Facilitated Departmental Dialogues Assessment
Faculty Advisor Name
Cara Meixner
Description
In the fall of 2016, PYSC 600 students consulted with James Madison University’s Office of Access and Inclusion to create assessment efforts for the Facilitated Departmental Dialogues. The Dialogues are the result of a collaborative effort among the Office of Access and Inclusion, Human Resources, and the Provost’s Faculty Diversity Council. They were developed following the 2013-2014 Diversity Task Force to give departments the space to discuss crucial matters of values, diversity, access, and inclusion within the context of their academic unit.
Utilizing notions of the Assessment Cycle, the decision was made, in collaboration with Arthur Dean, Executive Director of Campus and Community Access and Inclusion, to work specifically on selecting and designing instruments. These instruments intend to support the data collection of four possible Dialogue discussions regarding distinct topics. In order to grow in success, this program needed a way to communicate with their attendees about their thoughts and opinions regarding the usefulness of the discussions in creating movement towards value building, creating diversity, and promoting access and inclusion. This further supported the notion of creating survey instruments so as to assist the Facilitated Department Dialogues in collecting feedback.
Two surveys were created using a mixed method design. Survey A was intended for all participants in the Dialogue and is to be administered at the conclusion of the program, and Survey B was intended for the department head, to be distributed six months later. For Survey A, the team provided participants with a frame of reference by including definitions that encompassed the main topics being discussed. They then created quantitative questions based on the objectives from the PowerPoint presentations used during the Dialogues. In doing this, the aim was to capture the main ideas and assess whether those objectives had been achieved. The survey also includes several qualitative questions. These items speak to the overall themes of values, diversity, access, and inclusion, and encourage faculty to reflect on their overall experience outside of the Dialogue’s specific objectives. As additional themes emerge, this information can be utilized for updates to the objectives and programmatic modifications.
Survey B was much shorter in length and aims to collect information about how the topic of the Dialogue has been applied in the department. Quantitative items regarding goal-setting and goal-achievement were presented, as well as a qualitative item regarding the Dialogue’s practical application within the department.
The consultation team provided the Office of Access and Inclusion with a deliverable that contained both surveys, instructions for administration and data collection, limitations, and future directions. Limitations include an extended timeline for analysis and potential low response rates. The team proposed future directions that could combat these limitations. Ultimately, the Office of Access and Inclusion will use the data collected to continue to lead influential discourse among members of the JMU community and provide movement towards greater understanding of diversity on campus.
Facilitated Departmental Dialogues Assessment
In the fall of 2016, PYSC 600 students consulted with James Madison University’s Office of Access and Inclusion to create assessment efforts for the Facilitated Departmental Dialogues. The Dialogues are the result of a collaborative effort among the Office of Access and Inclusion, Human Resources, and the Provost’s Faculty Diversity Council. They were developed following the 2013-2014 Diversity Task Force to give departments the space to discuss crucial matters of values, diversity, access, and inclusion within the context of their academic unit.
Utilizing notions of the Assessment Cycle, the decision was made, in collaboration with Arthur Dean, Executive Director of Campus and Community Access and Inclusion, to work specifically on selecting and designing instruments. These instruments intend to support the data collection of four possible Dialogue discussions regarding distinct topics. In order to grow in success, this program needed a way to communicate with their attendees about their thoughts and opinions regarding the usefulness of the discussions in creating movement towards value building, creating diversity, and promoting access and inclusion. This further supported the notion of creating survey instruments so as to assist the Facilitated Department Dialogues in collecting feedback.
Two surveys were created using a mixed method design. Survey A was intended for all participants in the Dialogue and is to be administered at the conclusion of the program, and Survey B was intended for the department head, to be distributed six months later. For Survey A, the team provided participants with a frame of reference by including definitions that encompassed the main topics being discussed. They then created quantitative questions based on the objectives from the PowerPoint presentations used during the Dialogues. In doing this, the aim was to capture the main ideas and assess whether those objectives had been achieved. The survey also includes several qualitative questions. These items speak to the overall themes of values, diversity, access, and inclusion, and encourage faculty to reflect on their overall experience outside of the Dialogue’s specific objectives. As additional themes emerge, this information can be utilized for updates to the objectives and programmatic modifications.
Survey B was much shorter in length and aims to collect information about how the topic of the Dialogue has been applied in the department. Quantitative items regarding goal-setting and goal-achievement were presented, as well as a qualitative item regarding the Dialogue’s practical application within the department.
The consultation team provided the Office of Access and Inclusion with a deliverable that contained both surveys, instructions for administration and data collection, limitations, and future directions. Limitations include an extended timeline for analysis and potential low response rates. The team proposed future directions that could combat these limitations. Ultimately, the Office of Access and Inclusion will use the data collected to continue to lead influential discourse among members of the JMU community and provide movement towards greater understanding of diversity on campus.
