2021
DOI: 10.1007/s11162-021-09651-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Observable Evidence and Partnership Possibilities for Governing Board Involvement in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: A Content Analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In prior work within the broader higher education landscape, scholars have highlighted the dearth in governance literature (Kater et al., 2022; Kezar & Eckel, 2004; Rall et al., 2021) and board literature (Amey, 2022). In particular, scholars have demonstrated the need for additional research focused on both equity and boards of higher education in order to address some of the most pressing issues that face higher education (Morgan et al., 2022; Rall et al., 2022). For example, institutional barriers that limit student success on campus focus on areas such as subpar advising or absent faculty engagement (Hagedorn et al., 2008; Hallett et al., 2020; Thomas & McFarlane, 2018) have been explored.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In prior work within the broader higher education landscape, scholars have highlighted the dearth in governance literature (Kater et al., 2022; Kezar & Eckel, 2004; Rall et al., 2021) and board literature (Amey, 2022). In particular, scholars have demonstrated the need for additional research focused on both equity and boards of higher education in order to address some of the most pressing issues that face higher education (Morgan et al., 2022; Rall et al., 2022). For example, institutional barriers that limit student success on campus focus on areas such as subpar advising or absent faculty engagement (Hagedorn et al., 2008; Hallett et al., 2020; Thomas & McFarlane, 2018) have been explored.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At present, China has built the world's largest education system, but the real problem of unbalanced and inadequate development in the field of education still exists, and innovative talents and high-quality laborers are still lacking. The in-depth implementation of the strategy of developing the country through science and education should prioritize education in economic and social development planning, prioritize the investment of financial resources to ensure education and prioritize the allocation of public resources to meet the needs of education and human resources development, as well as actively expanding social investment [3][4]. We should continue to strengthen the scientific concept of education first, vigorously consolidate the fundamental, pioneering and overall role of education, accelerate the creation of a large number of top-notch innovative talents, tens of millions of high-level specialists and hundreds of millions of high-quality workers, and constantly enrich the national talent pool [5].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recent work has made strides toward a fuller understanding of boards. Scholars have explored the training and selection of trustees (Kezar, 2006); influences that may tempt trustees from their fiduciary responsibilities (Bastedo, 2009a, 2009b; Pusser, 2004); the role of trustees in diversity, equity, and inclusion (Morgan et al, 2021; Rall et al, 2018, 2020); and trustees’ role in philanthropy (Barringer & Riffe, in press; Proper, 2019; Zeig et al, 2018). One strand of literature focuses on the various ways that boards shape the behaviors and practices of the universities they oversee (Barringer & Riffe, 2018; Barringer et al, 2020), examining the networks that trustees knit together among various industrial firms and government entities (Barringer & Slaughter, 2016; Barringer et al, 2019; Pusser et al, 2006) and exploring potential consequences of those connections for academic research (Mathies & Slaughter, 2013; Slaughter et al, 2014).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%