Bias Response Teams and Alternatives Study, 2021-2025

This study explores issues related to bias response and related campus climate initiatives in higher education (UNC Charlotte IRB #22-068). The overall goal of this project is to document complexities related to equity, inclusion, and free speech in bias response and related campus climate initiatives at colleges and universities through in-depth examination of the perspectives of administrators who serve on bias response teams or who otherwise respond to campus climate issues and/or bias as part of their job duties. This research project is led by Ryan Miller, Ph.D., faculty member at UNC Charlotte in the Department of Educational Leadership.<br><br>To understand how institutions are responding to external pressures to shape alternative approaches to bias response in a contentious political and legal environment, I conducted a multiple case study of four universities, positioning each institution as a case. I framed the case study as instrumental, as I focused more on what can be learned from each case and applied in other contexts rather than strictly limiting the investigation to the particulars of each case for their own intrinsic value. I approached this work from an interpretivist viewpoint, assuming that reality is multiplistic and socially constructed, a view well suited to examining a contentious topic such as administrative bias response work. A qualitative case study approach fit the project goals because I was interested in understanding campus approaches to bias response work in depth and because I relied on multiple data sources within each case—namely, interviews with administrators directly involved in bias response and related freedom of expression and diversity initiatives; public documents, such as bias response or similar websites; and internal documents shared with me by administrators, including committee reports, response protocols, and meeting minutes.<br><br>Identification of sites was heavily influenced by access to and willingness of institutions to participate. At many institutions, my invitations were declined or multiple administrators did not respond to my communication. Because of administrators’ reticence to speak with me, I built in multiple layers of confidentiality so that individual participants and institutions would not be identified.<br><br><br>