Respect or ambivalence: interpreting student perceptions of inclusivity/exclusivity in a four-year predominately white institution

ABSTRACT

Undergraduate students often view and define terms differently than faculty and scholars. Differences in the operationalization of terms can lead to miscommunication and misunderstanding, especially within university classrooms. The present study used the theoretical framework of sensemaking to understand how undergraduate students perceived and defined inclusion in university classrooms. Through the facilitation of eight focus groups (N = 50), we identified four elements that contribute to inclusion/exclusion: “Respect,” “Safety,” “Unfettered Expression,” and “Context Appropriate.” Theoretically, these findings show a lack of concreteness in students’ definition of these terms, which can lead to ambiguity and ambivalence when defining the boundaries of inclusive/exclusive spaces. The lack of specificity dilutes the power of these words and phrases, and its ability to meet its intended purpose (e.g., disruption of oppressive systems). Pedagogically, for instructors to become intentional practitioners of inclusion, we argue that instructors must have an operationalized definition of inclusion grounded in social justice frameworks, share this definition and its rationale with students, engage in instructor reflexivity, and develop proactive strategies to combat challenges to inclusion.

KEYWORDS:

• instructional communication
• sensemaking
• inclusion
• exclusion
• abstract liberalism

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 When referring to white, in line with guidance put forth by the Associated Press, the authors specifically chose to use a lowercase “w” in white as “capitalizing the term white, as is done by white supremacists, risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs” (Bauder, 2020, para. 5).

2 The authors specifically chose to use the phrase “university education” instead of higher education as “higher education” communicates a biased hierarchy of value placed on education earned at universities and colleges versus other forms of continuing education such as vocational or technical schools, military training, or professional certifications.

3 Per the National Center for Education Statistics (2019), 6-year graduation rate (150% graduation rate) for first-time, full-time undergraduate students was highest for Asian students (74%), followed by white students (64%), students of two or more races (60%), Hispanic students (54%), Pacific Islander students (51%), Black students (40%), and American Indian/Alaska Native students (39%).

4 The university run research participation website provides students with access to view and participate in the many studies occurring in the department each semester. Descriptions of the studies, as well as their time commitments are posted for students to review. Students can then decide which studies they may be interested in participating in, sometimes as a class requirement and sometimes for extra credit.

5 Student enrollment from 2021 to 2023 based on federal reporting methodologies for race/ethnicity: American Indian or Alaska Native in 2021 .1% vs. in 2023 .1%; Asian in 20.3% 2021 vs. in 2023 23.8%; Black or African American in 2021 11.8% vs. in 2023 12.9%; Hispanic/Latino in 2021 10.3% vs. in 2023 10.6%; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander in 2021 .1% vs. in 2023 .0%; Other Races in 2021 4.7% vs. in 2023 4.9%; U.S. Nonresident in 2021 3.6% vs. in 2023 3.5%; Unknown in 2021 4.4% vs. in 2023 4.6%; white in 2021 45% vs. in 2023 39.5% (UMD Undergraduate Student Profile, 2023).