doctoral/Professional)
Gender (Women) .101 .126 .075
Race/Ethnicity
American Indian
1.137 .708 .143
/Alaskan Native
Asian American/
Pacific Islander .483 .588 .070
Black/African
American -.012 .310 -.004
Latino/Hispanic
.620 .475 .109
Middle Eastern/Arab
-1.186 1.148 -.087
Other 1.561 .837 .161
Other Religion .144 .494 .031
Sexual Orientation
.090 .111 .073
(Non-Heterosexual)
Years of Employment -.015 .036 -.082
*p<.05, R2=.238
109
For the second portion of research question four, which aimed to explore the relationship
between institutional characteristics and microaggression, none of the regression models were
found to be statistically significant. This finding means that when examining the institutional
characteristics (i.e., institutional control, degree level, and student body size), these combined
variables are not significant predictors for the respective forms of microaggression. Therefore
based on these results, I did not find a relationship between the forms of microaggression and
institutional characteristics. Despite these findings, Tables 26-28 provide a summary for the
Table 26
Regression Model for Microassaults & Institutional Characteristics
Predictor Variables B SE B ᵦ
Institutional Control .289 .206 .158
Degree level -.360 .412 -.078
Student body size .041 .037 .124
*p<.05, R2=.049
Table 27
Regression Model for Microinsults & Institutional Characteristics
Predictor Variables B SE B ᵦ
Institutional Control .303 .280 .123
Degree level -.216 .556 -.035
Student body size .107 .051 .237*
2
*p<.05, R =.042
Table 28
Regression Model for Microinvalidations & Institutional Characteristics
Predictor Variables B SE B ᵦ
Institutional Control .263 .294 .102
Degree level -.259 .587 -.040
Student body size .069 .053 .147
2
*p<.05, R =.023
Summary
In order to understand the role that microaggression plays in the experiences of mid-level
student affairs professionals, descriptive statistics and several multiple regression analyses were
110
conducted. The research questions for this study included: (1) To what extent do mid-level
student affairs professionals who hold supervisory positions experience microaggressions? (2)
microinvalidations) are most commonly reported among the respondents? (3) To what extent are
leadership practices (i.e., modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process,
enabling others to act, and encouraging the heart)? (4) To what degree do these mid-level
orientation, age, religious affiliation, educational level, and years of experience in higher
education) and institutional characteristics (e.g., control or size) predict their experiences with
microaggressions? The results of this study demonstrated that 78.3% of the 212 mid-level
student affairs professionals who responded to the survey instrument for this study experience
microaggression within their work environment. Participants indicated that people external to
the institution, followed by co-workers and students, were the most frequent perpetrators of
or interpersonal cues that negate, nullify, or exclude the psychological thoughts, feelings, beliefs,
and experiences of the group that is being targeted (Sue, 2010b). In the examination of the
Inspiring a Shared Vision, was the only leadership behavior that was found to be statistically
significant for this sample. Lastly, when considering the demographic characteristics of the mid-
level student affairs professionals within this study, the combined factors appeared to be
111
statistically significant predictors for microinsults and microassaults. The results of this study
provide additional insight on what is known about the experience of mid-level student affairs
professionals and microaggression. Although these findings cannot be generalized beyond the
target population for this study, the results provide a foundation for future research and
implications for practice. Further interpretation and details for these findings will be discussed
in chapter five.
112
CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION
This study set out to explore the relationship between experiences with microaggressions
and leadership practices among mid-level student affairs professionals. Beyond this objective,
the demographics of the sample and institutional characteristics were evaluated to determine if
these factors were related to the frequency of experiences with microaggression as well.
Investigating these factors help build upon what is currently known about experiences with
microaggression and mid-level student affairs professionals. The findings of this study offer
compelling suggestions for the improvement of the student affairs profession. The current
chapter will highlight the significant findings of this study, provide a discussion on how to
interpret these findings, and conclude with implications for professional practice and future
research.
Summary of Findings
The results of this study confirm what the extant literature, focused on the experience of
higher education professionals, has previously demonstrated. Prior studies have found that
administrators within higher education encounter microaggression (Alabi, 2014; Garvey &
Drezner, 2013). 78.3% of participants within this study reported that they have experienced
microaggression within the workplace. These individuals also revealed that the forms of
negate or exclude the psychological thoughts and experiences of the group that is being targeted
(Sue, 2010b); and microinsults are unconscious, demeaning and insulting messages that convey
rudeness and insensitivity to someone from a marginalized background (Sue, 2010a). Although
the populations varied in previous studies, the extant literature does reflect higher reported
113
occurrences of microinvalidations and microinsults (Clark et al., 2014; Garvey & Drezner, 2013;
Grier-Reed, 2010; Guzman et al., 2010; Harwood et al., 2012; Minikel-Lacocque, 2012;
One of the key findings of this study is that 78.3% of the respondents who elected to
participate in the survey indicated that they experienced some type of microaggression. These
results reiterated what scholars have already determined: professionals who work within the
higher education environment experience microaggression (Alabi, 2014; Garvey & Drezner,
2013). Although the literature focuses specifically on advancement staff (Garvey & Drezner,
2013) or librarians (Alabi, 2014), the current study is not limited to one functional area. This
microaggression that transpires because of an individual’s gender identity. This finding could be
due to the fact that a large proportion of the sample identified as women. Although this may
appear to be trivial, it is important to recognize the potential effects that this type of
microaggression can have on individuals. Three participants shared how their encounters with
was minimized and trivialized based on my gender as a female [sic]; that my work was
not valued by him as much as my "pretty face" was. I felt that I would never be promoted
leaving that position I derailed my career path and lost about 5 years of progress, in my
opinion. My new position was at a lower level, did not supervise staff, and paid about
114
$10,000 less per year...but I was desperate to leave what I felt was a dead-end role
because of the glass ceiling above me. I also lost a lot of confidence in my own ability
This participant’s story represents the reality for some women who work in higher education.
Their experiences are shaped by the White heteronormative patriarchy that exists within the
higher education environment. “Being White and being a man are both identities and social
locations that are privileged in our culture, and especially privileged in academe” (Owen, 2009,
p. 187). Whereas the culture within higher education institutions may be reflective of the
privilege held by white males, it is possible for women to commit gender microaggressions
against members of the same and other marginalized groups. This issue is exemplified by the
Well, the boss I mentioned above was an absolute mess, and her consistent
microaggressions (and explicitly bigoted comments) to me and others were just one piece
of the puzzle. In the end it was a deciding factor of me leaving that institution to search
As discussed in Chapter One and demonstrated by the participant above, both horizontal
oppression and internalized dominance are issues that coincide with microaggression.
Horizontal oppression occurs when members of an oppressed group engage in prejudices and
oppressive behaviors against other members of their own group (Tappan, 2006). The participant
described that this supervisor committed microaggressions against other women within her
office, and therefore exhibited horizontal oppression. Additionally, this supervisor represented
groups, biases against others (Tappan, 2006). These actions, perpetuated oppression through the
microaggressions she committed and bigoted comments that she made against employees.
This oppression can be maintained and complicated when an individual has multiple
minoritized social identities that intersect and shape their experience with microaggression.
I constantly feel like I have to prove my worth, knowledge, and abilities as a young
female. I do find myself questioning my abilities, and sometimes not going for
opportunities because I don't feel like I would be seriously considered or because I just
don't have the energy to combat the microaggressions. I've gone so far as to cut and
darken my hair just to avoid experiencing the biases at work. I struggle with what to
body, and I try to use clothes to make my shape more benign. I'm sure my self-
consciousness spills over into my personal life. The way I'm treated professionally
The first two participants discussed how the microaggression they faced from their supervisors
contributed to their decision to leave their jobs. Moreover, the first and last participants alluded
questioning their abilities, and losing confidence surrounding decision-making and actions.
Given what these participants have described regarding their professional judgment and
confidence, it can be surmised that their performance and work productivity has suffered as well.
This idea aligns with what has been explored by Lin (2010), in that experiencing
productivity.
116
Furthermore, there is the connection between the experiences of the participants within
this study and Capodilupo et al.’s (2010) taxonomy for gender microaggression. As previously
stated, it is important to note that this taxonomy singly focuses on the experiences of women, one
aspect of gender. Furthermore, the taxonomy fails to acknowledge gender identity, gender
expression, and gender norms/roles. Nevertheless, the results of this study overlap with several
Based on the participants’ qualitative responses, the following themes from the literature were
of traditional gender roles, use of sexist language, and environmental invalidations. Sexual
objectification is concerned with a woman being treated as a sexual object, communicates that a
woman’s value is her body, and her purpose is to entertain men. The second-class citizen theme
occurs when women are overlooked or when men are given preferential treatment over women.
The assumptions of inferiority occur when women are assumed to be less competent than men.
The assumption of traditional gender roles appears when it is assumed that a woman should
maintain traditional gender roles such as femininity. The fifth theme within the taxonomy of
gender microaggressions is the use of sexist language, which implies that women are inferior in
some way or held to a different set of standards than men. The final theme, environmental
pay inequalities for similar responsibilities in the workplace or low numbers of women in
encountered within the workplace. The respondent that discussed being referred to as a “support
117
personnel, despite having a higher position within the institution” reflects the assumptions of
inferiority and the assumption of traditional gender roles. The same participants also shared the
experience of being present when men only speak to other men and ignore the women. This
incident reflects the second-class citizen theme from Capodilupo et al.’s (2010) taxonomy on
gender microaggression. Another participant described the behavior of a male colleague within
her office by indicating that he placed a calendar of Kate Middleton on the outside of his door
that objectified the female body. This example provided by the participant parallels with that of
the sexual objectification theme. Despite not providing the full narrative on how the
microaggression manifests within the work environment, another respondent generally stated
that a supervisor made gendered and sexist comments. The final theme that was represented in
the invalidation she faced as she spoke with a male colleague, who was hired at the same time
and possessed similar credentials, received a salary offer that was $8,000 higher than what she
was offered. This colleague did not engage in salary negotiation. These experiences provided
above reflect the ways in which the gender microaggression themes have manifested in the work
lives of many participants within the study. However, additional research is necessary to include
the perspectives of those who do not identify as women. The study of gender microaggressions
Forms of Microaggression
The second finding for this study demonstrated that the most commonly experienced
environmental or interpersonal cues that negate or exclude the psychological thoughts and
experiences of the group that is being targeted (Sue, 2010b). Numerous studies have identified
118
the prevalence of microinvalidations within the higher education environment (Clark et al., 2014;
Garvey & Drezner, 2013; Grier-Reed, 2010; Guzman et al., 2010; Harwood et al., 2012;
Minikel-Lacocque, 2012; Poolokasingham et al., 2014; Yosso et al., 2009); however, none of
these studies examined the experience mid-level student affairs professionals. Presumably, this
form of microaggression is the most common because it involves interpersonal cues as well as
environmental cues. Those who encounter microinvalidations do not only experience this form
and structures that exist on a university campus. For example, Harwood et al. (2012) affirmed
that students residing within residence halls endured microinvalidations with regard to their
residence hall placement. Harwood et al. (2012) revealed that marginalized students were placed
in specific residence halls, resulting in those students living in inferior facilities. Practices such
as creating segregated spaces do not reflect an interpersonal cue, but it does represent an
institution can perpetuate microaggressive practices through decisions and policies that have
been implemented.
microinsults that occur within the work environment. The current study found that 69.3% of
insulting messages that convey insensitivity toward someone from a minoritized group (Sue,
2010a). However, I contend that “unconscious” is not an accurate descriptor for microinsults.
Although the extant literature describes microinsults as unconscious, I argue that socially
119
acceptable and implicit are more appropriate words to describe microinsults. The term
unconscious implies that the perpetrator has no knowledge that they are committing a form of
microaggression; and in some cases that may be true, however, in many occurrences of
microinsults the person committing this form of microaggression is aware that the language or
behaviors are offensive to the target. Hence, the popular statement, “I’m not racist but…” or
“I’m not homophobic, but…” These popular phrases often are used to mitigate the impact of a
statement the perpetrator knows will be offensive toward the target population.
microinsults within higher education institutions (Alabi, 2014; Clark et al., 2014; Constantine et
al., 2008; Garvey and Drezner, 2013; Guzman et al., 2010; Harwood et al., 2012; Poolkasingham
et al., 2014; Solorzano et al., 2009). Particularly relevant to the current findings, the doctoral
students of color in Guzman et al.’s (2010) study had similar experiences as the sample for this
study. Guzman et al. (2010) reported that students experienced discouragement from faculty,
denigration of academic work, questioning of their credentials as well as the authenticity of their
qualifications and accomplishments. One of the participants from the current study echoes the
sentiments shared by the students in Guzman et al.’s (2010) study. The passage below provides
Being a [person of color] with a very Anglo-Saxon name and seeing students walk up to
my very small office (occupied solely by me) and state that they're looking for <insert my
name>, as if I, sitting at my desk, am not the person whose name is on the door. Being
asked how I got my job by a student at least 15 yrs my senior, because I "looked so
young". Seeing the shock on some people's faces when they are informed of my level and
quality of education.
120
Although the populations are different, the bias is parallel, in that the questioning of credentials
participants within this study also reflects what has been shared within the extant literature on
microaggression.
The third finding for this study includes the association of the leadership practice,
inspiring a shared vision and microaggression. A vision outlines the framework of values that
reflect the desired state within an organization or department (Berg, 2015). Moreover, a vision
helps delineate why and how people should behave in relation to performance, decisions, and
managing conflict. A shared vision is more effective in that it allows the merging of multiple
perspectives within the organization, creating greater buy-in and support (Berg, 2015).
Therefore when a vision is absent, an organization can lack direction as well as support and buy-
in from organizational members. Those who inspire a shared vision demonstrate having the
capacity to envision the future and enlisting others by developing a shared sense of destiny
(Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Because it is important to envision the future and enlist others,
perhaps for those mid-level student affairs professionals who are confronted with
microaggression, the need to inspire a shared vision becomes pertinent in contesting the
discrimination they face. Kouzes and Posner (2002) argue that envisioning the future occurs
through imagining exciting and ennobling possibilities; and enlisting others in a common vision
This connection between inspiring a shared vision and microaggression may be because
in order to diminish this type of subtle discrimination, mid-level professionals must imagine a
121
new and different future and convince others to subscribe to this new ideal. This exemplary
leadership practice could be the way in which the participants within this study attempt to invoke
change in their work environment. This finding is new, considering what is currently known
about microaggression. The current literature has yet to make a connection between experiences
with microaggression and leadership practices; therefore this is a promising topic for future
research. However, it can be surmised, based on the descriptions provided by the participants,
that the invisibility, discomfort, lack of appreciation, and sadness they reported has some
association with the desire to create new possibilities and work to get their colleagues on board
with this shared vision. Without inspiring a shared vision, a mid-level student affairs
professional cannot imagine new possibilities for the future or enlist others to buy in to this
vision. Ultimately, this means for those participants within this study who do not inspire a
shared vision, they cannot move toward a future that would involve combatting
Although this study did not find the forms of microaggression to be statistically
significant predictors for the other four leadership practices (i.e., model the way, challenge the
process, enable others to act, and encourage the heart), the practical significance of these
leadership practices must be considered. The commitments that correspond to each leadership
practice can serve as foundational practices for dismantling microaggression. The remaining
leadership practices and eight respective commitments are as follows: model the way (i.e., clarify
values and set the example), challenge the process (i.e., search for opportunities, and experiment
and take risks), enable others to act (i.e., foster collaboration and strengthen others), and
encourage the heart (i.e., recognize contributions, and celebrate the value and victories). Besides
employing the inspire a shared vision leadership practice, despite not being statistically
122
significant, the other four leadership practices can be used as a way to create buy-in from others
Likewise, microaggressions are a form of oppression (Sue, 2010a), and this study
determined that they are present in student affairs. For those individuals who are committing
microaggressions against the mid-level student affairs professionals in this study, it is possible
that they are being impacted in the following ways: cognitively (e.g., having a false sense of
reality), emotionally (e.g., guilt or defensiveness), behaviorally (e.g., avoiding those from
2010a). Having said this, it is not only important to deconstruct and challenge microaggression
for the sake of mid-level student affairs professionals, but it is also necessary for those
may impact perpetrators in numerous ways, these factors may not be reason enough to rectify
microaggressive experiences. People who commit microaggressions may “care less about the
substantive outcome than they do about the implications of that outcome for their own sense of
self-esteem and the social recognition of their importance” (Cohen & March, 2000, p. 24). Mid-
level student affairs professionals who are trying to appeal to their colleagues in order to
challenge the microaggressions within their work environment will have to cater to their
colleagues’ self-esteem, and convince senior leaders to provide social recognition to change their
environment. Additionally, senior leaders should be educated about the potential impact that
microaggressions may have upon the work performance and productivity of employees (Lin,
2010).
Moreover, when specifically focusing on the work environment and productivity, Sue
(2010a) discussed the relationship between work performance and productivity, affirming the
123
relationship between microaggression and the work experience. In addition to exploring the
connection between microaggression and leadership, work performance and productivity should
be more thoroughly investigated as well. Participants shared that their experiences with
colleagues, work environment, and confidence in their capacity to fulfill their work obligations.
Two participants described how they believe experiencing microaggression has affected their
Most microaggressions that I've experienced have been at work. This makes me feel
individual’s performance in the workplace, “until I confronted the situation, I began to actively
job hunt (still am) and actively disengage from my work. My morale was abysmal and
Since mid-level student affairs professionals reported that their productivity and morale
was lower because of their experiences with microaggression, it is necessary to examine what is
being consciously and unconsciously communicated to students. The expectation within the
field of student affairs is for professionals to create programs and environments that foster
student learning and development. However, given that these same professionals reported
questionable. It is important to consider the standards that are placed upon the work that student
affairs professionals do with students. One of the main purposes for the general standards set by
the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) includes fostering and
124
enhancing student learning and development (CAS, 2014). Considering this factor, what can be
said about those individuals who are expected to provide a certain level of care and advocacy for
students, but are unable to advocate for themselves or colleagues when they experience
microaggressions within the workplace? Since mid-level student affairs professionals within this
study indicated that they dread coming to work because they do not feel valued, it is possible for
those feelings to permeate the inclusive environments that higher education institutions are
attempting to create for students. Additionally, these factors bring about concerns for the level
of inclusion that actually exists on college campuses. One participant echoed this sentiment
Because individuals who work in higher education and student affairs professions tend to
cultivate relationships in unique ways, I think for many people the lines can be blurred in
terms of what is work-place appropriate and what it not. So, while we preach being
inclusive and sensitive to difference with our students - we often forget that we should
treat each other similarly. Thus, I have been on the receiving end of microaggressions
regarding my orientation and in the past my race. These experiences can easily be
Anecdotally, the cultivation of relationships between student affairs professionals tends to reflect
the informal exchanges that staff may have with students. As a result of their connections with
students, these professionals may feel more at ease making inappropriate remarks or actions, and
thereafter describing these behaviors as jokes. Although this explanation does not justify the
occurrence of microaggressions within higher education, it does reveal that microaggression may
The remaining finding for this study was the association of participant characteristics
with microinsults and microassaults. Microinsults are unconscious, demeaning and insulting
messages that convey rudeness and insensitivity (Sue, 2010a). The participant characteristics
were significant predictors for microinsults. Moreover, the individual predictor variable that was
found to be significant, besides the overall model for this regression, was disability. For those
increased. The only existing study that explored the connection between disability and
microaggression was by Keller and Galgay (2010). Within this study the researchers did not
parcel out the various forms of microaggression; they actually spoke to the manifestation of
and beliefs that fuel negative attitudes and behaviors toward” people with disabilities (Keller &
Galgay, 2010, p. 244). Given the results of this study, additional research is necessary to further
understand the relationship between the various forms of microaggression and individuals with
disabilities.
Similarly, disability was the single predictor variable that significantly contributed to the
regression model for microassaults and participant demographic characteristics. I found the
participants reported that they experience microassaults. This means that participant
encompass conscious behaviors, either subtle or explicit, and represent biased attitudes, beliefs,
126
or behaviors (Sue, 2010a). As Sue (2010a) described, microassaults are more likely to be
expressed in a way that provides the perpetrator with protection, meaning the perpetrator feels
safe or comfortable enough to express their bias. The lower number of microassaults may be
attributed to the fact that perpetrators are not fully comfortable to express this form of
microaggression within their work environment because it is less socially acceptable. Further,
Grier-Reed (2010) supported this notion by reporting that microassaults occur less frequently
than microinsults and microinvalidations. According to the current literature, there were only
three studies that discussed the microassaults that participants encountered (Harwood et al.,
2012; Minikel-Lacocque, 2012; Yosso et al., 2009). As such, none of the open-ended responses
that were provided by the participants within the current study described experiences that
reflected microassaults.
because fostering a supportive work environment has been associated with affective attachment
(Boehman, 2007). Affective attachment occurs when a professional recognizes the costs of
for those student affairs professionals who feel that their work environment is supportive, they
are more likely to develop an affective attachment. This type of obligation and connection to an
organization can lead to higher retention rates and improved engagement for mid-level student
affairs professionals.
There are several critical recommendations that can be incorporated into professional
practice, which will change the experiences that mid-level professionals have with
microaggression within the work environment. The first suggestion would be to implement
127
required comprehensive trainings for all those involved in higher education. These trainings
should address all issues related to diversity and marginalized populations within the workplace.
This type of training should be required of every employee in all industries, including higher
Marginalized groups continue to describe their work climates as hostile, invalidating, and
insulting because of the many microaggressions that assail their race, gender, or sexual-
orientation identities, deplete their psychic energies, restrict their work options, lower
their work productivity, generate suppressed rage and anger, stereotype them as less
practices, offering trainings that educate multiple parties within the higher education
environment would lead to increased discussion. These trainings should emphasize the
importance of all aspects related to social identity, in addition to the intersectionality of multiple
social identities. Based on the findings of this research, it is evident that mid-level student affairs
professionals working within higher education experience microaggression. Beyond this factor,
participants reported that they experience microaggression from people external to the
trainings on microaggression that are offered to the external community, employees at all levels
within the university, and students is pertinent. Trainings on microaggression should reflect true
inclusion and address the intersection of various social identities and perceptions thereof,
employment have instituted diversity trainings that focus specifically on overt discrimination and
128
harassment within the workplace (Sue, 2010a). The specific strategies that are implemented to
address microaggression should include the education of the entire university community (Hunn,
Harley, Elliot, & Canfield, 2015). Ideally, the recommended comprehensive trainings would
lead to further discussion, understanding, and awareness of microaggression, and have a greater
The extant literature has not explored the link between leadership behaviors and practices
and experiences with microaggressions. However, since this study identified a link between
inspiring a shared vision and microaggression, teaching those who are in, or aspire to hold
leadership roles, how to approach and mitigate microaggression would be beneficial for these
training or seminar should be developed that focuses on leadership behaviors and practices for
that examine the culture and climate within an office, department, and across campus. Sue
(2010a) suggested that organizations take a thorough look at their cultures and determine
whether or not underlying assumptions of equality and inclusiveness are impacting the work
environment of employees. According to the results of this study, the most commonly reported
Although some microinvalidations can transpire in the form of interpersonal cues, other forms of
microinvalidations. These evaluations should be built into assessment plans, and must be
recognized as one of the indicators for effectiveness campus-wide. Additionally, the evaluation
129
should be anonymous so that employees may vocalize their concerns with other colleagues,
thereby identifying critical issues and points of contention. If the results of the evaluation
environmental cues, then this information can serve as a foundation for developing solutions and
Many of the respondents within this study indicated that they earned master’s degrees.
Presumably, these graduate degrees are related to their chosen profession. For example,
participants may have pursued advanced studies in a College Student Personnel or Higher
Education program. Based on this information, it would be within reason for the profession to
set the standard within the higher education field that all graduate programs include a course,
conscious awareness of microaggression” to the foreground (Hunn et al., 2015). These courses
or certifications can be used as a means to educate master’s and doctoral students on the
prevalence of microaggressions within the field as well as how to address the various forms of
Similarly, in order to assist those professionals within the university context, a resource
must be developed that serves as a support system for those who encounter microaggressions.
One of the participants within this study reiterated what was reflected in the literature on using
counterspaces. As they stated, “I've found individuals I can commiserate with on campus, some
of whom I trust with ‘vault’ level personal stories or accounts.” As reported by the respondent,
the commiseration with colleagues across campus serves as an outlet to share stories or accounts
means to commiserate with colleagues, the next implication for professional practice is to create
an online virtual resource that serves as a counterspace for student affairs professionals across
the country. This online forum should function as a “space” where professionals can
(2000), counterspaces serve as safe spaces that can provide victims of microaggression with an
opportunity that safely allows them to make sense of their experiences, determine whether
microaggression has occurred, find support or validation for their experience as well as receive
The final recommendation for professional practice involves higher education institutions
taking a distinct stance against the perpetuation of microaggressions within the campus
environment. All institutions should develop a reporting system that will be used and strictly
enforced by the Division of Human Resources. Charleston (2014) contended that Human
Resource managers should use technology to measure diversity and avoid discriminatory
practices. Human Resource departments within higher education institutions should implement
technological reporting systems that allow employees to report their experiences with subtle
suggested above, on how to address any microaggressive issues and support university staff that
file reports. The finding that mid-level student affairs professionals are reporting instances of
microaggression is reason alone to implement such a system. A reporting system would provide
an avenue for employees to openly and freely communicate their experiences. The additional
and support for those who encounter microaggression. A system such as this should be taken
seriously because supervisors may react with bias if the microaggressive acts occur between two
co-workers. This was reflected in the narrative shared by a participant who indicated that her
male colleague creates a gender hostile environment for women within her department.
Additionally, holding individuals accountable for the way they treat others would encourage
The results of this study provide a solid foundation for possible areas of research. The
first opportunity for future research could consist of replicating this study and extending it
beyond members of ACPA. In order to determine if there is a difference between those mid-
level student affairs professionals who are members of ACPA, and mid-level professionals who
are members of other professional organizations (i.e., National Association of Student Personnel
conducted. The survey could be disseminated to members of other higher education professional
microaggressive experiences. For example, the relationship between leadership practices and
because the experiences of mid-level student affairs professionals differ from that of senior-level
professionals as well. The ways in which these two types of professionals’ experiences are
different include senior-level professionals interacting with a different set of individuals across
and external to the university, and possessing a different level of responsibility within the
Another avenue for future research that could be explored is examining new types of
microaggressions that have not been thoroughly discussed by the extant literature. Additional
studies that examine microaggressions related to age, size/body image, and positional status
within a higher education organization could be promising areas of research. Because these
suggested types of microaggression were salient for participants within this study, but not
addressed within current literature on microaggression, these are areas that could be further
The final area that could be examined in future research includes the use of
counterspaces. As previously mentioned, one participant described what has been identified
within the literature as counterspaces by Grier-Reed (2010) and Solorzano et al. (2000).
experiences, determine whether microaggression has occurred, find support or validation for
their experience as well as receive advice on how to respond to microaggressive incidents (Grier-
Reed, 2010; Solórzano et al., 2000). This serves as further evidence that victims of
examine the difference between the ways in which these spaces help alleviate the impact of
microaggression, what are the various types of counterspaces, and whether or not there are
Summary
reality for mid-level student affairs professionals. The findings of this research suggest that
while higher education institutions are working to create more inclusive and equitable
environments for students, the same efforts need to be made for administrators. The more
evidence and information that is presented on microaggressions and their associations with
various populations within the postsecondary environment, the better prepared educators will be
to dismantle and challenge their existence in society. One participant surmised the significance
I think you have two choices of action when encountering anything that negatively
affects your work experience: you can crawl into a shell and become cowed by the
experience, or you stand up and work to change it. I chose, on several occasions, to
change it.
Although this study is not an exhaustive investigation of microaggression and its relationship
with all populations in higher education, it does offer insight on the experience of a fragment of
the higher education community. The results of this study can be used to support institutional
efforts that address issues concerning microaggression within the higher education environment.
134
REFERENCES
Aimar, C., & Stough, S. (2007). Leadership: Does culture matter? Comparative practices
and non-minority librarians. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41, 47-53. doi:
0.1016/j.acalib.2014.10.008
Allen, A., Scott, L. M., Lewis, C. W. (2013). Racial microaggressions and African Americans
and Hispanic students in urban schools: A call for culturally affirming education.
American College Personnel Association. (2014a). Who we are | ACPA. Retrieved from
http://www.acpa.nche.edu/who-we-are
http://www.acpa.nche.edu/committees
Balsam, K. F., Molina, Y., Beadnell, B., Simoni, J., & Walters, K. (2011). Measuring multiple
minority stress: the LGBT People of Color Microaggressions Scale. Cultural Diversity &
Basford, T. E., Offermann, L. R., & Behrend, T. (2014). Do you see what I see? Perceptions
349.
Berg, J. L. (2015). The role of personal purpose and personal goals in symbiotic visions. Frontier
Bohmer, S., & Briggs, J. L. (1991). Teaching privileged students about gender, race, and class
Bradburn, N., Sydman, S., Wansink, B. (2004). Asking questions: The definitive guide to
questionnaire design – For market research, political polls, and social and health
Byng, R. (2013, November 13). #BBUM hashtag sparks dialogue about diversity at the
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/20/bbum-university-of-michigan-black-
students_n_4310790.html
Capodilupo, C. M., Nadal, K. L., Corman, L., Hamit, S., Lyons, O. B., & Weinberg, A. (2010).
Marginality: Manifestation, Dynamics, and Impact (pp. 193-216). Hoboken, NJ: John
Charleston, L. J. (2014). Using human resource software technology to mitigate glass ceiling
5(2), 189-198.
136
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2014). CAS General
from http://standards.cas.edu/getpdf.cfm?PDF=E868395C-F784-2293-
129ED7842334B22A
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2015). CAS Glossary| Council
http://www.cas.edu/glossary
Clark, D. A., Kleiman, S., Spapierman, L. B., Isaac, P., & Poolokasingham, G. (2014). “Do you
(Ed.), Organization and governance in higher education (5th ed., pp. 16-35). Boston,
Constantine, M. G., & Sue, D. W. (2007). Perceptions of racial microaggressions among Black
10.1037/0022-0167.54.2.142
Constantine, M. G., Smith, L., Redington, R. M., Owens, D. (2008). Racial microaggressions
against Black counseling and counseling psychology faculty: A central challenge in the
Advisors, 4, 16-29.
137
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys:
Flaherty, C. (2013, November 25). In-class sit-in. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/11/25/ucla-grad-students-stage-sit-during-
class-protest-what-they-see-racially-hostile
Franklin, A. J. (2004). From brotherhood to manhood: How Black men rescue their relationships
Frazier, K. N. (2011). Academic bullying: A barrier to tenure and promotion for African-
American faculty. Florida Journal of Educational Administration & Policy, 5(1), 1-13.
Garvey, J. C., & Drezner, N. D. (2013). Advancement staff and alumni advocates: Cultivating
Glasberg, D. S., & Shannon, D. (2011). Oppression, resistance, and the state: An introduction.
Political Sociology: Oppression, Resistance, and the State (pp. 1-14). Thousand Oaks,
Gold, H. (2014, March 4). Six of the most disturbing racist and sexist themed college frat events
politics/6-most-disturbing-acts-sexism-and-racism-emerge-frat-house-ragers-past-year
Gonzales, L., Davidoff, K. C., Nadal, K. L., & Yanos, P. T. (2014, November 17).
Grandzol, C., Perlis, S., Draina, L. (2014). Leadership development of team captains in
collegiate varsity athletics. Journal of College Student Development, 51(4), 403-418. doi:
10.1353/csd.0.0143
Grier-Reed, T. (2010). The African American student network: Creating sanctuaries and
Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Jr., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M, Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R.
Guzman, F., Trevino, J., Lubuguin, F. & Aryan, B. (2010). Microaggressions and the pipeline for
dynamics, and impact (pp. 145-167). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Harwood, S. A., Browne Huntt, M., Mendenhall, R., & Lewis, J. A. (2012). Racial
10.1037/a0028956
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Dewey, J. E. (2001). Management of organizational behavior:
Leading human resources (8th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hill, J. S., Kim, S., & Williams, C. D. (2010). The context of racial microaggressions against
Hinton, E. L. (2004). Microinequities: When small slights lead to huge problems in the
Hirt, J. B. (2006). What do we really know about student affairs work? Where you Work Matters:
Students Affairs Administration at Different type of Institutions (pp. 1-17). Lanham, MD:
Houshmand, S., Spanierman, L. B., & Tafarodi, R. W. (2014). Excluded and avoided: Racial
Huber, L. P., & Solorzano, D. G. (2014). Racial microaggressions as a tool for critical race
10.1080/13613324.2014.994173
Hunn, V., Harley, D., Elliott, W., & Canfield, J. P. (2015). Microaggression and the mitigation of
psychological harm: Four social workers’ exposition for care of clients, students and
faculty who suffer ‘A thousand little cuts’. The Journal of Pan African Studies, 7(9), 41-
54.
Hurtado, S. (1992). The campus racial climate: Contexts of conflict. The Journal of Higher
marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact (pp. 123-144). Hoboken, NJ: John
Keller, R. M., & Galgay, C. E. (2010). Microaggressive experiences of people with disabilities.
Kelley, D. R. (2008). Leadership development through the fraternity experience and the
relationship to career success after graduation. Oracle: The Research Journal of the
marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact (pp. 171-191). Hoboken, NJ: John
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1994). An extension of the leadership practices inventory to
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge. (3rd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lau, M., & Williams, C. (2010). Microaggression research: Methodological review and
Manifestation, Dynamics, and Impact (pp. 313-336). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley& Sons.
Lee, J. (2014, March 5). ‘I, too am Harvard’ photos tell black students’ stories. USA Today.
students-harvard-tumblr/6013023/
Lewis, J. A., Mendenhall, R., & Harwood, S. A. (2013). Coping with gendered racial
Manifestation, dynamics, and impact (pp. 85-103). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Liu, A. (2011). Unraveling the myth of meritocracy within the context of US higher education.
Mather, P. C., Bryan, S. P., Faulkner, W. O. (2009). Orienting mid-level student affairs
Mayhew, M., Grunwald, H., Dey, E. (2006). Breaking the silence: Achieving a positive campus
climate for diversity from staff perspective. Research in Higher Education, 47, 63-88.
doi: 10.1007/s11162-004-8152-z
Mercer, S. H., Zeigler-Hill, V., Wallace, M., & Hayes, D. M. (2011). Development and initial
Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2010). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods:
Minikel-Lacocque, J. (2012). Racism, college, and the power of words: Racial microaggressions
10.3102/0002831212468048
Moon Johnson, J. (2015). Back to the basics: Meeting the needs of marginalized populations on
Morales, E. (2014). Intersectional impact: Black students and race, gender and class
Nadal, K., L., Issa, M-A., Griffin, K., Hamit, S., & Lyons, O. (2010a). Religious
microaggressions in the United States: Mental health implications for religious minority
and impact (pp. 287-310). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Nadal, K., L., Rivera, D. P., & Corpus, M. J.H. (2010b). Sexual orientation and transgender
Nadal, K. L. (2011). The Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS): construction,
doi:10.1037/a0025193
Nadal, K. L., Wong, Y., Issa, M., Meterco, V., Leon, J., & Wideman, M. (2011). Sexual
orientation microaggressions: Processes and coping mechanisms for Lesbian, Gay, and
10.1080/15538605.2011.554606
Nadal, K. L., Vigilia Escobar, K., Prado, G. T., David, E. J., & Haynes, K. (2012). Racial
156-173.
143
Nadal, K. L., Griffin, K. E., Wong, Y., Hamit, S., & Rasmus, M. (2014a). The impact of racial
Nadal, K. L., Wong, Y., Sriken, J., Griffin, K., Fujii-Doe, W. (2014b, October 27). Racial
10.1037/a0038058
Nadal, K. L., Wong, Y., Griffin, K. E., Davidoff, K., & Sriken, J. (2014c). The adverse impact of
New, J. (2014, September 24). ‘Can you hear us know? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/09/24/anonymous-racist-posts-social-media-
network-prompt-colgate-students-stage-sit-now
New, J. (2015, January 8). A ‘chilly climate’ on campus. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/08/report-details-microaggressions-
campuses-students-color-and-women
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Offermann, L. R., Basford, T., E., Graebner, R., DeGraaf, S. B., & Jaffer, S. (2013). Slights,
snubs, and slurs: Leader equity and microaggressions. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:
Olson, D., & Borman, W. (1989). More evidence on relationships between the work environment
doi:10.1207/s15327043hup0202_3
Owen, D. S. (2009). Privileged social identities and diversity leadership in higher education.
Owen, J., Wampold, B. E., Tao, K. W., Imel, Z. E. & Rodolfa, E. (2014). Addressing racial and
Phillips Morrow, G., Burris-Kitchen, D., & Der-Karabetian, A. (2000). Assessing campus
climate of cultural diversity: A focus on focus groups. College Student Journal, 34, 589.
Pierce, C., Carew, J., Pierce-Gonzalez, D., & Willis, D. (1978). An experiment in racism: TV
commercials. In C. Pierce (Ed.), Television and education (pp.62-880. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Platt, L. F., & Lenzen, A. L. (2013). Sexual orientation microaggressions and the experience of
10.1080/00918369.2013.774878
Poolokasingham, G., Spanierman, L. B., Kleiman, S. & Houshmand, S. (2014). “Fresh off the
boat?” Racial microaggressions that target South Asian Canadian students. Journal of
10.3390/admsci2040221
145
Pugh, A. G., Fillingim, J. G., Blackbourn, J. M., Bunch, D., & Thomas, C. (2011). Faculty
National Forum of Educational Administration & Supervision Journal, 28( 3), 4-11.
Rivera, D. P., Forquer, E. E., & Rangel, R. (2010). Microaggressions and the life experience of
Manifestation, dynamics, and impact (pp. 59-83). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
doi: 10.1080/09518398.2010.543433
Rosser, V. J. (2004). A national study on midlevel leaders in higher education: The unsung
Ryman, A. (2014, January 24). Detroit Free Press. Fraternity expelled over racist MLK-themed
http://www.freep.com/article/20140124/NEWS07/301240036/Fraternity%20expelled%2
0over%20racist%20MLK-themed%20party
Sarno, E., & Wright, A., J. (2013). Homonegative microaggressions and identity in bisexual men
designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company
146
Smith, L., & Redington, R. M. (2010). Class dismissed: Making the case for the study of classist
dynamics, and impact (pp. 269-285). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Smith, W. A., Hung, M., Franklin, J. D. (2011). Racial battle fatigue and the miseducation of
Solórzano, D. G. (1998). Critical race theory, race and gender microaggressions, and the
experience of Chicana and Chicano scholars. Qualitative Studies in Education, 11, 121-
136.
Solórzano, D. G., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions,
and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students.
Somers, P., Cofer, J., Austin, J., Inman, D., Martin, T., Rook, S., Stokes, T., & Wilkinson, L.
(2002). Faculty and staff: The weather radar of campus climate. New Directions for
Sue, D. W. (2010a). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation.
Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact (pp.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M., Nadal, K., L., &
Sue, D. W., & Capodilupo, C. M. (2008). Racial, gender, and sexual orientation
microaggressions: Implications for counseling and psychotherapy. In D.W. Sue & D. Sue
(Eds.), Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice (5th ed., pp. 105-130).
Svokos, A. (2015, January 12). College campuses are full of subtle racism and sexism, study
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/12/microaggressions-college-racism-
sexism_n_6457106.html
Tappan, M. B. (2006). Reframing internalized oppression and internalized domination: From the
Taylor, T., Martin, B. N., Hutchinson, S., & Jinks, M. (2007). Examination of leadership
Tingle, J. K., Cooney, C., Asbury, S. E., & Tate, S. (2013). Developing a student employee
Torres-Harding, S. R., Andrade, A. L., Jr., & Romero Diaz, C. E. (2012). The Racial
Tourangeau, A., & McGilton, K. (2004). Measuring leadership practices of nurses using the
Vega, T. (2014, March 21). Students see many slights as racial ‘microaggressions’. The New
increases-slights-get-subtler-but-still-sting.html?_r=0
Watkins, N. L., LaBarrie, T. L., & Appio, L. M. (2010). Black undergraduates’ experiences with
Wong, G., Derthick, A. O., David, E. J. R., Saw, A., & Okazaki, S. (2013). The what, the why,
and the how: A review of racial microaggressions research in psychology. Race and
Yosso. T., Smith. W. A., Ceja, M., & Solórzano, D. G. (2009). Critical race theory, racial
Yost, M., & Gilmore, S. (2011). Assessing LGBTQ campus climate and creating change.
Young, K., Anderson, M., & Stewart, S. (2014). Hierarchical microaggressions in higher
Zucchino, D. (2013, February 7). Duke fraternity that held party mocking Asians is suspended.
nn-duke-fraternity-mocked-asians-suspended-20130207
149
Q1. Please consider this information carefully. Feel free to ask questions before making your decision
whether or not to participate. You are free to withdraw from this study at any time by closing the
survey. If you decide to stop participating in this study, there will be no penalty to you, and you will not
lose any benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. Deciding to participate or not will not affect your
relationship with ACPA or Bowling Green State University. The purpose of this study is to investigate
the relationship between microaggression and leadership practices for mid-level student affairs
professionals. By agreeing to participate in this study, you will complete the questions contained in this
survey, lasting no more than 15 minutes. All information in this study is strictly anonymous. The
results of this study will be used for dissertation research in completion of the requirements for the
doctoral higher education administration program at Bowling Green State University. Only LaDonna
Moore will have access to the individual data. The data for this project will be stored in a password-
protected file on a password-protected computer. Any discomfort you might experience while
completing the survey should be no more than typically experienced during a small group discussion. If
you are not comfortable with the questions and wish to discontinue participation in the study, you will
be free to exit the survey without penalty. The potential benefits of your participation include the
opportunity to reflect on your experiences within higher education and generate new knowledge on
microaggression as well as mid-level student affairs professionals and leadership practices. You will not
be compensated for your participation. Questions and Contacts: For questions or concerns about the
study, you may contact LaDonna Moore at LRMoore@bgsu.edu or (832) 842-2102. Additionally, you
may contact the faculty advisor for this research project, Dr. Dafina-Lazarus Stewart at
dafinas@bgsu.edu or 419-372-6876 with questions regarding this study as well. You may also contact
Bowling Green State University’s Office of Research Compliance at hsrb@bgsu.edu or (419) 372-7716 for
questions on participants’ rights. I have been informed of the purposes, procedures, risks and benefits
of this study. I have had the opportunity to have all my questions answered and I have been informed
that my participation is completely voluntary. Completing and submitting this survey indicates consent
to participate. By selecting yes, I agree to participate in this research.
Yes (1)
No (2)
If Yes Is Selected, Then Skip To "Microaggressions are the everyday ve...”. If No Is Selected, Then Skip To
End of Survey
150
Q2. "Microaggressions are the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults,
whether intentional or unintentional, which communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to
target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership" (Sue, 2010, p. 3). Several
examples of microaggression would include the following: A faculty member who is a person of color
being mistaken for a janitorial staff member. The use of the pronoun "he" to refer to all individuals. A
woman experiencing whistles or "catcalls" when walking across a college campus. I have experienced
microaggression within my work environment.
Yes (1)
No (2)
If No Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey
Q3. Please indicate how often you have experienced the following type(s) of microaggression within the
last 3 months:
Never (1) Less than Once a 2-3 Times Once a 2-3 Times Daily (8)
Once a Month (4) per Month Week (6) per Week
Month (3) (5) (7)
Racial (1)
Religious/Worldview
Identification (2)
Sex (3)
Sexual Orientation
(4)
Socioeconomic
Status (5)
Other (6)
151
Q4. Microassaults are a form of microaggression that include conscious behaviors, either subtle or
explicit, and represent racially, gendered, or sexually oriented biased attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors
(Sue, 2010).Examples of microassaults would include the following: being called a racial epithet or slur;
the promotion of a heterosexual employee over an individual who is gay; or finding a noose hung on an
office door.
Never (1) Less than Once a 2-3 Times Once a 2-3 Times Daily (7)
Once a Month (3) per Month Week (5) per Week
Month (2) (4) (6)
Please
indicate how
often you
have
experienced
microassaults
as described
above within
the last 3
months: (4)
Q5. Microinsults are unconscious, demeaning and insulting messages that convey rudeness and
insensitivity to someone from a marginalized background (Sue, 2010). Examples of microinsults would
include the following: an Asian American student being asked to assist with Math or Science homework
by a fellow classmate; a female physician being mistaken for a nurse within a hospital; or an African
American individual being followed around a department store.
Never (1) Less than Once a 2-3 Times Once a 2-3 Times Daily (7)
once a Month (3) per Month Week (5) per Week
month (2) (4) (6)
Please
indicate
how often
you have
experienced
microinsults
as
described
above
within the
last 3
months: (1)
152
Q6. Microinvalidations are environmental or interpersonal cues that negate, nullify, or exclude the
psychological thoughts, feelings, beliefs and experiences of someone who is being targeted (Sue,
2010).Examples of microinvalidations would include the following: a Hispanic or Latino individual is told,
"If you don't like it here, go back to Mexico"; or when the statement, "I'm not homophobic, I have a gay
friend" is made.
Never (1) Less than Once a 2-3 Times Once a 2-3 Times Daily (7)
once a Month (3) per Month Week (5) per Week
Month (2) (4) (6)
Please indicate
how often you
have experienced
microinvalidations
as described
above within the
last 3 months: (1)
Q7. Please indicate how often you have experienced microaggression from the following people within
the last 3 months:
Never (1) Less than Once a 2-3 Times Once a 2-3 Times Daily (7)
once a Month (3) per Month Week (5) per Week
Month (2) (4) (6)
Co-workers
(1)
Supervisor
(2)
Students
(3)
People
external to
my
institution
(4)
Q8. Leaders who Model the Way establish principles concerning the way people (constituents, peers,
colleagues, and customers) should be treated and the way goals should be pursued. When leaders are
modeling the way, they are effectively demonstrating the behaviors that they expect of followers
(Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Leaders display behaviors associated with modeling the way when they
“follow through on their promises and commitments and affirm the common values they share with
others” (Northouse, 2013, p. 198).
153
Never (1) Less than Once a 2-3 Times Once a 2-3 Times Daily (7)
Once a Month (3) per Month Week (5) per Week
Month (2) (4) (6)
Please
indicate
how often
you have
Modeled
the Way
within the
last 3
months: (1)
Q9. Leaders who Inspire a Shared Vision work to create an ideal and unique image of what an
organization can become. These individuals imagine opportunities, possess the desire to make these
things happen, and then share this vision with others (Kouzes & Posner, 2002).
Never (1) Less than Once a 2-3 Times Once a 2-3 Times Daily (7)
Once a Month (3) per Month Week (5) per Week
Month (2) (4) (6)
Please
indicate
how often
you have
Inspired a
Shared
Vision
within the
last 3
months: (1)
Q10. Leaders who Challenge the Process search for opportunities and innovative ways to improve an
organization. This exemplary practice of leadership refers to a leader’s ability to object to the way in
which existing systems prevent growth and change (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Leaders who challenge the
process must search for opportunities and experiment as well as take risks.
154
Never (1) Less than Once a 2-3 Times Once a 2-3 Times Daily (7)
Once a Month (3) per Month Week (5) per Week
Month (2) (4) (6)
Please
indicate
how often
you have
Challenged
the Process
within the
last 3
months: (1)
Q11. Leaders who Enable Others to Act foster collaboration, work to build spirited teams, and actively
involve others. These individuals strive to create an atmosphere of trust and human dignity, making
others feel capable and powerful. Leaders who enable others to act make others feel capable, and do
not hoard the power they have (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). The two ideals behind this leadership practice
are fostering collaboration and strengthening others.
Never (1) Less than Once a 2-3 Times Once a 2-3 Times Daily (7)
Once a Month (3) per Month Week (5) per Week
Month (2) (4) (6)
Please
indicate
how often
you have
Enabled
Others to
Act within
the last 3
months: (4)
Q12. Leaders who Encourage the Heart work to keep hope and determination alive by recognizing
contributions that individuals make. These individuals reward members for their efforts and celebrate
accomplishments. They make people feel like heroes. A leader who encourages the heart displays
actions that reflect care, encouragement, and the uplifting of followers’ spirits. In order to exhibit this
practice, it is important for leaders to recognize contributions that followers make to the organization as
well as celebrate values and victories (Kouzes & Posner, 2002).
155
Never (1) Less than Once a 2-3 Times Once a 2-3 Times Daily (7)
Once a Month (3) per Month Week (5) per Week
Month (2) (4) (6)
Please
indicate
how often
you have
Encouraged
the Heart
within the
last 3
months: (1)
Q15. Please indicate the number of years you have been employed in higher education.
1 (1)
2 (2)
3 (3)
4 (4)
5 (5)
6 (6)
7 (7)
8 (8)
9 (9)
10 (10)
11 (11)
12 (12)
13 (13)
14 (14)
15 (15)
16 (16)
17 (17)
18 (18)
19 (19)
20 (20)
21 (21)
22 (22)
23 (23)
24 (24)
25 (25)
26 (26)
27 (27)
28 (28)
29 (29)
30+ (30)
157
Q16. In what functional area are you employed (Select all that apply)?
Q17. Please indicate the number of full-time (i.e., 35 hours per week or more) professional employees
that you supervise.
1 (1)
2 (2)
3 (3)
4 (4)
5 (5)
6 (6)
7 (7)
8 (8)
9 (9)
10 (10)
11 (11)
12 (12)
13 (13)
14 (14)
15 (15)
16 (16)
17 (17)
18 (18)
19 (19)
20 (20)
21 (21)
22 (22)
23 (23)
24 (24)
25 (25)
26 (26)
27 (27)
28 (28)
29 (29)
30 (30)
31+ (31)
159
Q20. What is the size of the total student body at your institution of employment?
0-999 (1)
1000-4999 (2)
5000-9999 (3)
10,000-14,999 (4)
15,000-19,999 (5)
20,000-24,999 (6)
25,000-29,999 (7)
30,000-34,999 (8)
35,000-39,999 (9)
40,000+ (10)
Q21. What is the highest level of education that you have completed?
Under 18 (1)
18-23 (2)
24-29 (3)
30-35 (4)
36-41 (5)
42-47 (6)
48-53 (7)
160
54-59 (8)
60-65 (9)
66 or older (10)
Q23. What is your racial/ethnic background? Please select all that apply.
Baptist (1)
Buddhist (2)
Church of Christ (3)
Eastern Orthodox (4)
Episcopalian (5)
Hindu (6)
Jewish (7)
LDS (Mormon) (8)
Lutheran (9)
Methodist (10)
Muslim (11)
Presbyterian (12)
Quaker (13)
Roman Catholic (14)
Seventh Day Adventist (15)
Unitarian/Universalist (16)
United Church of Christ/Congregational (17)
Other Christian (18) ____________________
Other Religion (19) ____________________
None (20)
161
Man (1)
Transgender (2)
Woman (3)
Not Listed (4) ____________________
Asexual (6)
Bisexual (1)
Gay (2)
Heterosexual (3)
Lesbian (4)
Questioning or unsure (5)
Not Listed (7) ____________________
Yes (1)
No (2)
If Yes Is Selected, Then Skip To Please mark all that apply.If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Please describe
your experience(s) wi...
Learning (3)
Mobility (2)
Neurological (4)
Psychological (6)
Sensory (i.e. vision or hearing) (1)
Not Listed (5) ____________________
Q29. Please describe your experience(s) with microaggression (Please do not include any identifying
information about yourself, others, or your department/institution, as any such information will not be
used for this study).
Q30. Please describe how microaggression has affected your work experience (Please do not include any
identifying information about yourself, others, or your department/institution, as any such
information will not be used for this study).
162
From: <info@acpa.nche.edu>
Sent: August 31, 2015
To: recipient@.edu
Subject: Mid-level Student Affairs Professional Survey
I am writing to ask for your participation in a survey that I am conducting for my dissertation as
a Ph.D. candidate at Bowling Green State University (BGSU). I am asking mid-level student
affairs professionals, like you, to reflect on your experiences with microaggression, which is
subtle discrimination.
Your responses to this survey are very important and will help in understanding mid-level
professionals’ exposure to microaggression. The best way to learn about this is by asking
professionals about their experiences. This is a short survey and should take no more than 15
minutes to complete. Please enter the link below into your web browser to go to the survey
website.
Your participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and all of your responses will be kept
anonymous. No personally identifiable information will be associated with your responses in
any reports of this data.
I appreciate your time and consideration in completing the survey. Thank you for your
participation! It is only through the help of mid-level professionals like you that we can learn
more and use this information to help create more inclusive environments within higher
education.
Sincerely,
LaDonna Moore
163
From: <info@acpa.nche.edu>
Sent: September 7, 2015
To: recipient@.edu
Subject: Mid-Level Student Affairs Professional Survey
Recently, you were sent an email asking you to respond to a very brief survey about your
experience with microaggression. The survey is short and should take less than 15 minutes to
complete.
If you have already completed the survey, I would like to thank you for your time, as your
response will be helpful in understanding the experience of mid-level student affairs
professionals! If you have not yet had the opportunity to complete the survey, I would like to
urge you to take a couple of minutes to do so. Please select the link below, or enter the link into
your web browser to go to the survey website.
Your participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and all of your responses will be kept
anonymous. No personally identifiable information will be associated with your responses in
any reports of this data.
Thank you for your help! This survey is important for gathering information to help create more
inclusive environments for you and your fellow mid-level professionals.
Sincerely,
LaDonna Moore
164
Thank you for your submission of Revision materials for this project. The Bowling Green State
University Human Subjects Review Board has determined this project is exempt from IRB review
according to federal regulations AND that the proposed research has met the principles outlined in the
Belmont Report. You may now begin the research activities.
Note that an amendment may not be made to exempt research because of the possibility that
proposed changes may change the research in such a way that it is no longer meets the criteria for
exemption.
A new application must be submitted and reviewed prior to modifying the research activity, unless the
researcher believes that the change must be made to prevent harm to participants. In these cases, the
Office of Research Compliance must be notified as soon as practicable.
If you have any questions, please contact Kristin Hagemyer at 419-372-7716 or khagemy@bgsu.edu.
Please include your project title and reference number in all correspondence with this committee.
This letter has been electronically signed in accordance with all applicable regulations, and a copy is retained within Bowling
Green State University Human Subjects Review Board's records.