Citation
Measuring and Analyzing Racial Microaggressions among Black Faculty, Staff, and Administrators at a Predominantly White Organization

Material Information

Title:
Measuring and Analyzing Racial Microaggressions among Black Faculty, Staff, and Administrators at a Predominantly White Organization
Creator:
Gladney, Christina Alexis
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Health and Human Performance
Health Education and Behavior
Committee Chair:
CHEONG,JEEWON
Committee Co-Chair:
STOPKA,CHRISTINE BOYD
Committee Members:
PIGG,ROBERT M,JR
PRINGLE,ROSE MARIE
TUCKER,CAROLYN M
MACINNES,JANN W
SMITH,SHON D

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
administrators
bias
black
discrimination
faculty
highered
racial-microaggression
racism
staff

Notes

General Note:
Diversity within an organization is commonly regarded as a positive and valuable component to success and excellence. Although, diversity is promoted and strongly supported, there is a lack of understanding of the negative impact diversity has on individuals of color, specifically, Black Americans. Undesired experiences can range from blatant displays of racism and discrimination, to subtler forms of racism, such as racial microaggressions. Racial microaggressions are subtle, and often-unintentional verbal, behavioral, and environmental slights and indignities directed toward a racial minority group from White individuals. Current literature confirms that people of color experience a significant amount of microaggressions in their daily lives. The collection and manifestation of racial microaggressions significantly contribute to negative consequences in an individual's mental, emotional, and physical health. Studies have shown that Black Americans are more likely to experience microaggressions in common, but specific places, such as academic and work environments. For this reason, measuring and investigating microaggressions among Black Americans in the environments that present the greatest risk of encountering microaggressions was imperative. The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence and frequency of microaggression experiences and identify the types of microaggression experiences that are associated with demographic characteristics such as gender, level of educational attainment, organizational position, and professional or academic area. The study results demonstrated that there are differences in the types and degrees to which racial microaggressions are experienced among Black Americans in predominately white organizations. There were significant group differences in the level of racial microaggression experienced by the sample of participants. Significant statistical differences were found among the variables of educational attainment, organizational position, and professional/academic area. Overall, the strongest predictor of racial microaggression experiences was educational attainment. Participants in the area of Business reported the lowest experiences with racial microaggressions compared to any other group. The knowledge obtained in this study will inform future research in the area of racial microaggressions, as well as diversity planning among similar organizations.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Embargo Date:
5/31/2018

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 MEASURING AND ANALYZING RACIAL MICROAGGRESSIONS AMONG BLACK FACULTY, STAFF, AND ADMINISTRATORS AT A PREDOMINANTLY WHITE ORGANIZATION By CHRISTINA A.R. GLADNEY A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERS ITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2017

PAGE 2

2 2017 Christina A.R. Gladney

PAGE 3

3 To every little Black girl who ever felt she was not enough or did not belong, know that you are more than enough and there is always a space for you in this world.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEGMENTS I would like to thank God without whom, nothing is possible. Without the strength, wisdom, and courage given to me from you I would not have accomplished this academic and professional goal. I would like to thank Dr. JeeWon Cheong for agreeing to serve as my dissertation committee chair. I sincerely appreciate your dedication to my academic and professional success. I would like to thank Dr. Carolyn Tucker for her mentoring support and professional guidance during this dissertation process. I would like to thank Dr. Shon Smith for being a source of accountability during each step of the dissertation process. I would like to thank Dr. R.M. Pigg for always being available to talk and answer any questions I may have. It was honor to have been the last student to receive your support as a dissertation committee member. I would like to thank Dr. Rose Pringle for agreeing to serve as my external member and providing a strong example of spiritual and academic leadership, on and off campus. I would like to thank Dr. Christine Stopka for agreeing to take the role as my dissertation chair, and continuing to serve as you w ere retired. I would like to thank Dr. Jann MacInnes for her assistance and expertise in the area of study design and data analysis. I would like to thank my Grandmother, Mrs. Bobbie Mae Allen and Mother, Mrs. Cassandra Diane Perry. You both are the reas on I set each academic and professional goal for myself. I want to make you both proud. I am honored to be your daughter and granddaughter.

PAGE 5

5 I would like to thank my sister, Ms. Dominiqua A.D.N. Bowdry. Without your support, encouragement, love, and truths I would not know the person I am or the person I am destined to be.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 10 DEFINITION OF TERMS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 15 Statement of Problem ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 17 Purpose of Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 18 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 19 Assumptions ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 19 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 20 Delimitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 21 Significance ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 21 Innovation ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 23 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 24 Res earch questions ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 24 Race and Racism in America ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 25 Racial Microaggressions ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 25 Types of Racial Microaggressions ................................ ................................ .......................... 27 Racial Microassaults ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 28 Racial Microinsults ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 28 Racial Microinvalidations ................................ ................................ ............................... 29 Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 31 Racism and Health ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 39 Racism and Mental Health ................................ ................................ .............................. 40 Racial Microaggressions in Academia ................................ ................................ ............ 40 Critiques of Racial Microaggression Studies ................................ ................................ .. 44 3 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 46 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 46 Resear ch Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 46 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 47 Instrumentation ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 48

PAGE 7

7 Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 48 Alien in own land ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 49 Ascription of intelligence ................................ ................................ ................................ 49 Colorblindness & denial of individual racism ................................ ................................ 49 Criminality/ assumptions of criminal status ................................ ................................ .... 50 Invalidation of interethnic differences ................................ ................................ ............. 50 Exoticized ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 50 Myth of meritocracy ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 51 Pathologizing cultural values & communication styles ................................ .................. 51 Second class citizen ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 51 Environmental invalidations ................................ ................................ ............................ 52 Invisibility ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 52 Scoring ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 52 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 53 Proce dures ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 53 Data Analyses ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 53 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 55 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 55 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 56 Participant Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 57 Overall Racial Microaggression s ................................ ................................ ............................ 59 Racial Microinvalidation Experiences ................................ ................................ .................... 60 Racial Microinsult Experiences ................................ ................................ .............................. 60 Summary of Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 71 5 SUMMARY, FUTURE DIRECTIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS .............. 73 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 73 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 73 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 74 Educational Attainment ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 75 Foreigner/Not Belonging ................................ ................................ ................................ 76 Assumptions of Criminality ................................ ................................ ............................ 76 Business ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 77 Environmental ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 77 Future Research ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 78 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 79 Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 81 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 82 APPENDIX A PARTICIPANT INFORMED CONSENT ................................ ................................ ............. 83 B RACIAL MICROAGRESSION SCALE ................................ ................................ ............... 85

PAGE 8

8 C DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS ................................ ................................ ............................ 88 D STUDY BRIEF ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 89 E EXPERIENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 90 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 94 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 97

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Themes of Racial Microaggressions ................................ ................................ .................. 31 4 1 Sample Demographic Characteristics ................................ ................................ ................ 58 4 2 Multiple Regression of the Total Frequency score on Gender, Educational Level, Positon & Academic Area (N=240). ................................ ................................ .................. 61 4 3 Multiple Regression of the Microinvalidation scores on Gender, Educational Level, Positon & Academic Area (N=240). ................................ ................................ .................. 62 4 4 Multiple Regression of the Microinsult score on Gender, Educational Level, Positon & Academic Area (N=240). ................................ ................................ ............................... 63 4 5 Means and standard deviations of thematic subscales o f racial microaggressions ............ 64 4 6 Multiple Regression of the Foreigner/Not Belonging subscale on Gender, Educational Level, Positon & Academic Area (N=240). ................................ .................. 65 4 7 Multiple Regression of the Sexualization subscale on Gender, Educational Level, Positon & Academic Area (N=240). ................................ ................................ .................. 66 4 8 Multiple Regr ession of the Criminality subscale on Gender, Educational Level, Positon & Academic Area (N=240). ................................ ................................ .................. 67 4 9 Multiple Regression of the Low Achieving/Undesirable culture subscale on Gender Educational Level, Positon & Academic Area (N=240). ................................ .................. 68 4 10 Means and standard deviations of thematic subscales of racial microaggressions ............ 68 4 11 Multiple Regression of the Invisibility subscale on Gender, Educational Level, Positon & Academic Area (N=240). ................................ ................................ .................. 69 4 12 Multiple Regression of the En vironmental subscale on Gender, Educational Level, Positon & Academic Area (N=240). ................................ ................................ .................. 70

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Specific Aims ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 18

PAGE 11

11 DEFINITION OF TERMS Discrimination The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. Exocitized Being overly sexualized because of ground (Sue, Bucceri, et al., 2007). Microass a ult Conscious and intentional actions or slurs, such as using racial epithets, displaying swastikas or deliberately serving a white person before a person of color in a restaurant. Microinsult Verbal and nonv erbal communications that subtly convey rudeness and insensitivity identity. Microinvalidation Communications that subtly exclude, negate or nullify the thoughts, feelings or experiential reality of a person of co lor. Predominately White Organization/Institution (PWO, PWI) Schools of higher learning or organizations in which white account for at least 50% of enrollment Race A specious classification of human beings created by Europeans (whites) which assigns human worth and social status using height of human achievement for the purpose of establishing and maintaining privilege and power (Chisom & Washington). Racial Battle Fatig ue A theory attributed to the psychologi cal attrition that People of Color experience from the daily battle of deflecting racialized insults, stereotypes, and discrimination (Smith, 2008).

PAGE 12

12 Racial Microaggression Brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whet her intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color (Sue et al., 2007). Racism The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

PAGE 13

13 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy MEASURING AND ANALYZING RACIAL MICROAGGRESSIONS AMONG BLACK FACULTY, STAFF, AND ADMINISTRATORS AT A PREDOMINANTLY WHITE ORGANIZATION By Christina A.R. Gladney May 2017 Chair: JeeWon Cheong Cochair: Christine Stopka M ajor: Health and Human Performance Diversity within an organization is commonly regarded as a positive and valuable component to success and excellence Although, diversity is promoted and strongly supported, there is a lack of understanding of the negative impact div ersity has on individuals of color, specifically, Black Americans. Undesired experiences can range from blatant displays of racism and discrimination, to subtler forms of racism such as racial microaggressions. Racial microaggressions are subtle, and often unintent ional verbal, behavioral, and environmental slights and indignities directed toward a racial minority group from White individuals. Current literature confirms that people of color experience a significant amount of microaggressions in their daily lives. T he collection and manifestation of racial microaggressions significantly Studies have shown that Black Americans are more likely to experience microaggressions in common, but specific places, such as academic and work environments. For this reason, measuring and investigating microaggressions among Black Americans in the environment s that present the greatest risk of encountering microaggressions was impe rative.

PAGE 14

14 The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence and frequency of microaggression experiences and identify the types of microaggression experiences that are associated with demographic characteristics such as gender, level of educational a ttainment, o rganizational posit i on and professional or academic area. The study results demonstrated that there are differences in the types and degrees to which racial microaggressions are experienced among Black Americans in predominately white organizations. Th ere were significant group differences in the level of racial microaggression experienced by the sample of participants. Significant statistical differences were found among the variables of educational attainment, organizational position and professional/academic area. Overall, the strongest predictor of racial microaggression experiences was educational attainment. Participants in the area of Business reported the lowest experiences with racial microaggressions compared to any other group. The knowledge obt ained in this study will inform future research in the area of racial microaggressions, as well as diversity planning among similar organizations.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Racial and ethnic diversity is increasing throughout businesses, organizations, and communities in the United States. Major companies and employers are supporting and promoting more racially and ethnically diverse work environments. Colleges and universities, both public and private are creating special tasks force and planning committee s to increase diversity among their respective institutions. Although there are programs continually being created to promote diversity, there is little understanding of the negative consequences embedded in racially and ethnically diverse environments for people of color, specifically, Black Americans. Black Americans often experience race related stress and racial discrimination in environments where they are the racial minority (Sue, Nadal, Capodilupo, Lin, Torino, Rivera, 2008). Over time, it has becom e less socially acceptable for Americans to partake in blatant forms of racism and discrimination, which has led to subtler, but still insidious acts of racial injustice and inequality (Omi & Winant, 1994; Sue, 2010). Previous research has shown that while most White individuals would not consider themselves as racist and denounce engaging in hate crimes or overtly racist acts, they may still hold racial biases and participate in covert and unconscious racially motivated behaviors (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986) These covert forms of racism and discrimination are categorized in the literature as aversive racism (Dovidio & Gaerter, 2000), modern racism (McConahay, 1986), and racial microagressions (C.M. Pierce, Carew, Pierce Gonzalez, & Willis, 1978; Sue, Capodi lupo, & Holder, 2007). Research examining subtle forms of racism and discrimination have greatly increased, specifically studies examining the impact and negative effects of racial microaggressions among people of color (Nadal, 2011; Sue, 2010). Racial mi commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, and environmental indignities, whether intentional or

PAGE 16

16 unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, negative, racial slights and insults to the ue et al., 2007, p.273). Because the perpetrators of racial microaggressions are often unaware they engage in such prejudice behaviors, they find it difficult to believe they harbor biased racial attitudes and express discriminatory behaviors (Wong, Derthi ck, David, Saw, & Okazaki, 2014). The subconscious denial of personal ideas, attitudes, and beliefs of racial discrimination toward people of color, specifically Black Americans, by the White majority challenges the understanding of the experiences of raci al microag g ressions. Identifying a need for a taxonomy of racial microaggres s ions, Sue and colleagues (2007) presented an outline for the direction of future racial microaggressions research (Wong et al., 2014). The authors defined three distinct categor ies or types of racial microaggressions that are experienced by racial minorities and people of color. The three type of racial microaggressions the more overt forms of discrimination and can manifest in verbal or nonverbal attacks, as well microassaults, White individuals may be more conscious of their discriminatory attit udes, but they often unintentionally hurt the person or people of color that experience the microassaults. An example of a microassault is when a White woman is walking toward a Black man and clutches her pocketbook or purse that displays a sense of threat The woman may be conscious in her decision to secure her pocketbook, but she may be unaware that such behavior may represent her subconscious stereotype that most, if not all, Black men are dangerous or criminal (Nadal et al., 2014). Racist jokes and rac ial slurs are also types of microassaults. Although the people who

PAGE 17

17 o acknowledge the negative effects such words may have on the individuals in which these statements are directed. The second type of racial microaggression presented by Sue and colleagues (2007) is iors or statements that degrade a behavioral forms of microinsults. A common example of a verbal microinsult is when a White individual tells an African American wo example of a behavioral microinsult may be an associate at a high end clothing store who follows a Black man around while he shops. In the first example, the underlining assumption is made that the majori ty of Black people do not use proper or correct English, and in the second example, a message is communicated that Black individuals regularly steal. icroinvalidations occur when a person negates or denies the thoughts, are igno red or devalued among his or her White classmates. Statement o f Problem Over the last decade, a substantial number of studies have examined the negative effects of racial microaggression experiences among people of color (Young, Anderson, & Stewart, 2014) Previous studies confirm that individuals of color experience a significant amount of racial microaggressions on a daily basis within their respective professional and social environments. Studies examining the effects of racial microaggressions and Blac k Americans show that the experience of racial microaggressions has negative consequence on mental,

PAGE 18

18 emotional, and physical aspects of health (Sue, Nadal, Capodilupo, Lin, Rivera, & Torino, 2008). These negative consequences include, but are not limited to high blood pressure, psychological stress, depression, sleeping problems, substance abuse, eating disorders, low job performance, and post traumatic stress (Nadal, 2011). Given the aforementioned negative consequences of experiencing racial microaggressi ons for Black Americans, it is important to investigate their presence among specific subgroups within the greater population. Purpose o f Study In order to address the issue of racial microaggressions, we must first understand the prevalence, and nature in which the experiences take place. There are two specific aims for the current study. The primary aim of this study is to measure the prevalence and frequency of racial microaggressions among Black faculty, administration, and staff members employed unde r a predominately White academic organization (PWOs). The secondary aim for the current study is to determine if there are any significant differences in the experiences of racial microaggressions by personal demographic factors, including gender, educatio nal attainment, and position of hierarchy in the academic hierarchy. This study will take on the following specific aims seen in Figure 1. Figure 1 1. Specific Aims Measure the prevalence of racial microaggression (RMA) experiences Aim 1 Determine differences in RMA expereinces by demographic factors Aim 2

PAGE 19

19 Research Questions 1. What is the preva lence of racial microaggression, microinvalidation and microinsult experiences among Black faculty, staff, and administrators employed at a predominately white organization? 2. What are the differ ences in overall racial microaggression experiences by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of education attainment among Black faculty, staff, and administrators employed at a predom inately white organization? 3. What are the differen ces in racial microinvalidation experiences by gender, position in organization, professional area, and leve l of education attainment among Black faculty, staff, and administrat ors employed at a predominately white organization? 4. What are the di fferences in racial microinsult experiences by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educat ion attainment among Black faculty, staff, and administrat ors employed at a predominately white organization? 5. What are the differences in Foreigner/Not Belonging scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attai nment? 6. What are the differences in Sexualization scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment? 7. What are the differences in Criminality scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, an d level of educational attainment? 8. What are the differences in Low Achieving/Undesirable background scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment? 9. What are the differences in Invisibility scores by gen der, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment? 10. What are the differences in Environmental scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment? Assumptions There were se veral assumptions employed to the current study. First, the university selected as the sampling frame for the study was considered adequate to provide a sufficiently representative population for the study. Secondly, participants who volunteered for the s tudy were considered adequately representative of the total population of Black faculty, staff, and administrators employed at the university. Third, data collected during the spring semester of the

PAGE 20

20 2016 2017 academic year were considered adequate for the study. The fourth assumption is that participants responded thoughtfully, and with adequate levels of honesty and perception. We assume that the existing scale selected for the study adequately described the relationships between the variables and their as sociated constructs. We assume participant responses were candid and adequately represented their perceptions and experiences with racial microaggressions in their daily life. Finally, by utilizing a quantitative approach, it provided adequate data analyse s and supported legitimate statistical conclusions. Limitations There were several limitations to the current study. First, t he university used as the sampling frame for the study may not have represented the broader population of universities in the Sou theastern region of the United States. Second, p articipants who volunteered for the study may not have adequately represented the total population of Black faculty, staff, and administers employed at the University. Third, the political and racial climate of the 2016 2017 academic completely candid or honest due to the fear of the ir identity being linked to their responses. Another limitation to this study is that participants may not have considered their experiences with racial microaggressions beyond the campus or university environment. Also, participants who felt comfortable e nrolling in the study examining racial microaggression experiences may not have adequately represented the population of individuals who feel uncomfortable with the topic. Finally, utilizing only a quantitative approach to data collection in this study may not have identified and analyzed all relevant constructs.

PAGE 21

21 Delimitations There were several delimitations to the current study. First, t he study was conducted at a large university, predominately white University in the Southeastern region of the United States. Second, p articipants included Black faculty, staff, and administrators who willingly volunteered to participate in the study. Third, d ata were collected during the spring semester of the 2016 2017 academic year. Another delimitation was that d ata used in the study were self reported by the study participants. The next delimitation is the duplicate version of an existing scale used to measure the observed variables in the study. Also, p articipants, overall, were comfortable and willing to participat e in the study examining their daily experiences with racial microaggressions. Finally, the study utilized a quantitative approach to data collection, which included a survey instrument which was administered in person or online. Significance Black Americ ans have the most, if not the largest differences in health risks compared to other racial and ethnic counterparts. Black individuals commonly experience a greater rate of disease, disability, and premature/early death (USHHS, 2012). These differences in h ealth outcomes found among Black Americans are linked to varying degrees and types of stressed experienced in their daily lives. Epidemiological studies have found that Black Americans experience greater morbidity and mortality from stress and stress relat ed diseases compared to White Americans (Jackson & Sears, 1992). According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the top three leading causes of death for Black Americans are heart disease, cancer, and stroke (2016). Each of the aforementioned ch ronic health conditions are stress related and occur more frequently among Black Americans than White Americans (Jackson & Sears, 1992). For example, hypertension and other stress related diseases kill African American women aged

PAGE 22

22 25 to 44 nearly 17 times m ore frequently than they kill European American women of the same age (Mullings, 1984). Reducing the risks associated with chronic disease and identifying factors that lead to injury and disease are two of the primary goals of Public health practitioners and health educators. Public health acknowledges that multiple factors play a role in both negative and positive health outcomes. These factors can range from physical to environmental, from social to psychological. In this case, racial microaggressions ar e social determinants of health that have the ability to negatively influence mental, emotional, and physical states of health when experienced by people of color. Black individuals working at predominately white organizations are subject to endless forms of racial discrimination and injustice due to their physical and social environments. For this reason, this subpopulation of Black individuals have a heightened risk of experiencing the negative and potentially dangerous consequences of enduring racial mi croaggressions. Due to their unique position within these organizations, it is important to not only measure their experiences with racial microaggressions, but also identify the types of racial microaggressions they are most likely to experience, and the factors that influence the likelihood of encountering racial microaggression in their daily lives. This study will provide a better understanding of the types of racial microaggressions experiences that are specific to Black Americans employed at a predom inately white organization. The sample will include various levels of hierarchy as it pertains to faculty, administration, and staff members. The current research will assess the prevalence of racial microaggression experiences and examine if those experie nces differ among individuals with different demographic characteristics. Results found in this study will inform programming and

PAGE 23

23 interventions aimed at reducing issues of workplace discrimination and racism and promote healthier ideas of diversity among r acially diverse groups. Innovation The investigations of racial microaggressions described in this proposal are innovative in several aspects. First, the theory of racial microaggressions is a developing area of study in health disparities research. Many of the early scientists investigating racial microaggressions were trained in sociology, psychology, or counseling. The public health and health education scientific communities have yet to investigate the significant impact of racial microaggressions amo ng people of color. However, the first step in the process of understanding the relationship between racial microaggressions and negative health outcomes, is understanding the degree to which these racial microaggressions exists and how they manifest among people of color, specifically Black Americans. Secondly, this study will investigate racial microaggression within a unique subgroup of Black Americans employed at a large, southern predominately white academic organization. An organization that is compa rable in areas of research status and size to various other organizations in the southern region of the United States. The sample will include faculty, staff, and members of administration. This aspect of the study is innovative because there is no current literature published that have measured racial microaggressions among all three levels of positional hierarchy in higher education at a major predominately white organization.

PAGE 24

24 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Chapter 2 provides an overview of the history of racism and discrimination in the United States, critical race theory, and the development of the concept and taxonomy of racial microaggressions in scientific literature. The chapter then continues to provide an overview of the published literature exami ning racial microaggression within different racial and ethnic popul ations and social environments. Research questions 1. What is the preva lence of racial microaggression, microinvalidation, and microinsult experiences among Black faculty, staff, and administ rators employed at a predominately white organization? 2. What are the differ ences in overall racial microaggression experiences by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of education attainment among Black faculty, staff, and adminis trators employed at a predom inately white organization? 3. What are the differen ces in racial microinvalidation experiences by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of education attainment among Black faculty, staff, and administrat o rs employed at a predominately white organization? 4. What are the di fferences in racial microinsult experiences by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of education attainment among Black faculty, staff, and administrat ors employed at a predominately white organization? 5. What are the differences in Foreigner/Not Belonging scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment? 6. What are the differences in Sexualization scores by gender, po sition in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment? 7. What are the differences in Criminality scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment? 8. What are the differences in Low Ac hieving/Undesirable background scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment? 9. What are the differences in Invisibility scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educati onal attainment?

PAGE 25

25 10. What are the differences in Environmental scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment? Race and Racism in America and demand for the end of racial discrimination in the United States (Nadal, Wong, Griffin, Davidoff, & Sriken, 2014). Collectively, scholars have supported the idea that blatant forms of racial discrimination have decreased in frequency and intensity sinc McConahay, 1986; Steele, 1997; Sue & Sue, 2007). Although many forms of obvious and blatant racial discrimination, such as segregation and hate crimes have been addressed through changes in laws and policies on the f ederal, state, and local levels (Foster, 2005), many social researchers are findings a high prevalence of more covert, less abrasive forms of prejudice behavior (Foster, 2005; Nadal, 2011; Sue, 2010; Sue, Bucceri, Lin, Nadal, & Torino, 2007). Due to the s ubtle, and of subtle discrimination, making it challenging for members of society to recognize the possibility of victimization and injury to those who expe Over time, there has been a continual increase in the amount of literature examining the negative impact of covert discrimination, which is Racial Microaggressions The use of the ter was originally coined by Black psychiatrist, Chester Pierce and colleagues (1977) to describe microaggressions were first defined to explain the race related slights and indignities Black 2014, p.3). Acco rding to Piece,

PAGE 26

26 are microaggressions. These subtle, innocuous, preconscious, or unconscious degradations, and putdowns, often kinetic but capable of being verbal and/ or kinetic In and of itself a microaggression may seem harmless, but the cumulative burden of a lifetime of microaggression can theoretically contribute to diminished According to Sue an statements and behaviors that unconsciously communicate denigrating messages to people of utili introduced the construct of racial microaggressions. As Sue began to define the construct of racial microaggressions, he observed distinct commonalities among the three explanations of modern ever to be disguised and covert b) has evolved fro racial hatred and bigotry is consciously and publicly displayed, to a more ambiguous and 2007, p. 271). model of microaggressions with a definition that commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, and environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, tha t communicate hostile, derogator or negative racial slights and insults to the everyday life and social interactions and their undetectable nature aids in widening t he gap of racial realities. A unique characteristic possessed by racial microaggressions is that they are often (Sue et al., 2007, p.273). Often times, these exc hanges are so prevalent and automatic in daily

PAGE 27

27 conversations and interactions that they are often viewed as being innocent or socially harmless. Needless to say, racial microaggressions are extremely detrimental to people of color because they impair perfo rmance in a variety of environments and social settings, ranging from the work environment to the academic environment. Collectively, the majority of Caucasians or White Americans perceive themselves as decent human beings who believe in equality, which m akes it difficult to believe that they may subconsciously harbor biased racial attitudes and express discriminatory behaviors, whether publicly or privately (Wong et al., 2014). There is a growing need to bring more awareness and deeper understanding of h ow racial microaggressions operate, the natures in which they manifest in society, the negative or detrimental impact place on people of color, the dynamic interplay between the perpetrator of racial microaggressions and the victim, and the development of strategies to educate and promote the reduction and elimination of racial microaggressions (Sue et al., 2007). Types of Racial Microaggressions In 2005, D.W. Sue urged the field of psychology to consider racial microaggressions at the American Psychologi i dentify, classify, and define the types and nature racial microaggressions, in 2007, with the American P sychologists (Wong et al., 2014). The publication of this racial microaggression taxonomy in scientific literature delineates the point in time when racial microaggressions gained widespread interest and attention in research.

PAGE 28

28 Racial Microassaults Racial by a verbal or nonverbal attack meant to hurt the intended victim through name calling, avoidant Microassaults are described as hostile or overt racial incidents that intentionally cause harm to a person of color (Torres Harding et al., 2012). Several examples of racial microassaults are referring to a Black interactions among different races of people, intentionally serving a White patron before a person Microassa microaggressions is often displayed on the individual level. Almost always microassaults are deliberate and consciously spoken or performed, although they are commonly expres sed in anonymity. Simply stated, most often than not, people are more likely to hold their ideas and feelings of minority inferiority privately. It is only when t hey lose control or feel relatively comfortable to engage in microassaults. In this present study, we are interested in examining the unintentional and unconscious manifestations of racial microaggressions, e.g. microinsults and microinvalidations, therefo re microassaults will not be a focus of this study. Racial Microinsults race, and assuming that the person is a criminal or deviant in some way because of his or her entity. Racial microinsults are

PAGE 29

29 subtle, and perpetrators are commonly unaware of the hidden and insulting message that is encompassed in the verbal exchange (Sue et al., 2007). An example of a microinsult is when a message from the perspective of the recipient is viewed as twofold. The first message is that people of color are not qualified, and the second message implies that as a member of a minority group, he or sh e must have received affirmative active or selected as a part of a quota diversity program, not due to merit or ability (Sue et al., 2007). It is important to note that racial microinsults are also non verbal. An example of a nonverbal microinsult is when a White teacher fails to acknowledge students of color for their academic achievement. Another example of microinsults is when a White supervisor or manager fails to give their Black employee eye contact and turns away during a conversation, conveying the message that the contributions of people of color are not valued or considered important (Hinton, 2004). Racial Microinvalidations negate or minimize the lived realiti es of Peoples of color (POC) such as denying the existence of p.3). Microinvalidations are characterized by words and comments that exclude, negate, or deno unce the emotional and psychological experiences of reality for racial and ethnic minorities (Sue et al., 2007). Racial microinvalidations can simply be defined as messages that deny or devalue the experiences of people of color. Racial microinvalidations exchanges can appear neutral or complimentary on the surface, but underneath suggest that a person or members of their racial group are deficient, and

PAGE 30

30 of a r acial microinvalidation is when Hispanic Americans (born and raised in the United States) are complimented for speaking good English or constantly asked the country in which they were born. In this instance, the perpetrator of the racial microaggression i s negating Hispanic is when White Americans express to Black indi perspective completely ignore and negate the experiences as racial/ethnic beings in modern society (Helms, 1992). For exampl e, a Black woman is given poor service at a restaurant and decides to share her experiences with her White friends. After explaining her interaction, her the woman of color is nullified and its seriousness and importance is diminished (Sue et al., 2007). After extensive study exploring the three specific types of racial microaggressions and their unique characteristics, Sue and colleagues (2007) identified nine categories of criminality/assumption of criminal status, ascription of intelligence, second class status, pathologizing cultural values/communication styles, environmenta l invalidation and denial of individual racism, and myth of meritocracy. Among the three specific types of racial microaggressions defined above, there are various themes and subthemes that provide a deeper level of insight on the specific nature of micro ass a ult, microinvalidation, and microinsult experiences by people of color. These themes and their respective desc riptions are listed in Table 2 1

PAGE 31

31 Table 2 1 Themes of Racial Microaggressions Theme Description a. Experiences in whi ch people of color may b. Assumptions of criminality Experiences in which people of color are stereotyped to be deviant or criminal. (ex. A Black man being followed in a upscale department store by employees) c. Second class citizen When customers of color receive substandard service to Whites d. Ascription of intelligence When people of color are assumed to be less intellectual or uneducated e. Assumption of inferiority When people of color are a ssumed to be less intellectual or uneducated f. Colorblindness/ denial of racial reality When people of color are assumed to be less intellectual or uneducated Theoretical Framework d social health is gaining more attention within various social science disciplines ranging from psychology and counseling to sociology and healthcare. When examining the relationship between racial microaggressions and health, one must employ the appropri ate theoretical framework to ensure the fidelity and efficacy of the study and its findings (Sue et al, 2007). The study of race and racism has brought forth challenges over time. Commonly used methodologies and measurement techniques in social sciences a re not culturally and context appropriate for measuring racial injustices and discrimination. The need for a framework to study

PAGE 32

32 when racial scholars were finding it i ncreasingly more difficult to investigate the negative effects of these constructs (Bell, 1995). racial scholars developed the Critical Race T heory (CRT) Derrick Bell and Alan Freeman were upset with the slow pace of racial reform and growing injustices in society. For the two scholars, this issue was even more relevant among the law community. They noticed that racial minorities, especially African Americans were not gaining acceptance into prestigious and Ivy League law programs i n the United States and strongly suspected and hypothesized that more deeply underlining forms of systemic racism was taking place (Solozarno et al, 1997). Bell and Freeman suggested that new approaches were needed to address and eliminate the subtler, b ut still very deeply entrenched forms of racism and discrimination found thorough out organizations and institutions, prominent in American society. The two racial scholars posited five tenets that are essential to understanding the impact of racism, discr imination, and other forms of injustices acted out b y the privileged and the majority groups of people (Bell, 1995). The centrality of race and racism and other forms of subordination : According to ace, and is an aspect of the everyday tenet emphasizes the idea that racism is a permanent part of American culture. Considering this as fact, efforts must be made t o reduce the negative effects racism has on marginalized individuals. The ch allenge to dominant ideologies: The second tenet of CRT p.460). This tenet dictates that in order to address racial injustice there must be a direct challenge

PAGE 33

33 to the dominant ideas of neutrality, colorblindness, meritocracy, and objectivity in society. Often, reject the idea that racism exists, which greatly adds to c hallenge of reduces the negative effects caused by racist acts. If one does not belief the phenomenon exist, they will have no interest and take no action in addressing the problems caused by its existence. The centrality of experiential knowledge : The th ird tenet of the critical race theory (CRT) addresses the belief and notion that race is socially constructed by members of the majority (Whites or Caucasians) ( Louis et al., 2016). This tene t supports the idea that the stories and experiences of marginal ized and oppressed people are legitimate, appropriate and highly important to the research process and goal of eliminating racial injustices. Commitment to social justice : This tenet address that idea that there should be a commitment to reducing the issu es faced by the marginalized and to reduce or eliminate all forms of subordination. Transdisciplinary or Intersectionality of disciplines approach : This particular tenet emphasizes that the elimination and reduction of racial injustices requires a collect ion of different disciplines, academic areas, and knowledge expertise. Racism and discrimination are both complex constructs, which makes understanding their many facets vital to reducin g their prevalence and impact. The critical race theory has four dist inguishing characteristics when applied in the context of public health. In order to conceptualize how the Public Health Critical Race Praxis was developed, we must first begin with understanding the Critical Race Theory fro m the public health perspective The first characteristic of CRT is racialization. Examples constructs of racialization are racial phenomena, race, ethnicity, and racism, which are all at the core of the theory. The term racialization describes the way in which racial groups in the Unite d States are

PAGE 34

34 socially constructed with the goal to place an order of importance or ranking on the various es racialization have within the belonging to a racial or ethnic minority group in a predominately white organization contribute l microaggressions? The second distinguishing characteristic of the Critical Race Theory is race et al., 2010, p.1391). The goal of race consciousness is to differentiate between racial and non racial factors that contribute to health inequities and inequalities among ethnic minorities. Examples of non racial factors would include socio economic stat us, education, and geographic location. Examples of racial factors would include discrimination and social oppression. Although the goal of race consciousness is to distinguish between the racial and non racial factors, some of the non racial factors have a confounding relationship with the racial factors. For example, a non racial factor existence of racial factors in their life, such as access and availability, which in turn will influence social economic status, and possibly geographic location. It is important to consider the interplay between all factors observed. Considering the current study, the researcher is not only accounting for the racial group in which the participants belong, but also non racial factors such as education. The third distinguishing characteristic of the Critical Race Theory is social location.

PAGE 35

35 pr ivileged vs. marginalized, minority vs majority) and informs the perspectives from which one differing groups of people and the role this positon or location in the contextual societal hierarchy impacts the experience of racial injustices and health inequities. Social location is a current study, how does the social pos iton of the participants (e.g. faculty, staff, or administrator) contribute to their experiences of racial microaggressions in the context of higher education. the m controlled by the majority, not the minority. The marginalized are rarely considered, and because hat they might communicate the action of storytelling becomes essential and necessary. The storytelling of the experience of marginalized people is important i n understanding the social phenomenon of racism and discrimination. Storytelling is also an important element to vocabulary and term development. When little is known about a group of people, there must be a sense of humility present when seeking to unders tand and know more about their culture and life experiences. The enhancement of vocabulary is highly important when there are areas where very little or no information is known as it relates to the experience of the marginalized. According to the authors a nd supports experiences with oppression and encouraged to engage in expressive activities like story telling 2016, p.460). This aspect of CRT emphasizes the perspectives of groups that are marginalized. By taking the intentional action to

PAGE 36

36 enriched among the mainstream perspective (Schulz & Mullings, 2006). When considering the context of the current study, the ideas of social location, social the goals and objectives of th is study. Social location is being observed through the selection of storytelling components are addressed through the survey being self report, rather than merel y observation from the perspective of an outsider of the community or population. The fourth and final distinguishing characteristic of the Critical Race Theory is the challenge to not only understand the racial discrimination and inequities, but to reduc e and eventually eliminate them from society (Ford et al., 2010). The idea is to focus on the findings to help inform the development of strategies and programs to address racial and ethnic inequities. collection of activists and scholars interested Stefancic, 2001, p. 3). Often times, these scholars are considered outsiders within their own area or field of study. Th e unique aspect of these scholars are that they have the ability to integrate from critical personal analyses, experiential knowledge and scholarship on margin (Ford et al., 2010, p.1391). According to Du Bois (1903), this integration of knowledge, creates a ideas and perspectives when examining issues related to racial inequities and injustice. The critical race theory has been applied to issues of social injustices and racial inequities

PAGE 37

37 recent uses of t he critical race theory include the examination of racial climate on college campuses and in workplace settings (Brown, 2003). The number of studies examining the effects of racism and discrimination on the health of racial and ethnic minorities and individuals are c ontinuing to increase. Because of the growing interest in the relationship between racism and negative health outcomes, the need for a theoretical framework that specifically address the complexities of both ideas, racism and health, developed. The Critic al Race Theory (CRT) is the most commonly used theory in racial scholarship since the 1980s (Ford & Airhihenbuwa, 2010). Although the theory has high utility, it has gained much criticism in the field of Public Health due to its jurisprudential origins. Th e Public Health Critical Race praxis was developed to specifically to improve the simplicity and fidelity with which health equity research applies CRT (Ford et al., 2010). The Public Health Critical Race mena, illuminates disciplinary conventions that may inadvertently reinforce social hierarchies, and offers tools for racial equity approaches Upon reviewing the five major tenets and the characteristi cs of CRT, one can understand the applicability it has to the study of racial microaggressions and minority health. Although, scholars have heavily relied on the CRT framework to address racial health disparities, there are several common criticisms of the studies (Ford et al, 2010). The critical race theory, similar to the other critical theories, have gained the label of eory does not leave a lot of hope for improvement or reform with its constant focus on new discoveries and unveiling

PAGE 38

38 constant emphasis on identifying racist injury is a distraction from other important factors that have stronger evidence and literary support, for example, socio economic status (Bell, 1995). Another major criticism of the theory is its complex methodological approach. Although the critical theory has been used by various fields of study, including, sociology, law, education, feminism, and history, its application is remains a continuous challenge. Attempting to operationalize the tenets of and important aspects of the theory can become tedious and tim e consuming. Due to its diverse use, there has yet to be a suggested and supported paradigm to operationalize the theory. The final major critique of the theory is its jurisprudence origin. The critical race theory was developed out law and legal studies. From a public health perspective, the jurisprudence origin and the methodological complexities strongly contrast with public 2010). Considering the aforementio ned criticisms, Ford (2010) developed a new framework that draws from critical race theory, but addresses the limitations found in operationalizing and suite d for studying racial equity, and also employs the appropriated methodological rigor. This newly developed framework is known as the Public Health Critical Race Praxis. The Public Health Critical Race Praxis has the following four focuses: Contemporary ra cial relations : Contemporary racial relations acknowledge that racism is a permanent part of society, but the way it manifests and is observed changes over time. This focus also addresses the idea of overt and covert racism. Pulling from the understanding that racism is demonstrated both, consciously and subconsciously. Different strategies and

PAGE 39

39 interventions are needed for each type with consideration of their respective environments and social settings. Knowledge production : The information we gather shou ld inform and educate the greater community about the relative issues of racial health inequities Conceptualization and measurement : Conceptualizations argues that racism is different depending on the population, place, time, and context. Understanding th e complexities of race begins with understanding each component of its concept, following by designing the appropriate instrument to measure the variables. Measurement should be context specific. Concepts should be context specific Action : The action focu s, employs the idea of everything coming full circle. This is seen when new knowledge and discoveries are found and considered when designing effective interventions. Another evidence of action is when the storytelling of marginalized people become truth t o the scientific inquiry. Finally, there is evidence of action when efforts are being made to directly target and eliminate racial health injustices. To conclude, the critical race theory alone, may not be the most appropriate theory for studying the rela tionship racial microaggressions and health, but the Public Health Critical Race Praxis lends itself to be highly appropriate, significantly applicable and practically feasible (Ford, 2010). Racism and Health Research has continued to expand examining the role of racism and discrimination in the overall quality of life of Black Americans (Torres et al., 2010). Black Americans have the most, if not the largest differences in health risks compared to other racial and ethnic counterparts (Jackson & Sears, 1992 ). Perceived discrimination has been associated continually with poor psychological outcomes (Clark, Anderson, & Williams, 1999) and has been shown to be major

PAGE 40

40 contributor to the health disparities, both mental and physical seen among racial and ethnic min orities living in the U.S (Williams & Mohammed, 2009). Black Americans experience a greater rate of chronic disease, disability, and premature/early death compared to White Americans (USHHS, 2012). According to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention the top three leading causes of death for Black Americans are heart disease, cancer, and stroke (2016). Each of the aforementioned conditions are stress related and occur more frequently among Black Americans than among European Americans (Jackson & Sear s, 1992). Racism and Mental Health The relationship between perceived racism/discrimination and negative mental health outcomes among Black Americans have been well documented (Carter, 2007; Clark et al., 1999; Williams, Neighbors, & Jackson, 2003). Find ings suggest that, for Black Americans, the negative impact of racism and discrimination is even greater and more pronounced for an individual than that of life stress (Utsey, Giesbrecht, Hook, & Stanard, 2008). In a study examining the racial microaggre ssions and psychological functioning among highly achieving African Americans, Torres, Driscoll, and Burrow (2010) identified the most common racial microaggression experiences reported by their sample of 97 African American participants. Assumption of Cri minality/Second Class Citizen, Underestimation of Personal Ability, and Cultural/Racial Isolation were found to have the strongest frequencies in occurrence. Further analyses revealed that Underestimation of Personal Abilities was most strongly associated with greater perceived stress and depression after a one year follow up (Torres et al., 2010). Racial Microaggressions in Academia Racial microaggressions are commonplace at the collegiate and university level. This issue is salient to Black faculty and s taff and their experiences and existence in academia (Louis,

PAGE 41

41 Rawls, Jackson Smith, Chambers, Phillips, & Louis, 2016). Research has consistently shown the the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2014), 6% of full time instructional faculty members were Black compared with 79% of full ease in Black faculty within postsecondary institutions, the progression toward more diversity in the academy is extremely slow. In 1981, Blacks represented 4.2% of U.S. faculty (Journal of Blacks in Higher Education Foundation, 2008). Considering that the re has only been a 1.8% increase in Black faculty, the underrepresentation of Black Americans in the academy is a historical social trend. education, especially PWIs, as those who hold positons ae subjected to patterns of systematic of underrepresentation and low ac ademic status among Black faculty members of the U.S. Hammarth, 2000, p.122). In 2000, status. The findings d emonstrated that Black faculty members face a great number of challenges as it relates to success, promotion, and retention. Expounding from the findings, the authors archy, to work at prestigious institutions, and to have a higher salary compared with White faculty Black faculty members are given additional task and duties wit hin higher education due to their racial background; however, these same expectations are not place on White faculty members

PAGE 42

42 (Louis et al., 2008). Although these additional responsibilities are expected by administrators, they are not valued to the degree as academic scholarship and productivity (Constantine, Smith, Redington, & Owens, 2008). Consequently, many Black faculty members are spread too thin and cannot commit the time and effort needed to produced scholarly works. This, in turn, places the Black faculty member in an unappealing position for the tenure and promotion process as colleges and universities emphasize research and publications (Allen et al., 2000; Constantine et al., 2008). Overall, these factors act as negative and detrimental barriers to the success and retention of Black faculty members (Louis et al., 2016). When examining the experiences of racial microaggressions, specifically, Black faculty members are at risk for interpersonal racial oppression within the higher education environ ment experienced by Black faculty members; however, literature has demonstrated there is still a need to examine these experiences and the negative impact they have on (Louis et al., 2016, p.457). In 2008, Constantine and colleagues were the first to explore the effect of racial microaggressions in the lives of Black faculty members within higher education. esearch examined perceived experiences of racial microaggressions among tenure track or tenured Black faculty members in a counseling and psychology program (Louis et al., 2016). The authors noted that in the higher education setting, racial microaggressio ns formed from White administrators, faculty, staff, and students who do 2008, p.349). As a result, the White individual or perpetrator is not aware of the detrimental impact that racial microaggressions have on Black faculty members (Louis et al., 2016).

PAGE 43

43 racial microaggressions on Black faculty members identified seven di stinct themes that were following themes: 1) alternating feelings of invisibility or marginalization and hypervisibility; 2) qualifications or credentials questioned o r challenged by other faculty colleagues, staff members, or students; 3) receiving inadequate mentoring in the workplace; 4) organizational expectations to serve in service oriented roles with low perceived value by administrators or other faculty colleagu es; 5) difficulties determining whether subtle discrimination was race or gender based; 6) self consciousness regarding choice of closing, hairstyle, or manner of speech; and 7) coping strategies to address racial microaggressions (Louis et al., 2016). In general, Black members of faculty expressed feelings of invisibility and marginalization due to their presence and contributions being often ignored by their White colleagues and counterparts. The Black faculty members reported that they are only felt imp ortant when there was a need for their unique expertise within a specific area or topic. Some assist with recruiting students of color (Constantine et al., 2008, p.351). Several additional questioned or challenged by White faculty members and students (Cartwright et al., 2009; Flowers, Wilson, Gonzalez, & Banks, 2008; Hendrix, 1995; Lewis Giggetts, 2015; Pittman, 2010, 2012). In 2009, Cartwright, Washington, and McConnell expounded upon Constantine and experiences among Black faculty members in a C ouncil on Rehabilitation Education (CORE)

PAGE 44

44 self consciousness reg was not identified among the sample of participants (Cartwright et al., 2009). The authors did identify the additional theme of s in the study reported that they have experienced differential treatment when comparing their experiences with their White colleagues. One of the main differences in treatment experienced by Black faculty members was having to meet different or higher sta ndards or sets of rules that were not formally written or documented (Cartwright et al., 2009). In 2010, Pittman studied the experiences of faculty women of color. The results of the study showed that White, male students were more likely to challenge fac also revealed that it was difficult for the faculty women of color to distinguish whether the discrimination against them was gender based or race related, or both (Pittman, 2010). Many Black faculty members have reported being overly conscious about their appearance, language, and demeanor (Louis et al., 2016). The way in which he or she projects herself in an academic environment has bee n one of the focuses of Black faculty members. Black male faculty members have reported that they do not want to come off as intimidating and the pes by exhibiting a softer, and in some cases, more passive demeanor (Constantine et al., 2008). Critiques o f Racial Microaggression Studies As the study of racial microaggressions and their inherent negative effects on people of color increased, some a uthors began to question whether the research is valid, existent, or at very

PAGE 45

45 least, worth studying (Nadal et al., 2014). Thomas (2008) mentioned that the concept of discr imination does not truly exist. He also expressed the notion that authors and clinicians should not be fixated on the concept of race. Harris (2008) focused developing alternative hypotheses to explain or justify the experiences of microaggressions by peop le of color (e.g., Arguments such as these revealed the nature of many of the dile mmas that counselors and be reality may be negated, or in direct contrast to, what is considered a reality for a White ing the contract in ideas, perception, and reality, some individuals may believe that microaggressions are harmless, which will lead to their lack of recognition of the importance of educating and informing others about racial microaggressions, and prevent ing such discriminatory behavior toward people of color. Thus, empirical support and mental, emotional, and social health is necessary for White individuals to ful ly understand the people of color during every day interactions and exchanges of communication.

PAGE 46

46 CHAPTER 3 METHODS R esearch Design The researcher conducted an observational, non experimental study to answer the specific research questions of the study. An observational design was selected for several reasons. First, it provides an opportunity to observe an event or occurrence in its natural setting, with no manipulation of the independent variable. Secondly, observational studies are explorative in natur e, suggesting that they not attempt to explain a cause and effect relationship between variables, but rather to explore and test developed hypotheses related to particular phenomenon. Finally, observational studies allow for researchers to answer multiple research questions within the context on one study. Research Questions 1. What is the preva lence of racial microaggression, microinvalidation, and microinsult experiences among Black faculty, staff, and administrators employed at a predominately white organ ization? 2. What are the differ ences in overall racial microaggression experiences by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of education attainment among Black faculty, staff, and administrators employed at a predom inately white orga nization? 3. What are the differen ces in racial microinvalidation experiences by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of education attainment among Black faculty, staff, and administrat ors employed at a predominately white organizat ion? 4. What are the di fferences in racial microinsult experiences by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of education attainment among Black faculty, staff, and administrat ors employed at a predominately white organization? 5. What are the differences in Foreigner/Not Belonging scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment? 6. What are the differences in Sexualization scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment? 7. What are the differences in Criminality scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment?

PAGE 47

47 8. What are the differences in Low Achieving/Undesirable background scores by gende r, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment? 9. What are the differences in Invisibility scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment? 10. What are the differences in Environmental scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment? Participants The sample used for this study consists of faculty, staff, and administrators who self identify as a Black American, employed at a predominately white academic organization in the southeastern area of the United States. Participants were recruited from a varieties of organizations, email list serves, and databases that are specific modes of communication for Black individuals in th e academic environment, e.g. The Black Faculty Association. Black faculty, staff, and administrators employed at predominately white organizations were chosen as the target population of this study due to their unique social position in society. As educati on, and advancements in employment increases, the likelihood of Black individuals being the minority of their given academic and professional environment increases. Black faculty, staff, and administrators are often one of few, if not the only member of th eir racial or ethnic group within their respective academic and professional settings. Due to this inherent isolation within their daily environments, this subpopulation of Black Americans are more likely to experience racial microaggressions. Black facult y members and administrators are required to have at least a graduate or professional academic degree. Considering the advancements in education obtained by this subpopulation of Black Americans, they are more likely to hold the level of intellect and matu rity necessary to effectively evaluate their daily experiences with racial microaggressions as compared to a sample of Black Americans recruited from the greater U.S. workforce.

PAGE 48

48 Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria : To meet the criteria for participation in the s tudy, participants were required to be of African descent and currently employed at the predominately white organization as a member of faculty, staff, or administration. Acknowledging the fact that there are many different ethnicities and nationalities (e .g. Caribbean American) that may be categorized as Black or African American, it is important to consider the differences in experiences among these sub groups of Black Americans. Instrumentation The Racial Microaggression Scale (RMAS) was the main measur ement instrument used in this study The Racial Microaggression Scale is a self reporting scale developed by Torres and Ha rding et al., 2012). The RMAS measures both the occurrence and frequency (i.e., how often a person experiences racial microaggressions) and the feel stressed or upset) (Torres Harding et al., 2012, p.155). At this present time, no studies are published that have used both components of the scale, the measure of occurrence and the measure of distress caused by the racial microaggression experience. Measuring the distress produced by seemingly subtle or innocuous microaggressions experiences is important in order for researchers and health professionals to ultimately determine the true degree of harm elicited by these occurrences (Torres Harding & Turner, 2015). T he utilization of these distress scale would enable health professionals to measure the perceived stressfulness of the microaggression incident and more thoroughly understand the impact of these events on their patients and clients. Measures The Racial M icroaggression Scale measures specific themes within the larger categories of microinsults and microinvalidations, which are the underlying basis for the content within the

PAGE 49

49 questionnaire items (Sue, et al., 2007). The the items in the questionnaire were de veloped to closely match the themes and categories described in the literature exploring racial microaggressions among people of color. After the development of survey items, members of the research team reviewed each item for readability and comprehension Additionally, specific statements, thoughts, descriptions, and phrasing expressed or quoted by participants in previous qualitative studies were used to inform item development (Torres Harding et al., 2012). Alien in Own L and The first four items asses sed the theme alien in own land (Sue et al., 2007) and being treated as if one does not truly belong in a particular environment or social setting (Rivera et al., 2010; Solorzano et al., 2000; Sue et al., 2008; Yosso et al., 2009). Items included content r elated American, or is made to feel as though he or she does not fully belong or an outsider (Torres Harding et al., 2012). Ascription of I ntelligence There are five items in the survey that were created to assess the theme ascription of intelligence (Rivera et al., 2010; Solorzano et al., 200: Sue et al., 2008; Sue et al., 2007; Yosso et of being treated as intellectually inferior, as if low intellectual abilities are expectations of others, and the reoccurring assumption that the person of color is either intellectually gifted or intellectually deficient. Colorblindness & D enial o f I ndi vidual R acism Four items in the survey were colorblindness and denial or individual racism (Constantine, 2007; Constantine & Sue, 2007; Sue et al., 2007). Both themes involve the minimization, invalidati on of racial or cultural issues, and

PAGE 50

50 that others were minimizing, ignoring, or downplaying the importance of racial issues and that persons of color were being v Harding et al., 2012, p. 155). Criminality/ A ssumptions of C riminal S tatus Five items assessed experiences with the assumption of criminality or criminal status (Constantine & Sue, 2007; Sue, 2007). The theme of criminality/assumption of criminal status Harding et al., 2012, p.155). These assumptions are purely b ased on their personal beliefs and attitudes toward people of color. Invalidation of I nterethnic D ifferences There are six items within the survey that were developed to assess invalidation of interethnic differences (Sue et al., 2008). These items measu with being treated interchangeably with others of the same race, with the assumption that everyone who share the same background have the same thoughts, ideas, and values (Torres Harding et al., 2012). Exoticized The next category of items were developed to assess the theme of exoticized. Exoticized background (Sue, Bucceri, et l., 2007). This particular theme has been noted by Sue, Bucceri, and colleagues (2007) as being highly reported by Asian American women. Although most commonly seen among the previously mentioned minority population of women, items were still developed for this theme because sexual stereotyping has relevance w ithin other ethnic groups, sexualized and

PAGE 51

51 exoticized Black male in racial history that symbolizes a strong, powerful sexual beast, who can offer a woman the best pleasure attainable. Th ree items assessed being treated in an overly Harding et al., 2012). Myth of M eritocracy Five items were developed to assess the theme of myth of meritocracy (Sue, Capodilupo, et al., 2007), which includes being others as atypical or exceptional (Constantine & Sue, 2007); Solorzano et al., 2000). These five bl Harding et al., 2012). academic attainment and success stemmed from a lack of effort, focu s, or abilities, while also accrediting their achievement to unfair benefits or special treatment (Torres Harding et al., 2012). Pathologizing C ultural V alues & C ommunication S tyles The next seven items on the survey instrument measured pathologizing cult ural values and communication styles (Rivera et al., 2010; Sue et al., 2008; Sue, Capodilupo, et al., 2007). Harding et al., 2007, p. 155). Second C lass citizen Three items in the survey are developed to assess the theme of second class citizenship (Sue, Capodilupo, et al., 2007). This theme encompasses the experience of being treated as a

PAGE 52

52 White persons receive preferential Harding et al., 2012, p. 155). Environmental I nvalidations There are five items on the survey that are developed to assess the theme environmental invalidations (Sue et al., 2008; Sue, Capodilupo, et al., 2007; Yosso et al., 2009). Environmental settings, being in contexts Harding et al., 2012, p.155). Invisibility Finally, the last set of five i tems are developed to assess the theme of invisibility. The theme of invisibility was derived from Franklin and Boyd Harding et al., 2012). Scoring For each item, participants were asked to indicate how often they had encountered or experienced a particular racial microaggression on a 4 point Likert type scale (0= never, 1= a little/rarely, 2= sometimes/a moderate amount, 3= often/frequently). Once a participant positively endorsed the item (indicating that the racial microaggression in fact happened, i.e., 1 or greater on the occurrence item), they then indicate d how stressful, upsetting, or bothersome the experiences was for them (0= not at all, 1= a little, 2= moderate level, 3= high level).

PAGE 53

53 Demographics Demographic information such as age, nationality, g ender, position in the organizational hierarchy, and professional area or discipline was collected within the survey instrument The collection of these particula r characteristics of the sample assisted in exploring and identifying the factors that were a ssociated with the experiences of racial microaggressions for our target population of Black Americans. Identifying and quantifying specific environmental and social risk factors that increase the likelihood of a microaggression encounters for people of co lor allows for strategic and informed planning of interventions and programs designed to address and reduce these experiences. Procedures An implied consent procedure was used to preserve anonymity of the study responses. Data were collected both in pers on, using paper and pencil questionnaires, and through an online survey. Participants were recruited by visiting Black faculty organizational meetings, through email listservs and by disseminating links to the survey to organizations that directly serve f aculty of color. Participants were awarded a $5 gift card for their participation in the study. The study was reviewed and approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board to ensure that all ethical standards were fully met in the conduct of the study. Data Analyses Descriptive statistics were used to investigate the prevalence of racial microaggressions among Black members of faculty, staff, and administration. The two specific types of racial microaggressions, e.g. microinvalidations an d microinsults, and the degree to which they were experienced by our target population w e re determined by an evaluation and analysis of the descriptive statistics of the sample data.

PAGE 54

54 As an initial inspection of the data, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was c arried out to determine if there were any overall differences in racial microaggressions experiences among each of the demographic variables. The results of the ANOVA informed the selection of reference groups for the multiple regression analysis. The grou ps with the greatest extreme from the mean within each category, rather small or large, were selected as the reference group for the organizational position and academic/professional area demographic variables. Multiple regression was used to compare micro aggression experiences across different groups of demographic characteristics in a comprehensive manner, where each of the RMA subscale scores were used as the outcome and all of the demographic variables were included simultaneously as predictors so that differences by each category of characteristics could be examined while controlling for the influence of the other variables. Multiple regression analysis indicated any group mean differences in racial microaggression scores for each of the following cont inuous outcome variables: total racial microaggression frequency score, racial microinvalidation score, racial microinsult score, Foreigner/Not belonging subscore, Sexualization subscore, Criminality subscore, Invisibility subscore, Low Achieving/Undesirab le race subscore, and the Environmental subscore. For the categorical predictors, such as academic/profess ional area and position, dummy variables were created to compare the reference group to each of the other groups in these two demographic variables For academic/professional area, th ere were 8 different categories therefore 7 dummy variables were created to compare group means. Among the 8 categories, Business area was selected as the reference group as they showed the lowest levels of racial microag gression experiences. For the organizational positon variable, there were 4 different categories, therefore 3 dummy variables were created to compare group means across the

PAGE 55

55 categories within the variable. Faculty was chosen as the reference group as they s howed higher levels of racial microaggression experiences. Results from both analyses are presented in Chapter 4. Conclusion The administration of this investigation helped to improve the understanding of the racial microaggressions experiences of Black faculty, staff, and administrators employed at predominately white organizatio ns. Information from this study can be used for several purposes. First, the information gathered in this study could support employee relations at is relates to diversity and cr oss cultural communication among colleagues, while in turn, reducing the negative mental, physical, and emotional health outcomes associated with racial microaggression experiences. Secondly, this study provides an epidemiological framework to understand t he determinants and distribution of racial microaggression experiences among individuals in the sample, which can be generalized to greater campus and working environments. Thirdly, this study demonstrates the need for more evidence based interventions, pr ograms, and strategies to address this ever evolving issue of social injustice and discrimination among racial and ethnic minorities in the United States/ Chapter Summary This chapter served as an introduction to the concepts being studied, e.g. themes o f racial microaggressions. The research designed has been explained along with ethical considerations and potential limitations of the study. The need to explore the relationships between the concepts is highly important to the fields of higher education, psychology, and public health/health education. Currently there is very little in public health and health education literature that examines the negative health effects of racial microaggressions on Black Americans.

PAGE 56

56 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This study measur ed and analyzed the prevalence and frequency of racial microaggression experiences among Black faculty, staff, and administrators employed at a predominately white organization. The results based on the d ata collected during the study are presented in thi s chapter. The following sections presented the level to which the study population experiences racial microaggressions, the characteristics of the microaggressions experienced, and the differences in these experiences as it relates to demographic factors. The current study addressed t he following research questions: 1. What is the preva lence of racial microaggression, microinvalidation, and microinsult experiences among Black faculty, staff, and administrators employed at a predominately white organization? 2. What are the differ ences in overall racial microaggression experiences by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of education attainment among Black faculty, staff, and administrators employed at a predom inately white organization? 3. What are the differen ces in racial microinvalidation experiences by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of education attainment among Black faculty, staff, and administrat ors employed at a predominately white organization? 4. What are the di fferences in racial microinsult experiences by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of education attainment among Black faculty, staff, and administrat ors employed at a predominately white organization? 5. What are the di fferences in Foreigner/Not Belonging scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment? 6. What are the differences in Sexualization scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment? 7. What are the differences in Criminality scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment? 8. What are the differences in Low Achieving/Undesirable background scores by gender, positio n in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment? 9. What are the differences in Invisibility scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment?

PAGE 57

57 10. What are the differences in Environmen tal scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment? Participant Demographics Participants were recruited in person, or through an online listserv of Black faculty, staff, and administrators employed at p redominately white large, southern university. To participate in the study, participants had to self identify as Black and currently hold a faculty, staff, or administrative position at the institution. Both online and in person participants were given the IRB approved informed consent to review and keep, if desired. The final sample included a total of 240 participants. The sample characteristi cs were presented in Table 4 1 There were 180 female participants (75%), and 60 male participants (25%). Participan ts ranged in age from 21 to 72 ( M = 42.37, SD = 12.181). In all, 208 participants were born in the United States (86.7%), followed by 11 Jamaican natives (4.6%), 5 participants originally from Haiti (2.1%), and the remaining participants were from various c ountries in the Caribbean, Africa, and Europe. (21.7%), 31 participants held an as sociate degree (12.9%), 28 participants reporting their highest level of education as high school (11.7%), and 10 participants reported having earned a trade or vocational certificate or degree. In reference to academic area or discipline, 40 participants were in Medicine/Healthcare (16.7%), followed by 39 participants in Social Sciences (16.3%), 32 participants worked in the area of Liberal Arts (13.3%), 30 participants were in the STEM fields (12.5%), 25 participants worked in the area of Business Adminis tration (10.4%), 24 participants worked in non academic areas such as, Nursing or higher administration, 15 participants were in Humanities and Law (6.3%), and 12 participants were in the field of Education (5.0%).

PAGE 58

58 Of the participants, 109 participants se lf identified administrative staff (45.4%), followed by 44 faculty members (18.3%), 38 members of support staff (15.8%), 25 participants self (3.8%). These partic ipants carried roles as physicians, nurses, and academic advisors, for example. Table 4 1. Sample Demographic Characteristics Characteristic N % Gender Female 180 75 Male 60 25 Age 21 29 45 18.7 30 39 58 24.1 40 49 52 21.6 50 51 61 25.4 60 and above 19 7.9 Nationality United States of America 208 86.7 Jamaica 11 4.6 Haiti 5 2.1 Other Country of Origin 13 5.4 Education High School Diploma 28 11.7 Associate Degree 31 12.9 61 25.4 M 52 21.7 Terminal Degree (PhD, JD, MD etc.) 55 22.9 Trade/Vocational Degree 10 4.1 Position Administrative staff 109 45.4 Faculty members 44 18.3 Support staff 38 15.8 Senior staff 25 10.4 Other 9 3.8

PAGE 59

59 Table 4 1. Cont inued. Characteristic N % Academic or Professional Area Medicine/Healthcare 40 16.7 Social Sciences 39 16.3 Liberal Arts 32 13.3 STEM 30 12.5 Business 25 10.4 Non Academic areas 24 10 Humanities and Law 15 6.3 Education 12 5 RQ 1: What is the prevalence of racial microaggression, microinvalidation, and microinsult experiences among Black faculty, staff, and administrators employed at a predominately white organization? Overall Racial Microaggressions In order to measure the overall prevalence/frequency of racial microaggression experiences among the sample of participants, the researcher first created a racial microaggression total frequency sum score for all participants. This score was a sum of the Likert style items within the questionnaire (see Appendix). The total frequency racial microaggression sum scores could possibly range from 0 to 96. Zero representing no experiences with racial microaggressions and 96 representing the maximum degree of racial microaggressio n experiences. The mean for the total frequency sum score for participants was 44.12 (SD= 18.392). The maximum total frequency sum score was 89, while the minimum score was 7. Overall, there was a good range of scores, which suggests that there are normall y distributed outcomes.

PAGE 60

60 Racial Microinvalidation Experiences In order to measure the prevalence/frequency of racial microinvalidation experiences among the sample of participants, the racial microinvalidation score was created. The racial microinvalidati on score was a sum of the items that are within the three subscales (themes) that are categorized as racial microinvalidations in the literature. These three distinct racial microinvalidation themes were Invisibility, Environmental, and Foreigner/Not Belon ging. A total microinvalidation scores could possibly range from 0 to 48. Zero representing no experiences with racial microinvalidations and 48 representing the maxi mum level of racial microinvalidation experiences. The overall mean for racial microinvalidations was 21.72 (SD=9.25). The maximum reported microinvalidation score was 44, while the minimum reported microinvalidation score was 1. Racial Microinsult Experie nces In order to measure the prevalence/frequency of racial microinsult experiences among the sample of participants, the racial microinsult score was created. The racial microinsult score was a sum of the items that are within the three subscales (themes ) that are categorized as racial microinsults in the literature. These three distinct racial microinsult themes were assumptions of Criminality, Sexualization, and Low Achieving/Undesirable Culture. A total of 16 items were summed together to create the ra possibly range from 0 to 48. Zero representing no experiences with racial microinsults and 48 representing the maximum level of racial microinsult experiences. The overall mean for the raci al microinsults was 22.40 (SD=10.48). The maximum reported microinsult score was 48, while the minimum reported microinvalidation score was 0.

PAGE 61

61 RQ 2: What are the differences in overall racial microaggression experiences by gender, position in organization professional area, and level of education attainment among Black faculty, staff, and administrators employed at a predominately white organization? In order to determine differences in group means across the four demographic variables, multiple regressio n analyses were conducted. The total frequency score was used as the outcome variable, and the four demographic variables were used as the independent or predictor variables in the model. The results were presented in Table 4 2 There were significant diff erences in mean scores among levels of educational attainment. There was a positive liner relationship between the level of educational attainment and total racial microaggression frequency scores (p=.041). In regards to academic or professional area, part icipants in Business reported significantly lower total racial microaggression frequency scores when compared to participants in Liberal Arts (p=.005) Medicine/Healthcare (p=.028) Social Sciences (p=.027) and those worki ng in Non Academic areas (p=.020) The group mean differences in overall total frequency mean scores were not significant for gender or organizational position. Table 4 2. Multiple Regression of the Total Frequency score on Gender, Educational Level, Positon & Academic Area (N=240). Vari able B SE (B) p Gender 2.92 3.08 .070 3.44 Educational Attainment 2.30 1.11 .195 .041* Faculty vs. Support Staff 8.19 5.53 .164 .141 Faculty vs. Senior Staff 7.06 5.17 .124 .174 Faculty vs. Administrative Staff .183 4.10 .005 .964 Business vs. STEM 5.45 5.21 .099 .296 Business vs. Liberal Arts 14.16 4.97 .280 .005** Business vs. Social Sciences 11.07 4.97 .232 .027* Business vs. Humanities and Law 8.60 6.32 .122 .176 Business vs. Medicine /Healthcare 10.83 4.88 .222 .028* Business vs. Non Acad emic 12.48 5.33 .219 .020* Business vs. Education 6.30 6.86 .077 .359 Note. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (two tailed) ; B and SE ( B) are unstandardized regression coefficie nt and standard error of estimat is standardized regression coefficient. RQ 3 : What are the differences in racial microinvalidation experiences by gender, position in organization, professional ar ea, and level of education attainment among Black faculty, staff, and administrators employed at a predominately white organization?

PAGE 62

62 The results from the multiple regression for microinvalidation experiences were reported in Table 4 3. There were significa nt differences in microinvalidation scores among the varying level of educational attainment and their microinvalidation score (p=.046). For academic/professi onal area, participants in Business produced significantly lower group mean scores when compared to participants in Liberal Arts (p=.018) and Social Sciences (p=.048). There were no statistically significant differences in group mean scores for microinvali dations on the independent demographic variables, gender and organizational position. When examining each of the demographic variables, separately one by one in ANOVA for the differences in microinvalidation scores, the variable, organizational position w as significant. Faculty reported significantly higher scores than both support and administrative staff on the racial microinvalidation subscale. There were also statistically significant differences in microinvalidation experiences for Business and Humani ties/Law in the results of the ANOVA analysis. However, these group differences became non significant when examining the predictors simultaneously in the multiple regression analysis. Table 4 3. Multiple Regression of the Microinvalidation scores on Gende r, Educational Level, Positon & Academic Area (N=240). Variable B SE (B) p Gender 2.39 1.52 .115 .118 Educational Attainment 1.11 .553 .190 .046* Faculty vs. Support Staff .74 2.73 .030 .787 Faculty vs. Senior Staff .55 2.55 .020 .828 Faculty vs. A dministrative Staff 2.20 2.03 .121 .279 Business vs. STEM 2.62 2.57 .096 .309 Business vs. Liberal Arts 5.87 2.46 .234 .018* Business vs. Social Sciences 4.89 2.46 .207 .048* Business vs. Humanities and Law 4.05 3.12 .116 .196 Business vs. Medicine /Healthcare 4.07 2.41 .168 .093 Business vs. Non Academic 4.76 2.63 .168 .072 Business vs. Education 2.44 3.39 .060 .473 Note. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (two tailed); B and SE ( B) are unstandardized regression coefficient and standard error of estima t

PAGE 63

63 RQ 4 : What are the differences in racial microinsult experiences by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of education attainment among Black faculty, staff, and administrators emplo yed at a predominately white organization? The results from multiple regression for microinsult experiences were presented in Table 4 4. There were statistically significant differences in group mean microinsult scores on the factor of organizational posit ion. Faculty reported significantly lower microinsult mean scores when compared to Senior Staff (p=.031) and Support Staff (p=.021). There were also significant differences in group mean scores on academic/professional area. Participants in Business report ed significantly lower racial microinsults compared to those participants in Liberal Arts (p=.004), Social Sciences (p=.033), Medicine/Healthcare (p=.017), and those working in Non Academic positons (.013). There were significant differences in group means on the factors of gender and organizational position. Table 4 4. Multiple Regression of the Microinsult score on Gender, Educational Level, Positon & Academic Area (N=240). Variable B SE (B) p Gender .527 1.78 .022 .768 Educational Attainment 1.18 .645 .174 .067 Faculty vs. Support Staff 7.45 3.19 .257 .021* Faculty vs. Senior Staff 6.50 2.98 .197 .031* Faculty vs. Administrative Staff 2.39 2.37 .122 .315 Business vs. STEM 2.82 3.00 088 .348 Business vs. Liberal Arts 8.28 2.87 .283 .004** Business vs. Social Sciences 6.18 2.87 .224 .033* Business vs. Humanities and Law 4.54 3.65 .111 .215 Business vs. Medicine /Healthcare 6.76 2.82 .239 .017* Business vs. Non Academic 7.71 3.08 233 .013* Business vs. Education 3.86 3.96 .082 .331 Note. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (two tailed); B and SE ( B) are unstandardized regression coefficie nt and standard error of estimat After examining the mean group differences of microaggression, microinvalidation, and microinsult experiences across demographic characteristics, each of the thematic subscales was examined to further understan d the dynamics of racial microaggressions. The means and standard deviations of these thematic subscales were reported in Table 4 5 for Foreigner/Not

PAGE 64

64 Belonging, Sexualization, and Criminality s cales a nd in Table 4 10 for Low achieving/Undesirable backgrou nd, Invisibility, and Environmental scales. Table 4 5. Means and standard deviations of thematic subscales of racial microaggressions Demographic Factor Foreigner/Not Belonging Mean (SD) Sexualization Mean (SD) Criminality Mean (SD) Gender Male 1 .70 (2.27) 1.93 (2.21) 5.28 (3.35) Female 1.82 (2.04) 2.04 (2.95) 4.41 (3.22) Organizational Positon Support Staff 1.76 (2.13) 2.00 (2.30) 4.95 (3.72) Senior Staff 2.24 (1.98) 3.12 (5.15) 4.80 (3.16) Faculty 2.64 (2.13) 2.09 (2.49) 4.48 (3.06 ) Administrative Staff 1.49 (1.91) 1.88 (2.45) 4.63 (3.37) Other 1.67 (1.32) 1.11 (1.36) 4.11 (2.84) Academic/Professional Area STEM 1.73 (2.06) 1.83 (2.15) 4.80 (3.52) Liberal Arts 2.69 (2.62) 2.94 (2.85) 4.69 (3.84) Social Sciences 2.10 (2 .43) 2.56 (4.43) 4.59 (2.70) Humanities and Law 1.87 (1.99) 1.67 (1.95) 4.33 (2.96) Medicine/ Healthcare 1.78 (2.20) 2.50 (2.54) 4.80 (2.90) Business 1.04 (1.24) .92 (1.70) 3.48 (2.72) Education 1.92 (2.19) 1.83 (2.29) 4.67 (3.49) Non Academic 1.13 (1.42) 5.38 (4.10) Education High School 1.54 (1.97) 1.18 (2.00) 4.04 (3.31) Associate Degree 1.42 (2.04) 1.23 (1.99) 5.03 (4.01) Trade/Vocational Degree 2.10 (2.13) 2.10 (1.52) 3.60 (3.02) Degree 1.48 (2.11) 1.92 (2.67) 4.75 (3.58) 1.77 (1.71) 2.92 (3.90) 4.71 (2.93) Terminal Degree 2.40 (2.46) 1.93 (2.18) 4.64 (2.81) RQ 5 : What are the differences in Foreigner/Not Belonging subscores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of e ducation attainment among Black faculty, staff, and administrators employed at a predominately white organization? In order to determine group mean differences in Foreigner/Not Belonging subscores for each of the four independent demographic factors, a mu ltiple regression analysis was conducted.

PAGE 65

65 variable, and each of the demographic factors were used as indepe ndent or predictor variables. The results of the multiple reg ression analysis were presented in Table 4 6. There were significantly group mean differences were found among the academic/professional area variable. Participants in Business had a significantly lower group mean compared to participants in STEM (p=.008). There were no statistically significant differences in group mean scores for microinsults on the independent variables, gender, level of educational attainment, and organizational position, according to the results of the multiple regression analysis. W hen each demographic variable was examined one by one in ANOVA there were significant differences in group means among the various levels of educational attainment. Those participants with terminal degrees had significantly higher group means scores on th e Foreigner/Not Belonging scale when compared to participants with associate degrees (p=.039) (p=.019). Table 4 6. Multiple Regression of the Foreigner/Not Be longing subscale on Gender, Educational Level, Positon & Academic Area (N=240). Variable B SE (B) p Gender .298 .365 .060 .416 Educational Attainment .059 .132 .042 .655 Faculty vs. Support Staff .532 .655 .090 .418 Faculty vs. Senior Staff .058 .612 .009 .925 Faculty vs. Administrative Staff .842 .486 .194 .085 Business vs. STEM .785 .6 17 .120 .205 Business vs. Liberal Arts 1.58 .589 .265 .008* Business vs. Social Sciences .960 .589 .170 .105 Business vs. Humanities and Law .393 .749 .047 .600 Business vs. Medicine /Healthcare .847 .578 .147 .144 Business vs. Non Academic .308 .631 .046 .626 Business vs. Education .327 .812 .034 .688 Note. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (two tailed); B and SE ( B) are unstandardized regression coefficie nt and standard error of estimat RQ 6 : What are the differences in Sexualization subscores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of education attainment among Black faculty, staff, and administrators employed at a p redominately white organization?

PAGE 66

66 The results of multiple regression for Sexualization subscores were presented in Table 4 7. There were significant group mean differences in Sexualization scores found among varying levels of educational attainment. There w level of educational attainment and their Sexualization subscore (p=.020). In respect to organizational positon, Faculty reported significantly lower Sexualization group mean scores when compared to Support Staff (p=.029) and Senior Staff (p=.006). Participants in Business reported significantly lower Sexualization scores when compared to participants in Liberal Arts (p=.003), Social Sciences (p=.010), and Medicine/Healthcare (p=.012). There were no s tatistically significant differences in group mean scores for Sexualization on the demographic factor of gender. Table 4 7. Multiple Regression of the Sexualization subscale on Gender, Educational Level, Positon & Academic Area (N=240). Variable B SE (B) p Gender .160 .476 .024 .737 Educational Attainment .406 .172 .219 .020* Faculty vs. Support Staff 1.88 .854 .240 .029* Faculty vs. Senior Staff 2.21 .798 .247 .006* Faculty vs. Administrative Staff .881 .634 .152 .166 Business vs. STEM .798 .804 .092 .322 Business vs. Liberal Arts 2.28 .768 .288 .003** Business vs. Social Sciences 2.00 .768 .267 .010* Business vs. Humanities and Law .824 .976 .075 .399 Business vs. Medicine /Healthcare 1.91 .754 .250 .012* Business vs. Non Academic .893 .823 .100 .279 Business vs. Education .229 1.05 .018 .829 Note. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (two tailed); B and SE ( B) are unstandardized regression coefficient and standard RQ 7 : What are the differences in Criminality subscores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of education attainment among Black faculty, staff, and administrators employed at a predominately white organization? In order to determine group mean differences in Criminality subscores for each of the four in Criminality subscore was used as the dependent or outcome variable, and each of the

PAGE 67

67 demographic factors were used as independent or predictor variables. There we re no statistically significant group mean differences among the four independent variables of gender, level of educational attainment, organizational positon, and professional/academic area. Table 4 8. Multiple Regression of the Criminality subscale on G ender, Educational Level, Positon & Academic Area (N=240). Variable B SE (B) p Gender 1.042 .563 .139 .066 Educational Attainment .011 .204 .005 .956 Faculty vs. Support Staff 1.06 1.01 .120 .291 Faculty vs. Senior Staff .622 .944 .061 .511 Faculty vs. Administrative Staff .383 .750 .058 .610 Business vs. STEM 1.08 .951 .111 .254 Business vs. Liberal Arts 1.28 .908 .143 .158 Business vs. Social Sciences 1.28 .908 .151 .158 Business vs. Humanities and Law 1.03 1.15 .082 .372 Business vs. Medicine /Healthcare 1.31 .891 .151 .143 Business vs. Non Academic 1.92 .973 .189 .050 Business vs. Education 1.48 1.25 .102 .236 Note. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (two tailed); B and SE ( B) are unstandardized regression coefficient and standard R Q 8 : What are the differences in Low Achieving/Undesirable culture subscores by gender, position in organization professional area, and level of education attainment among Black faculty, staff, and administrators employed at a predominately white organization? The means and standard deviations for the thematic subscales of Low Achieving/ Undesirable Bac kground, Invisibility, and Environmental were reported in Table 4 10. In the multiple regression on Low Achieving/Undesirable Background subscales scores (Table 4 9), The group man differences were significant for the factors of organizational position and academic/professional area. Faculty reported a significantly lower group mean score on the Low Achieving/Undesirable culture subscale compared to Support Staff (p=.031). Participant in Business reported a significantly lower group mean score compared to t hose participants in Liberal Arts (p=.012), and those participants working in Non Academic positions.

PAGE 68

68 Table 4 9 Multiple Regression of the Low Achieving/Undesirable culture subscale on Gender, Educational Level, Positon & Academic Area (N=240). Variabl e B SE (B) p Gender 1.40 1.15 .090 .223 Educational Attainment .772 .417 .175 .066 Faculty vs. Support Staff 4.49 2.06 .241 .031* Faculty vs. Senior Staff 3.66 1.93 .172 .059 Faculty vs. Administrative Staff 1.12 1.53 .082 .463 Business vs. STEM .9 42 1.94 .046 .629 Business vs. Liberal Arts 4.71 1.85 .249 .012* Business vs. Social Sciences 2.89 1.85 .162 .121 Business vs. Humanities and Law 2.68 2.36 .102 .257 Business vs. Medicine /Healthcare 3.53 1.82 .194 .054 Business vs. Non Academic 4.90 1.99 .230 .015* Business vs. Education 2.14 2.56 .070 .403 Note. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (two tailed); B and SE ( B) are unstandardized regression coefficient and standard Table 4 10 Means and standard deviations of thematic subscales of racial micr oaggressions Demographic Factor Low Achieving/ Undesirable Background Mean (SD) Invisibility Mean (SD) Environmental Mean (SD) Gender Male 14.87 (6.95) 9.62 (6.49) 9.92 (3.50) Female 16.06 (6.71) 9.68 (6.17) 10.38 (3.26) Organizational Posit on Support Staff 16.92 (6.74) 9.39 (6.76) 9.50 (3.41) Senior Staff 17.48 (5.79) 10.12 (6.35) 10.40 (3.42) Faculty 15.39 (5.82) 11.02 (6.09) 11.39 (2.81) Administrative Staff 15.51 (7.08) 9.16 (5.96) 9.84 (3.44) Other 13.67 (9.16) 8.56 (7.38) 12.11 (1.96) Academic/Professional Area STEM 14.47 (7.45) 9.23 (6.95) 10.47 (4.10) Liberal Arts 17.41 (6.92) 10.44 (6.53) 10.16 (2.59) Social Sciences 15.28 (6.93) 10.33 (6.56) 10.90 (2.89) Humanities and Law 15.87 (5.23) 10.53 (5.66) 11.27 ( 3.24) Medicine/ Healthcare 16.35 (7.07) 9.75 (6.21) 10.25 (3.66) Business 12.92 (7.48) 6.48 (5.14) 9.72 (3.82) Education 16.42 (5.21) 9.25 (4.47) 10.42 (3.70) Non Academic 17.25 (6.86) 10.08 (5.47) 9.96 (2.61) Education High School 14.50 (6.24) 8.54 (6.47) 9.14 (3.57) Associate Degree 15.94 (7.89) 9.29 (6.53) 8.61 (3.33) Trade/Vocational Degree 15.90 (6.50) 10.00 (5.39) 9.60 (2.87) Degree 15.77 (7.44) 8.93 (6.52) 9.98 (3.35) 16.13 (6.60) 9.27 (5.49) 11.04 (2.73) Terminal Degree 15.64 (6.08) 11.45 (6.28) 11.24 (3.24)

PAGE 69

69 RQ 9 : What are the differences in Invisibility subscores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of education attainment among Black faculty, staff, and administra tors employed at a predominately white organization? Multiple regression analysis on Invisibility subscale score revealed significant differences in group mean scores for academic/professional area. Business reported a significant lower group mean for Invi sibility compared to Liberal Arts (p=.030), and participants in Non Academic areas. There were no group mean differences in Invisibility scores for the variables, gender, educational attainment, and organizational position. When examining each of the de mo graphic variables, one by one in ANOVA, and their differences in group means for the Invisibility subscale, there were statistically significant differences found among the various levels of educational attainment. Specifically, those participants with ter minal degrees had significant greater group mean scores when compared to education was a high school diploma (p=.044). These differences; however; became non sig nificant after controlling for other demographic characteristics. Table 4 11 Multiple Regression of the Invisibility subscale on Gender, Educational Level, Positon & Academic Area (N=240). Variable B SE (B) p Gender .858 1.03 .062 .408 Educational At tainment .528 .375 .136 .160 Faculty vs. Support Staff .938 1.85 .057 .614 Faculty vs. Senior Staff .587 1.73 .031 .736 Faculty vs. Administrative Staff .782 1.37 .064 .571 Business vs. STEM 1.56 1.74 .086 .373 Business vs. Liberal Arts 3.65 1.66 219 .030 Business vs. Social Sciences 3.21 1.66 .204 .056 Business vs. Humanities and Law 2.79 2.12 .120 .189 Business vs. Medicine /Healthcare 2.90 1.63 .180 .078 Business vs. Non Academic 3.78 1.78 .200 .036 Business vs. Education 1.86 2.30 .069 .420 Note. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (two tailed); B and SE ( B) are unstandardized regression coefficient and standard

PAGE 70

70 RQ 10 : What are the differences in Environmental subscores by gender, p osition in organization, professional area, and level of education attainment among Black faculty, staff, and administrators employed at a predominately white organization? Finally, the multiple regression analysis to determine differences in Environmental subscores on the four demographic variables significant group mean differences were found for gender and level of educational attainment. Females reported significant ly higher scores on the Environmental subscale compared to males in the sample of partic ipants (p=.026). For educational attainment, there was positive linear relationship between microaggression score and their level of educational attainment (p=.010). As the level of educational attainment increased, the participant were no significant group mean differences found among organizational position or academic/professional area. When examining each of the demographic variables one by one in ANOVA without controlling for the othe r demographic characteristics there were significant mean group differences within organizational position. Faculty reported significant ly higher group means on the Environmental subscale when compared support staff (p=.010), and administrative staff (p=. 009). Table 4 12 Multiple Regression of the Environmental subscale on Gender, Educational Level, Positon & Academic Area (N=240). Variable B SE (B) p Gender 1.24 .553 .164 .026 Educational Attainment .524 .200 .246 .010 ** Faculty vs. Support Staff .335 .993 .037 .736 Faculty vs. Senior Staff .027 .927 .003 .976 Faculty vs. Administrative Staff .583 .736 .088 .429 Business vs. STEM .284 .93 4 .029 .762 Business vs. Liberal Arts .645 .892 .071 .470 Business vs. Social Sciences .724 .892 .084 .418 Business vs. Humanities and Law .869 1.134 .068 .445 Business vs. Medicine /Healthcare .328 .876 .037 .709 Business vs. Non Academic .678 .956 066 .479 Business vs. Education .255 1.23 .017 .836 Note. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (two tailed); B and SE ( B) are unstandardized regression coefficient and standard

PAGE 71

71 Summary of Results The results of the data analysis demonstrate that there are statistically significant differences in the level and type of racial microaggression an individual experiences bas ed on the demographic characteristics measured in the current study. Academic or professional discipline, organizational position, and educational attainment were all found to have a relationship with racial microaggression experiences for the participant s in this sample. There was a significantly lower reporting of total racial microaggression experiences in the professional area of business. Participants in business had significantly lower total frequency scores compared to every other academic or profe ssional area; however, there was a significantly higher reporting of total racial microaggression experiences among those participants who had earned terminal degrees. Faculty members reported statistically significant higher microinvalidation scores comp ared to all other categories of staff. Business once again had significantly lower microinvalidation and microinsult scores compared to the other academic or professional areas. Those participants with terminal degrees reported statistically significant hi gher level of racial microaggression experiences compared to any other level of educational attainment. On the various subscales, faculty members reported significantly more experiences with being treated as a foreigner or not belonging. Participants with terminal degrees also reported more experiences with being treated as a foreigner or given the impression they did not belong. Senior staff reported the highest levels of Sexualization, which were significantly higher than any other position in the sample Education and medicine/healthcare reported higher means for Low Achieving/Undesirable background subscale compared to the other professional or academic

PAGE 72

72 areas. Humanities and law and those participants who had earned a terminal degree reported significan tly more experiences with feelings of invisibility than any other group. On the Environmental subscale, gender, level of educational attainment, and organizational position were significant independent or predictor variables in the outcome of experiencing Environmental racial microaggressions. Considering the results presented in this chapter, it is clear that there are demographic factors that significantly contribute to the experience of racial microaggressions for Black faculty, staff, and administrato rs who work at predominately white organizations. Chapter five will directions for research.

PAGE 73

73 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, FUTURE DIRECTIONS, LIMITATION S, AND IMPLICATIONS Research Questions The purpose of this study was to measure the prevalence of racial microaggressions among Black faculty, staff, and administrators who are employed at a predominately White organization. Black faculty, staff, and adm inistrators were chosen as the population of study due to their unique social position. Previous studies have found that educational attainment and exposure of predominately white environments increases the likelihood of an individual experiencing daily ra cial microaggressions (Torres et al., 2010; Nadal et al., 2014). Studies have also found that the experiences and manifestations of racial microaggressions are different for various racial and ethnic minorities groups (Foster, 2005; Nadal, 2011; Sue, 2010 ). Considering these findings, the ideal next step in this area of study is to investigate racial microaggressions among specific racial minority populations to determine the factors that most significantly predict or influence an individual experiencing r acial microaggressions in his or her daily life. The following questions were examined in this study. Research Questions 1. What is the preva lence of racial microaggression, microinvalidation, and microinsult experiences among Black faculty, staff, and admin istrators employed at a predominately white organization? 2. What are the differ ences in overall racial microaggression experiences by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of education attainment among Black faculty, staff, and admi nistrators employed at a predom inately white organization? 3. What are the differen ces in racial microinvalidation experiences by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of education attainment among Black faculty, staff, and administr at ors employed at a predominately white organization? 4. What are the di fferences in racial microinsult experiences by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of education attainment among Black faculty, staff, and administrat ors emplo yed at a predominately white organization?

PAGE 74

74 5. What are the differences in Foreigner/Not Belonging scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment? 6. What are the differences in Sexualization scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment? 7. What are the differences in Criminality scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment? 8. What are the differences in Low Achieving/Undesirable background scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment? 9. What are the differences in Invisibility scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educ ational attainment? 10. What are the differences in Environmental scores by gender, position in organization, professional area, and level of educational attainment? Summary The common and daily experience of racial microaggressions can negatively impact one physical, psychological, emotional, and social health (Sue et al., 2007). Exploratory research has demonstrated the many detrimental consequences of experiencing racial discrimination and injustice in social and working environments. Racial microaggress ions can be intentional or unintentional, therefore the need to understand the various ways they manifest is brought forth (Solorzano et al., 2000; Sue et al., 2007). Racial microaggressions have been theorized to occur in three distinct forms: microassaul ts, microinsults, and microinvalidations (Sue et al., 2007). Microassaults are intentional, derogatory and are intended to hurt the victim. Microassaults may or may not be violent, but are conscious, and deliberate. Microinsults are comments and statements that appear complimentary on the surface, but are actually demeaning, rude, and insensitive. Microinsults are not usually explicitly stated, but more subtly inferred. Microinvalidations are characterized by actions and behaviors that purposely exclude or minimize

PAGE 75

75 (Torres, Driscoll, & Burrow, 2010). This study of racial microaggressions experiences was performed from an epidemiological perspective, with raci al microaggressions being observed as a negative health outcome/experience. Racism and discrimination is a social determinant of health, similar to social economic status and geographical location. Rac ial microaggressions is a form of racism and discrimina tion, therefore they must be regarded with the same significance as other determinants of health, such as physical activity and proper nutrition. Operating from this perspective, the goal of this study was to find the demographic factors that are the influ ence or contribute to an Educational Attainment In this study, educational attainment was the common independent factor related to the experiences of racial microaggressions for Black Americans in this sample. Differences in racial microaggression experiences were seen most often among the various levels of educational attainment for the majority of the dependent variables. Education was significant in predicting the microaggression experiences, microinvalidation experiences, and experiences among several of the subthemes such as Foreigner/Not Belonging, Sexualization, Invisibility, and Environmental microaggressions. As the level of education increased, the amount of racial microaggression experiences for the participants in this sample, also increased. The findings in the current study are consistent with previous studies examining racial microaggressions among high achieving African Americans.

PAGE 76

76 Foreigner/Not Belonging Faculty members reported the greatest experiences with being treated as though they were ue to the very small number of faculty members currently working at the predominately white institution s Participants who have terminal degrees also yielded the highest scores on the Foreigner/Not Belonging subscale. The fact that those participants who w ere faculty members and those who held terminal degrees are reported the highest means is not surprising. The majority of faculty members in the sample also held terminal degrees, therefore it is highly likely that some of the same participants shared both identities study examining racial microaggression in the life experience of Black Americans. One of the major themes found in the qualitative study was the denigratin Assumptions of Criminality There was no significant difference in scores for Assumptions of Criminality. No significant difference s were found due to all of the mean scores being extremely high f or every group, in each demographic category. Overall, men had higher scores than women, and those staff members in support positions reported the greatest experiences with assumptions of criminality. These results were consistent with a previous study by Torres, Driscoll, & Burrow (2010), who examined racial microaggressions among African American doctoral students and graduates of doctoral programs. Assumptions of Criminality were found to one of the most common types of racial microaggressions experience d by the participants in the sample (Torres et al., 2010).

PAGE 77

77 Business Business reported the overall lowest experiences with racial microaggressions There are factors present in the field of business that are protect ing Black individuals from experiencing a large number of racial microaggressions. There may be characteristics that are unique to the field of business that could be adopted by other professional areas to decrease and alleviate the experience of racial microaggressions among Black Americans and othe r racial and ethnic minorities. For example, the area of business has developed a systematic culture of focusing on inclusion and diversity. The business industry focuses on capitalism, which in turn, provide a global lens for inclusion and diversity. Although, microaggressions are present and still occur, when compared to other industries and professions, the business industry does an outstanding job in addressing these cultural and social issues. Examples of this include policies, procedures, best pr actices and training programs that have been incorporated into their professional development. The positive outcomes seen in the area of business, as it relates to diversity and inclusion has initiated other industries and organizations to adopt such pract ices and policies. Environmental Faculty reported the greatest experiences with environmental racial microaggressions. These finding was not surprising considering that the sample is from a predominately white academic institution. Also, in comparison to staff members, faculty member experience more racial and cultural isolation. There were some faculty members who were the only Black individual in their respective aca demic areas. The greatest experiences with cultural isolation was seen in the academic a reas of Humanities and Law. Both academic areas reported the most experiences with environmental racial microaggressions than any other academic discipline or

PAGE 78

78 memb ers had the lowest representation in the study. These results are consistent with those found on the campus climate survey employed the previous year at the academic organization. Cultural/Racial isolation was a major theme found in Torres and colleagues 2 010 study examining racial microaggressions among Black doctoral students and doctoral program graduates. Future Research There is a great need for future research in the area of racial microaggressions among Black Americans, especially those working in P redominately White organizations. First, there is a need for more quantitative studies to support the qualitative studies that exist to strengthen the evidence of the reality of racial discrimination and injustice for Black Americans. Secondly, future rese microaggressions experiences. It is important to identify the perpetrators of these social injustices and hold them accountable for their actions. Without knowing the perpetrator, the victim will never truly be liberated from their discriminative racial experiences. Future research should also explore the types of current educational workshops, trainings, and seminars that are available on cultural humility and sensiti vity. A large factor that influences a person perspective is their knowledge. Cultural ignorance plays a huge role in the prevalence of racial microaggressions. In order to address racial microaggressions, we must address cultural ignorance and White privi lege. Although there are many White individuals that do not hold negative racial perceptions toward Black Americans, they also do not possess a lot of foundational and cultural knowledge about this unique population of people. Due to their lack of understa nding of Black cultural and lived Black experiences of reality, they cannot be true advocates for the community, against the society issues related to racism, discrimination, and

PAGE 79

79 inequality. Thus, it is equally important to establish an educational and tra ining environment to foster cultural knowledge and sensitivity in work places. Limitations There were several limitations present in this study. First, the email listserv used did not contain all of the sample population of Black faculty, staff, and admin istrators. Several participants commented during in person data collection that they had not received an email regarding the study. The potential participants could have had an impact on the results of the study. Although complete access to the study popul ation was not obtained, the sample was larger than expected. The goal was to reach 10% of the population and this goal was met and exceeded with a N of 240. Each of the demographic variables were diverse and had representation in each of their respective c ategories. The second limitation is related to faculty access. It was challenging to reach Black faculty members for several reasons. The first is that many faculty members carry a heavier workload than staff and administrators. Due to their requirement o f research, teaching, and service, some faculty members have to be very selective in the ways they allot their time to miscellaneous activities. Secondly, during in person data collection, there were a number of faculty members who were not present in thei r offices, and several who did not have physical office spaces. Although, several potential faculty participants were not reached, there was still sufficient faculty representative across the different demographic variables. The third limitation to this s that the survey was to assess their experiences with racial microaggressions in their daily lives, within and outside of the campus environment. Some participants commented that there were sever al items on the survey that they did not fully understand how it related to their work or

PAGE 80

80 academic environment. More detailed instructions and guidance may have been necessary to ensure that each participant understand the nature of the study. In order to address any misinterpretations, the researcher was readily available to answer any questions or concerns related to the items on the survey for each participant. The fourth limitation of this study was differing comfort levels as it related to responding honestly and openly to the items on the survey. Some participants expressed fear of their responses being tied to their identity in some way. This was seen heavily among Black staff members in supportive roles and position, such as clerical staff. There we re several instances where the researcher was required to discuss the data collection procedures and assure the participants that their identities would remain anonymous and their responses would be kept confidential. Another limitation was that there was a lack of faculty representation in the area of Business. Only after the data was collected, it was found that no faculty members were included from the various schools in the College of Business. The participants included in the sample that were in Busin ess area were staff and administrators. If faculty members in Business were included in the sample, the overall level of racial microaggression experiences reported by this group might have been different. However, there is no known reason to expect that t he result patterns found in the current study would change. The final limitation was the grouping of the demographic variables, organizational position and professional/academic area. It was a challenge to group the variables in way that the data could be generalized to other predominately white organizations in a meaningfully. There were several different categories for staff positions. Staff could be categorized as technology staff, administrative staff, clerical staff, and senior staff. It was best to c ombine clerical and

PAGE 81

81 technology to their supportive roles and to reduce the amount of groups. Some participants did not fall into any of the categories, such as those participants in Human Resources and the two physicians. Implications There are several i mportant implications to this study. This study demonstrates that racial microaggressions frequently occur among Black faculty, staff, and administrators working at predominately white organizations. The degree and manner in which these racial microaggress positionality in the organization, and the specific academic discipline or professional area to which one belongs. This study also shows that there are professional areas that racial microaggressions experiences for Black Americans may be lower than others. It is important to identify the factors that contribute to these experiences for participants in areas with lower racial discrimination and injustice. Microinvalidations and mi croinsults have been demonstrated in previous studies to be more harmful than explicit racism for the victim. The strategy to alleviate racial microaggressions among Blac k Americans must be three fold for focusing on perpetrators, victims and environment. Intervention efforts must include the components that identifies and addresses the perpetrator, counsels and gives liberation to the victim, and promotes a positive, respectable, and inclusive working or academic environment. Many of the current efforts to address racial microaggressions have been done to comfort and empower the victim of racial microaggressions, but very little programming has been designed to address the perpet rators, e.g. White America. There a great need for this audience to acknowledge the subtle, but still very harmful forms of racism that are common and everyday experiences for Black and other minority individuals living

PAGE 82

82 and working in predominately white organizations. Until this acknowledgement happens, there is little hope for the alleviat and termination of racial microaggressions among Black and other minorities in the United States. We must create environments that explicitly condemn racial injustice and have policies and guidelines to address the perpetrators who violate those social policies. Racism and discrimination, whether implicit or explicit has a role in the health of Black Americans. As public health professionals and health educators, we have a responsibility to address this social health issue with the same rigor and passion as we do other health issues, such as breast cancer and heart disease. Conclusion The reality for many Black Americans is a racist and unjust reality. This population of people constantly endure the verbal, behavioral, and environmental slights o f being a part of a particular race of people. Even those who have earned advanced and terminal degrees, those who have been recognized for their scientific and professional contributions to their respective areas, and those who have demonstrated their hig h degree of excellence and resiliency have the burden of enduring racial inequality and racial injustice. The physical, emotional, and mental health of Black Americans is threatened and compr ised with every racially driven encounter with White Americans. T his study demonstrates the need for a collective and strategic movement toward understanding Black culture and the daily lived experiences of Black individuals in the United States.

PAGE 83

83 APPENDIX A PARTICIPANT INFORMED CONSENT Informed Conse nt Measuring and Analyzing Racial Microag g res s ions among Black Faculty, Staff, and Administrators at a Predominantly White Organization IRB Protocol Number: 201602086 Protocol Title: Measuring and Analyzing Racial Microaggressions among Black Faculty, Sta ff, and Administrators employed at a P redominately White Organization Please read this following carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this research study is to explore the prevalence of ra cial microaggressions among self identifying Black members of faculty, administration and staff employed at a large southern, predominately white university. You may decline to answer any question. Your responses will be used solely for the purpose of res earch to complete a doctoral dissertation. What you will be asked to do in this study: You will be asked to complete an anonymous survey. You will be asked questions related to your experiences with racial microaggres sions in your academic, work, and soci al environment s The questions assess experiences for which you have felt discriminated or treated unjustly because of your how often you feel you have experienced the event described, and the extent to which that experience left you feeling bothered, stressed, or frustrated. Lastly, you will be asked to provide basic demographic information that will be used only to describe the group participation as a whole. Time Required: Approximately 10 15 minutes Risk and Benefits: There are minimal risk s associated with this study. Due to the nature of some of the questions, there may be a trigger of negative emotions, thoughts, and feelings as you remember p ast racially discriminatory experience s The potential benefit of participating in this study is your elevated feeling of liberation in knowing that others have experienced injustices based on race during their life course, similar to you. Compensation : For your time and completion of the study, you will be compensated with a gift valued at $5 dollars. D epending on your form of survey, the card will be provide d in person immediately after the completion of the survey or sent via email if completed online

PAGE 84

84 Confidentiality : Your identity will be kept anonymous. Your responses will be strictly confidential. If you provide an email address, it will be kept in a locked file cabinet to which only Christina Gladney has access. Email addresses will b e kept separ ate from the data set, theref ore your email will never be ti ed or linked with your survey responses. The online survey data will be collected through an online survey collection program called Qual trics. There is a minimal risk that security of any online d ata may be breached, bu t Qual trics uses strong encryption and other data security methods to protect your information. Only the study investigator will have access to the data on Qual address will be masked by Qual trics and will be u policy can be obtained at http://www.qualtrics.com/privacy statement Voluntary participation Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. The survey will allow you to d ecline to answer any question in which you do not want to answer. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. You can decline to answer any question or quit taking the surveys at any time. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Principal Investigator : Christina A. R. Gladney, MPH, College of Health and Human Perform ance, Department of Health Education and Behavior, cgladney@ufl.edu Facualty Supervisor : Jee Won Cheong, PhD., College of Health and Human Performance, Department of Health Education and Behavior, jwcheong@ufl.edu Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone 352 392 0433. Whom to contact if you should want to discus s or explore any issues that might be raised during this survey: Counseling & Wellness Center, Box 112662, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2662, phone 352 392 1575, http://www.counseling.ufl.edu/cwc/Ind counseling. GatorWell Health Promotio n Services Wellness Coaching. 3190 Radio Road, Gainesville, FL 32611, phone 352 273 4450, http://gatorwell.ufsa.ufl.edu. Student Health Center, Infirmary Building, 280 Fletcher Drive, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, phone 352 392 11611, http:// shcc.ufl.edu. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the study.

PAGE 85

85 APPENDIX B RACIAL MICROAGRESSION SCALE The following questions ask whether you feel that you have been treated a certain way by othe rs because of your race. For each question, please mark how often you feel you have experience d the event described, and whether the incident caused you to feel stressed, upset, offended, or frustrated. If you have never noticed or experienced the intera ction listed, please circle If you are multiracial, please think about whether people treat you as described below because of your mixed or multiple racial backgrounds. A. How often does this happen to you? B. IF T HIS DOES HAPPEN TO YOU, how stressful, upsetting, or bothersome is this for you? Ne ver A little/ rarely Someti mes/a modera te amount Often/ freque ntly This has never happ ened to me Not at all A little Mode rate level Hig h leve l 1. Because of my race, other p eople assume that I am a foreigner. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 2. Because of my race, people suggest that I am 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 3. Other people often ask me where I am from, belong. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 4. Other people treat m e like a criminal because of my race. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 5. People act like they are scared of me because of my race. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 6. Others assume that I will behave aggressively because of my race. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 7. I am singled out by police or secur ity people because of my race. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 8. People suggest that I am because of my race 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 9. Other people view me in an overly sexual way because of my race. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 10. Other people hold sexual stereoty pes about me because of my racial background. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3

PAGE 86

86 11. Other people act is they can fully understand my racial identity, even though they are not my racial background. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 12. Other people act if all of the people of my race are alike. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 13. Others assume that people of my racial background get unfair benefits 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 14. Others assume that people of my racial background would succeed in life if they simply worked harder. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 15. Other people deny that pe ople of my race face extra obstacles when compared to Whites. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 16. Other people assume that I am successful because of affirmative action, not because I earned my accomplishments. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 17. Others prefer that I assimilate to the Whi te culture and downplay my racial background. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 18. Others hint that I should work hard to prove that I am not like other people of my race. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 19. Others suggest that my racial heritage is dysfunctional or undesirable. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 20. Others focus only on the negative aspects of my racial background. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 21. I am mistaken for being a service worker or lower status worker simply because of my race. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 22. I am treated like a second class citizen because of my race. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 23. I receive poorer treatment in restaurants and stores because of my race. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3

PAGE 87

87 24. When I interact with authority figures, they are usually of a different racial background. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 25. I notice that there ar e few role models of my racial background in my chosen career. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 26. Sometimes I am the only person of my racial background in my class or workplace. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 27. Where I work or go to school, I see few people of my racial background. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 28. I notice that there are few people of my racial background on TV, in books, and in magazines. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 29. Sometimes I feel as if people look past me or person because of my race. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 30. I feel invi sible because of my race. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 31. I am ignored in school or work because of my race. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 32. My contributions are dismissed or devalued because of my racial background. 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3

PAGE 88

88 APPENDIX C DEMOGRAPHIC QUES TIONS 1. What is your age? 2. What is your nationality? (Country of Birth or Origin) 3. How would you classify your position in your organization? a. Clerical Staff b. Senior Staff c. Administrative Staff d. Technology Staff e. Lecturer f. Senior lecturer g. Associate professor h. Assistant professor i. Professor j. Adjunct professor k. Other (Please Specify)_______________________ 4. How would you classify your discipline or academic area? a. STEM (Science, technology, engineering, math) b. Liberal Arts c. Social Sciences d. Humanities e. Medicine/Healt hcare f. Law g. Other (Please Specify)________________________ 5. What is your gender? a. Male b. Female c. Transgendered female d. Transgendered male e. Other_________________ 6. What is your highest level of educational attainment a. High school diploma b. Associates degree c. Bachelo d. e. Terminal Degree (PhD, JD, MD, DPT, etc.) f. Other ____________________________ 7. What religion best describes your faith? a. Christianity b. Buddhism c. Hinduism d. Islamic e. Jewish f. Atheist g. Agnostic h. Other_______________________ i.

PAGE 89

89 APPENDIX D STUDY BRIEF Measuring and Analyzing Racial Microaggressions among Black Faculty, Staff, and Administrators at a Predominately White organization IRB Protocol Number: 201602086 Brief Study Snapshot Purpose : Measure the level or extent of racial microagg ression experiences among Black faculty, staff, and administrators employed at a predominately white organization. o Determine differences among Gender Male vs. female Positon in the organization Staff vs. Faculty vs. Administration Academic discipline STEM vs. Social Sciences vs. Liberal Arts Three types of Microaggressions o Microassaults o Microinsults o Microinvalidations Audience: White America (general population, academics, and political leaders) Target Study Population: Black faculty, staff, and adm inistrators Unique social position, hence different lived experiences within same academic space Differing levels of intellect and knowledge of the subject If you have any questions, comments, concerns, or would like to talk more in depth about my topic and my goals for this study, please feel free to contact me. Contact information: Christina A.R. Gladney, MPH

PAGE 90

90 APPENDIX E Categorized Hair Anything hair related. Comments about my hair (I have naturally curly hair) my boss asking if she can touch my hair asking about my hair, saying I don't talk bl odd that I listen to country music, making r eferences to how dark my skin is, Invisibility dismissed as someone unable to handle specific situations. For example, when viduals ignoring me, not making eye contact with me, and referring their responses to the other individuals in the room, that happen to also be white. I've commonly experienced microaggression(s) from prospective students or people outside of my workplace. Very rarely, in my department, have I experienced microaggression(s). I am the office manager that handle day to day operations yet I will often get overlooked and people will go directly to my supervisor instead of coming to me with a problem in an area that I oversee Always having to over perform my white counterparts just to get a little recognition. Being in meetings where I am not heard and a white person will repeat what I said and then it's heard AND a great idea. failing to acknowledge my presence being overlooked in the workplace. Being ignored or involved in conversations full of sarcasm or jokes that frankly I either don't understand or don't find funny. Ignoring my presence. Considering how often it happens, I notice individuals that intentional ly divert their heads down, pretend to look at their phone, etc. around other people they encounter in the halls. Invalidation and Insults unfamiliar with term. but i am truly bothered when people think I reached my level because of affirmative action question of level of education, ethnicity/background Not trusted to do my job without constant supervision. Looked on as not being as knowledgeable I have to express myself and make it kno wn that I have a degree before I am acknowledged as competent They assume I am not MD or in a position of authority because of my race Assumption that you are not educated & a service worker

PAGE 91

91 A colleague who had just accepted an administrativ e position offered to assist me with a task because she "knew it was difficult." Unfortunately for her, I had spent over 6 years on the committee engaged in "doing" the work. Not being addressed as Dr. snide remarks. calling me by my first name and other physicians by their last name. patients and their families thinking I am the nurse or janitorial staff, even after introducing myself daily as the doctor. comments like "you are so articulate." Comments about my natural hair. the list is endless. Studen ts lack of respect for my position/role It's upsetting when you are in uniform with tools in hand and get stopped by and asked what are you doing in this building. The look on their faces tells if they are trying to point you in the right direction. Decisi ons are made about my work and thus I am not included in the process Lack of advancement/pay raises for African American employees Not acknowledged as white peers, overlooked for positions and opportunities although I have more experience and education th an the individual selected Unintentional maybe, but carefree and without consequence. No interest in learning what may be offensive. The microaggressions that bother me most are the ones that affect my career. Like the quick advancement of mediocre white c oworkers, but a lack of urgency for my own advancement: A 'deal with it or leave' attitude or an undertone of 'you should be happy in the position you have'. Pay. I recently left a dep artment I worked for 18 yrs. While all the whites received cost of livi ng raise, promotions and extra raises, I and another black employee only received the cost of living. We never received SPIs (Special Pay Increase) Where I w ork is that they don't promote African A mericans in specific positions and are paid at a lower pay scale than others. I do feel as though I often have to work harder in order to be viewed equally or even superior than my white counterparts. It may also be due to my gender, but I think my race also plays a role. Whites are promoted more and hired in my d epartment. Others using offensive language towards African Americans When they attempt to use the latest popular buzzwords in conversation with me, but do so awkwardly. When comments are made about my hair White people changing the way they speak to match how I speak. Or trying to use "urban slang" when speaking to me Condescending behavior, disrespectful speech and behavior this is not limited to white individuals, it can also be gender based Someone told me I was really smart and pretty for a black wom an. People make biased comments and are unaware that they are biased. When they attempt to use "black" slang and mock black people Use of language that others don't know could be and is in some cases racially insensitive. Small subtle responses to make me feel unaccepted or appreciated

PAGE 92

92 Pathologizing Cultural Norms it s odd that i listen to country music, making references to how dark my skin is, Automatically assuming im a great athlete or listen to certain genre of music when people call they think I'm white, but when they see me they sometimes look shocked At our staff birthday celebrations, I received an Oreo Cake Assuming because I am black, I should be able to identi fy with something they seen on TV or an incident they encountered. Assuming I would like their hand me downs. comments on aggressiveness "angry/independent black woman", assumptions of familiarity with "ghetto" or "hood" trends You are so smart and speak very well for a black woman Being accused of taking something or others assume you will be the first serve yourself during a n office gathering Being ignored to help another customer/guest The most frequent one is when they try to demand service before you are served when you are ahead of them in line. Standing in line to purchase an item only to have someone from another race ask a question and then be checked out before me. Them not understanding our mist reatment because we are black. that they understand exactly how i feel because as a woman they've had the same experiences Offensive comments made among white coworkers The most common experience I can identify with being the only African American in my O The whispers if we interview someone of color versus nothing being said if we interview someone who is white. More so just listening to people talk amongst themselves either not knowing my background or not caring Unfair treatment I get unfair treatment because of my race Few professional grant funding opportunities offered Always feeling that i am angry. I get discipline for the craziest things my white co works get better treatment than m e the management sucks and don't give a care about their employees personal feeling as long as the job get done. racism and differential treatment that is not equal Prejudice, racial profiling

PAGE 93

93 General adverse reception because of my race, regardless of the outcome you feel negativity that is associated with my race disturbing Denial of implicit biases. Fear It was related to the election and the other coworker was a Trump supporter. Let's just say words were exchanged based on the different in viewpoint s They are often rude and selfish I am inferior in every way imaginable Subtle but annoying Only with strangers and in certain stores academic/teaching jealousy; popularity Being the only person of color at work or in school Smiling at me like while trying to cover the shock and disappointment that I am there

PAGE 94

94 LIST OF REFERENCES Allen, W.R., Epps, E.G., Guillory, E. A., Suh, S.A., & Bonous Hammarth, M. (2000). The Black academic: Faculty status among African Americans in U.S. h igher education. The Journal of Negro Education 69, 112 127. Carter, R.T. (2007). Racism and psychological and emotional injury: Recognizing and assessing race based traumatic stress. The Counseling Psychologist 35, 13 105. Cartwright, B.Y., Washington, R.D., & McConnell, L.R. (2009). Examining racial microaggressions in rehabilitation counselor education. Rehabilitation Education 23, 171 182. Clark, R., Anderson, N.B., Clark, V.R., & Williams, D.R. (1999). Racism as a stressor for African Americans: A b iopsychosocial model. American Psychologist 54, 805 816. 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 multicultural counse ling movement. Journal of Counseling & Development 86, 348 355. Dovido J.F. & Gaertner S.L. (2000). Aversive racism and selective decisions: 1989 1999. Psychological Science, 11, 315 319. Flowers, N., Wilson, S.A., Gonzalez, E., & Banks, J. (2008). The s tudy of faculty of color experiences at IUPUI. Indianapolis: Center for Urban and Multicultural Education, School of Education, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis. Foster, K. M. (2005). Diet of disparagement: the racial experiences of Black students in a predominantly White university. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18 (4), 489 505. doi:10.1080/09518390500137659 Gaertner, S.L. & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In: Dovidio, J.F.; Gaertner, SL., editors. Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. New York. Academic Press, p. 61 89. Helms, J.E., & Cook, D. (1999). Using race and culture in counseling and psychotherapy: Theory and process Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Hendrix, K.G. (1995). Student perception of the influence of race on professor credibility. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Antonio, TX. Hinton, E. L. (2004). Microinequities: When small slights lead to huge problems in the workplace. Diversity,Inc. (Available at http://www.magazine.org/content/files/microinequities.pdf). Jackson, A.P. & Sears, S.J. (1992). Implications of an Africentric Worldview in reducing stress for African American women, Journal of Counseling and Development 71, 2, 184 190.

PAGE 95

95 Journal of Blacks in Higher Education Foundation. (2008). The snail like progress of blacks in faculty ranks of higher education. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Educ ation 62, 24 25. Lewis Giggetts, T.M. (2015). What if you knew I was Black? The Chronicle of Higher Education Retrieved from https://chroniclevitae.com/news/903 what if you knew i was black. McConohay, J.B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Mo dern Racism Scale. Prejudice, discrimination and racism. Orlando, FL. Academic Press, p. 91 126. Denial of Human Rights: Beyond Ethnicity, ed. M. Berlowitz an d R. Edari, 21 38. Minneapolis: MEP Press. Nadal, K.L. (2011). The Racial and Ethnic Microaggression Scale (REMS): Construction, reliability, and validity. Journal of Counseling Psychology 58, 470 480. Nadal, K.L., Wong, Y., Griffin, L., Davidoff, K., & Sriken, J. (2014). The adverse impact of esteem. Journal of College Student Development 55 (5), 461 474. Omi, M. & Winant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. 2 nd New York: Routledge. Pittman, C.T. (2010). Race and gender oppression in the classroom: The experiences of women faculty of color with White male students. Teaching Sociology 38, 183 196. Pittman, C.T. (2012). Racial microaggression: The narratives of B lack faculty at a Predominately White institution. The Journal of Negro Education 81, 82 92. Solorzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. Journal of Negro Education 69, 60 73. Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation John Wiley & Sons. Sue, D.W., Capodilupo, C.M., & Holder, A.M.B. (2008). Racial microaggressions in the life exper ience of Black Americans. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 39, 329 336. Sue, D.W., Capodilupo, C.M., Torino, G.C., Bucceri, J.M., Holder, A.M.B., Nadal, K.L. et al. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist 62, 271 286. Torres, L., Driscoll, M.W., Burrow, A.L. (2010). Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 29 (10),p. 1074 1099.

PAGE 96

96 Utsey, S.O., Giesbrecht, N., Hook, J., & Stanard, P.M. (2008). Cultural, sociofamilial,and psych ological resources that inhibit psychological distress in African Americans exposed to stressful life events and race related stress. Journal of Counseling Psychology 55, 49 62. Williams, D.R. & Mohammed, S.A. (2009). Discrimination and racial disparities in health: Evidence and needed research. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 32, 20 47. Wong, G., Derthick, A., David, E.J.r., Saw, A., & Okazki, S. (2014). The what, the why, and the how: A review of racial microaggressions research in psychology. Race and S ocial Problems 6 (2), 181 200.

PAGE 97

97 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Christina Alexis Renay Gladney was born in Grenada, Mississippi. Christina graduated Grenada High School in 2006. After completing high school Christina pursued a Bachelor of Science in community health sciences with an emphasis in health p romotion at the University of Southern Mississippi. Christina graduated from The University of Southern Mississippi with latin distinction, highest honors and as a McNair Scholar in December 2010. After complet ing her Bachelor of Science in community h ealth, Christina gained fall semester of 20 11. Christina received a Master of Public Health in epidemiology and b ehavioral Sc ience from the newly established St. Louis University College of Public Health and Social Justice in 2013 After graduating with an MPH, Christina returned to The University of Southern Mississippi to study Higher Education Administration. During her time a t Southern Miss, Christina felt that a PhD program in a Health Education/Behavior related field would be more fitting for her professional and academic goals and interests. In 2014, Christina was selected into the Ph.D. program in the Department of Health Education and Behavior at the University of Florida. She will be granted a Doctor of Philosophy in health and human performance with an emphasis in health behavior through the College of Health and Human Performance in spring 2017.