View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Devil in the Details: How High-Impact Practices Can Miss the Mark

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Devil in the Details: How High-Impact Practices Can Miss the Mark
Language: English
Authors: Museus, Samuel D., LePeau, Lucy A.
Source: New Directions for Student Services. Spr 2023 (181):7-17.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Higher Education, Educational Research, Educational Practices, Outcomes of Education, Misconceptions, Equal Education, College Students
DOI: 10.1002/ss.20451
ISSN: 0164-7970
1536-0695
Abstract: Higher education researchers and practitioners increasingly rely on high-impact practices in their efforts to promote success among diverse college students. In this chapter, we discuss the dangers of uncritically adopting one-size-fits-all notions of high-impact practices, and we underscore the need to meaningfully consider culture and identity in efforts to design and deliver such initiatives in equitable ways. We also offer five common misconceptions that inhibit advancing more equitable conversations about high-impact practices.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1381733
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFz65L-JZqqjPseXWAlr9FvAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDO--gqp0iOWfEhNcfQIBEICBmrWPNvwJuN34mVtnoJWXW5eekpi1RfcSU7M5Q76YcHKZ4xxGV5bYT5fj16jWaddkYBa6e3D4Um1JfWxNuWsPBdIsts6HmceGZsPPdJDsVz5TYpiycskgctc7ETWQ20jD5nfBYlN6bggY0IwLNtfNqs0SaVv2Epkd1oJhouZdJolruNw_63o_Wdjf7mw1LinqMjaAq3V-lAUpe38=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0164437907;nds01mar.23;2023Jun23.05:45;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0164437907-1">The devil in the details: How high‐impact practices can miss the mark </title> <sbt id="AN0164437907-2">INTRODUCTION</sbt> <p>Higher education researchers and practitioners increasingly rely on high‐impact practices in their efforts to promote success among diverse college students. In this chapter, we discuss the dangers of uncritically adopting one‐size‐fits‐all notions of high‐impact practices, and we underscore the need to meaningfully consider culture and identity in efforts to design and deliver such initiatives in equitable ways. We also offer five common misconceptions that inhibit advancing more equitable conversations about high‐impact practices.</p> <p>Several years ago, a major education news outlet published an article about high‐impact practices (HIPs), which include first‐year seminars, learning communities, service‐learning opportunities, global engagement experiences, undergraduate research opportunities, writing‐intensive courses, internships, and capstones courses and projects (American Association of Colleges and Universities, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]). They interviewed a Latina undergraduate about the powerful positive impact that studying abroad in Puerto Rico had on her college experience and highlighted the importance of HIPs. They also interviewed multiple national HIP experts who reinforced the notion that these practices were important in efforts to maximize student learning and success in higher education. No one in the article discussed the role of culture and identity in shaping the impact of HIPs on students' experiences, nor did they discuss the implications of HIPs on social and political issues in diverse communities or larger society.</p> <p>At the time the article was published, we had conducted a decade of research with diverse student populations. When we asked these students about factors that helped them thrive in college, they rarely talked explicitly about HIPs. Instead, they frequently highlighted people and programs that meaningfully engaged their cultural backgrounds, allowed them to better understand and validated their own communities and lives, provided opportunities to connect with people from their communities, gave them opportunities to give back to their communities, provided holistic and proactive support, and humanized their experience. This history led the lead author to reach out to the student from the article to learn more about her experience.</p> <p>When asked what it was about her study abroad experience that made it so powerful, the student talked about being able to connect with people who shared some of her cultural and linguistic background and welcomed her into their community. She also underscored that she executed a project to address health disparities facing underserved communities in Puerto Rico and was able to have a positive impact, making the experience especially meaningful. Finally, she shared that she had another study abroad experience in a different country, where she was unable to meaningfully connect with local communities, did not complete her project, and felt that her motivation had eroded. In other words, while this second study abroad experience had an impact, it was not necessarily a positive one. In this example of HIPs, the devil was in the details.</p> <p>None of what the student in this story shared will be a surprise to those familiar with the decades of scholarly research on the role of culture and identity in diverse college students' thriving (Museus, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref2">31</reflink>]). However, her comments do raise several important questions about HIPs discourse. If the positive impact of the Latina student's study abroad experience was at least partially due to these cultural elements of it, then why were the latter ignored in the discussion of her time abroad? Did the HIP experts who were interviewed lack access to research that centers the voices of students at the margins? Did they not feel equipped to talk about these aspects of HIPs? Did they simply choose to focus on other things? Perhaps most important, when the erasure of power, positionality, culture, and identity permeates national conversations about HIPs, what are the consequences for how students experience these practices?</p> <p>Policymakers and institutions across the nation have adopted HIPs to increase success rates among underserved populations (Museus et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref3">38</reflink>]). However, they often dismiss issues of power, context, culture, and identity as tangential, unnecessary, or trivial (Patton et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref4">45</reflink>]; Stewart & Nicolazzo, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref5">51</reflink>]). Given that research highlights how these factors heavily determine whether underserved students' educational experiences are negative or positive (Museus, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref6">31</reflink>]; Patton et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref7">45</reflink>]), many would argue that HIPs discourse often marginalizes the voices, knowledge, and needs of these communities.</p> <p>We do not believe that HIPs are inherently problematic, and we have heard many stories of students like the one in the opening vignette who highlight how culturally relevant and responsive HIPs can empower students (Museus et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref8">34</reflink>]; Museus, Wright‐Mair, & Mac, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref9">37</reflink>]). Our issue is with the erasure of the cultural factors that can determine whether these practices promote or inhibit students' abilities to flourish. We believe that this erasure can lead educators to design and deliver HIPs in ways that ignore culture, are less than conducive to students thriving, and might even adversely affect their well‐being and ability to succeed. This reality might be one of the many reasons that dominant student success agendas and the massive amounts of resources that have been mobilized to advance them (including substantial amounts of grant funding, student success initiatives, institutional assessments, and national convenings dedicated to student success) have failed to adequately address egregious inequities in our education system.</p> <p>Due to these dynamics, while HIPs discourse has largely been framed as a mechanism to better serve all students (Kuh, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref10">22</reflink>]), we argue that the ongoing nature of the narrative surrounding these practices problematically shapes how they are understood, designed, and delivered. We do so by tracing the historical evolution of student success discourse, highlighting the context and origins of the HIPs narrative. In doing so, we expose the ways in which power inequities shape the roots of the dominant HIPs narrative, as well as how these dynamics perpetually exclude knowledge and perspectives from the margins. Then, we offer recommendations for those who are concerned with the impact of HIPs on equity agendas or who desire to advance a more equitable vision for HIPs.</p> <hd id="AN0164437907-3">HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF HIGH‐IMPACT PRACTICES DISCOURSE</hd> <p>Tracing the history of student success discourse can reveal how power imbalances and the dominant narratives that result from them can sustain inequities in these conversations. In the first three decades following the founding of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>]) in the 1970s, conversations about student success were dominated by White men (Astin, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref12">3</reflink>]; Kuh, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref13">23</reflink>]; Tinto, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref14">54</reflink>]). These scholarly and policy researchers played a major role in deciding which concepts would be centered in student success discourse. They also generated major surveys and data that encouraged people to focus their attention and energies on these concepts in their efforts to maximize success.</p> <p>In the 1970s and 1980s, Tinto ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref15">54</reflink>]) proposed his theory of student integration, which argued that students must sever ties with their precollege communities and acculturate to the campus cultures to succeed. For decades, this theory dominated student success discourse. By the 1990s, scholars were heavily critiquing Tinto's theory and questioning its underlying assumptions (Braxton, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref16">6</reflink>]; Hurtado & Carter, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref17">26</reflink>]; Tierney, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref18">53</reflink>]). During this same period, scholars also began highlighting student involvement and engagement as alternatives to the concept of integration (Astin, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref19">3</reflink>]; Kuh, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref20">24</reflink>]). By the 2000s, student engagement would relatively quickly displace student integration as the dominant focus in discussions about student success. By the end of this decade, higher education scholars and leaders would also underscore and promote HIPs as a key mechanism to facilitate such engagement (Kuh, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref21">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>There were multiple critiques of Tinto's theory, but the larger higher education research community would take some of them more of them seriously than others. For example, some researchers critiqued the concept of integration for overemphasizing individual students' responsibilities to assimilate without sufficiently acknowledging institutions' roles in adapting to facilitate student success (Rendón et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref22">48</reflink>]). These critiques appear to be considered heavily in future narratives around student engagement and HIPs, as the latter has explicitly highlighted institutions' shared responsibility to provide HIP opportunities and maximize engagement to foster student success (Kuh et al., 2005). Other researchers questioned the empirical evidence supporting the validity of Tinto's theory (Braxton et al., 1997). In the years that followed, these critiques also appeared to be considered, as major donors and researchers produced national survey operations that could generate evidence supporting the focus on student engagement and HIPs (Museus, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref23">30</reflink>]). Underscoring institutions' responsibility and generating large‐scale survey systems to promote the focus on engagement would help solidify student engagement and HIPs as the dominant foci in efforts to address barriers to student success.</p> <p>Other critiques were given much less consideration in research and discourse on student engagement. For instance, scholars also noted that Tinto's theory problematically assumed that students must assimilate into the dominant culture of their often predominantly White campuses (Hurtado & Carter, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref24">26</reflink>]; Museus & Maramba, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref25">40</reflink>]; Tierney, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref26">53</reflink>]). They argued that this assumption placed excessive pressure on students of color to separate from their cultural heritages and assimilate into the cultures of their campuses. These scholars advocated moving beyond culturally erosive frameworks and systems that force students to leave their cultures and identities behind, in favor of culturally engaging models and environments (Museus, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref27">31</reflink>]). Many would argue that these cultural critiques challenged the very foundations of the concept of integration, as well as any other concepts that ignored or minimized the impact of student culture and identity. These critiques were largely left unincorporated in student engagement discourse and research agendas (Patton et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref28">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>The substantial investment of resources to channel the attention and energy of researchers and practitioners to focus on student engagement in the 1990s did not happen randomly or in a vacuum. In the latter half of the 20th century, society's elite sought to eradicate social justice movements' collective calls for systemic transformation and redirect that energy to individualized market‐driven activity (Ferguson, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref29">12</reflink>]). These changes also encouraged people throughout society to focus on hyper‐competition, hyper‐surveillance, and the role of college campuses in increasing the nation's competitiveness in a global economy (Darder, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref30">8</reflink>]; Museus & LePeau, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref31">39</reflink>]; Wright‐Mair & Museus, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref32">55</reflink>]). Student engagement became seen as a key mechanism to maximize the competitiveness of college graduates so they can fuel the national economic agenda and sustain U.S. dominance in the global sphere.</p> <p>These larger systemic changes also prompted the creation of accountability and ranking structures heavily based on large‐scale surveys and data (Ewell, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref33">11</reflink>]; Slater & Seawright, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref34">50</reflink>]). Major donors funded the creation and expansion of national survey systems to help quantify, measure, and monitor activities to advance the accountability movement (Beer, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref35">4</reflink>]). These big data and assessment systems generated pressure and incentives for people on campuses across the nation to focus their energy on concepts such as engagement (Museus, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref36">30</reflink>]). However, these data systems largely ignored issues of community culture and identity (Museus, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref37">30</reflink>]). When education scholars and leaders discussing student engagement have considered culture and identity, they have often included these concepts as isolated variables rather than viewing them as realities that should permeate discussions about the design, delivery, and assessment of student engagement opportunities.</p> <p>As a result of the shifts mentioned above, higher education policy organizations have cultivated national HIP‐focused agendas. Major foundations have supported both national survey operations and HIP implementation initiatives. National survey organizations employ communities of researchers whose careers are dedicated to advancing these agendas, and postsecondary institutions across the nation pay to have these organizations generate survey data for assessment purposes on their campuses. Colleges and universities use these data to maintain accreditation and show evidence of their efforts' impact, while individual researchers utilize these resources to publish and earn tenure at their institutions. Not surprisingly, many people across the nation have become invested in these operations and might be compelled to defend them from critique and competition.</p> <hd id="AN0164437907-4">DISCONNECT BETWEEN HIPS AND KNOWLEDGE FROM THE MARGINS</hd> <p>Of course, not all higher education research and discourse has aligned with dominant success narratives. Beginning in the 1990s, several scholars were conducting research grounded in the voices of marginalized and historically subjugated communities (such as Hurtado & Carter, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref38">26</reflink>]; Rendón et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref39">48</reflink>]; Tierney, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref40">53</reflink>]). They stressed the importance of cultural validation, sense of belonging, and a host of other factors that explained how these students thrive in college (such as Hurtado & Carter, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref41">26</reflink>]; Rendón et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref42">48</reflink>]; Tierney, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref43">53</reflink>]). With the diversification of the higher education field and increased efforts to center the voices of students from the margins, this knowledge has continued to expand in the 21st century.</p> <p>Much of this knowledge was utilized to inform the development of new perspectives that aimed to move the knowledge and voices of marginalized communities, including their emphasis on the role of culture and identity, to the center of college success discourse (e.g., Garcia et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref44">17</reflink>]; Garcia, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref45">16</reflink>]; Museus, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref46">31</reflink>]; Rendón, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref47">47</reflink>], 2006; Rendón et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref48">48</reflink>]; Tachine, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref49">52</reflink>]). One of these perspectives is the Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE; <emph>pronounced see‐see</emph>) model of students' success, which underscores how culturally relevant curricula and programs that allow diverse students to connect with, learn about, and give back to their own cultural communities are key factors that allow them to thrive (Museus et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref50">35</reflink>]). The model also underscores the importance of culturally responsive (i.e., collectivist, humanized, proactive, and holistic) support in ensuring people from diverse backgrounds have the capacity to flourish in college.</p> <p>A growing body of research suggest that these factors influence an array of outcomes among both White students and students of color, including their college adjustment, engagement, motivation, self‐efficacy, sense of belonging, and eventual success (Castro Samayoa, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref51">7</reflink>]; Druery & Brooms, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref52">10</reflink>]; Muñoz & Espino, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref53">29</reflink>]; Museus, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref54">32</reflink>]; Museus & Chang, 2020; Museus et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref55">42</reflink>]). Despite these advances, with few exceptions (Katsumoto & Bowman, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref56">20</reflink>]), research that centers these marginalized voices and the frameworks they inform have largely been minimized, if not ignored, in HIPs discourse.</p> <p>The erasure of community culture and identity from HIPs narratives is not trivial. The importance of these factors and the potentially harmful consequences of ignoring them is evident in the story of the student in the opening vignette. This significance is reflected in the racial justice movements that have continued to be denied and demand education that is adequately relevant and responsive to historically subjugated communities over the last century (Museus & LePeau, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref57">39</reflink>]). This importance is also manifest in the decades of research that highlight the vital nature of culturally relevant and responsive education for students at the margins (Castro Samayoa, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref58">7</reflink>]; Dowd et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref59">9</reflink>]; Druery & Brooms, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref60">10</reflink>]; Muñoz & Espino, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref61">29</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0164437907-5">COMPLICATING HIGH‐IMPACT PRACTICES DISCOURSE</hd> <p>Considering HIPs discourse and the knowledge that has been generated from the margins together can complicate and advance conversations about what constitutes a practice that is high‐impact. Some researchers find that HIPs might not contribute to important undergraduate outcomes (Johnson & Stage, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref62">19</reflink>]), but the bulk of research suggests that HIPs are correlated with positive outcomes, such as student learning, retention, career plans, and occupational attainment (Miller et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref63">27</reflink>]; Provencher & Kassel, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref64">46</reflink>]; Seymour et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref65">49</reflink>]). This does not mean that such practices can <emph>never</emph> be designed and delivered in problematic or harmful ways for marginalized populations. In fact, any suggestions that HIPs <emph>never</emph> negatively influence the experiences of underserved students would deny decades of collective knowledge grounded in the experiences of these communities.</p> <p>Researchers also note that the relationship between HIPs and student outcomes is likely complicated (Kilgo et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref66">21</reflink>]; Zilvinskis, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref67">56</reflink>]). For example, Kilgo et al. found that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBQ) students' participation in some but not all HIPs was statistically related to their academic development. Some HIPs, such as faculty interaction, have also been found to positively influence overall student outcomes while being negatively related to outcomes among students from underserved communities (Zilvinskis, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref68">56</reflink>]). These studies underscore the problems with a one‐size‐fits‐all view of HIPs and reinforce the reality that the qualitative aspects of these practices likely determine the nature of their impact.</p> <p>A handful of researchers have highlighted evidence that culturally engaging aspects of HIPs (such as caring faculty, relevance to students' lives, and giving back to students' communities) might be what allows these practices to have a powerful positive impact on many historically marginalized students (Blake et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref69">5</reflink>]; Finley & McNair, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref70">13</reflink>]; Museus, Yi, & Saelua, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref71">36</reflink>]; Museus et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref72">38</reflink>]). Despite such evidence, the bulk of discourse around HIPs fails to meaningfully engage theory and research that excavates the types of environments and interactions that allow underserved communities to thrive. These dynamics also inhibit our collective understanding regarding how to maximize the positive impact of these practices.</p> <hd id="AN0164437907-6">FIVE MISCONCEPTIONS THAT INHIBIT MORE EQUITABLE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HIGH‐IMPACT PRACTICES</hd> <p>The concept of <emph>epistemic injustice</emph> refers to the ways in which those in power reject or exclude knowledge from those who are marginalized (Fricker, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref73">14</reflink>]; Fricker et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref74">15</reflink>]). This concept might be useful in helping shed light on how many researchers, policymakers, and educators dismiss or minimize knowledge and voices from the margins to protects dominant narratives about student success from outside threats—or the voices and knowledge claims of minoritized communities. Epistemic injustice manifests and perpetuates the exclusion of marginalized knowledge and voices in at least two ways.</p> <p>First, epistemic injustice transpires when those who wield the power to evaluate knowledge claims hold prejudices that can propel them to dismiss the credibility of marginalized people making the claims (Fricker, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref75">14</reflink>]; Fricker et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref76">15</reflink>]). In the context of conversations about student success, such biases lead to several misconceptions that hinder the ability of researchers, policymakers, and educators to meaningfully engage knowledge from communities at the margins. While not an exhaustive list, we discuss  five common misconceptions that we frequently observe in conversations about HIPs. The hope is that this list prompts further reflection and dialog about the many biases and misconceptions that permeate this discourse:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> If a practice has a positive overall relationship with educational outcomes, then it must be equitable </bold> . Researchers, policymakers, and educators can easily misinterpret overly simplistic evidence of positive overall correlations between a practice and educational outcome among underserved communities as proof that the practice is equitable. Both common sense and evidence suggest that this assumption is misguided. For example, taking the SAT might be correlated with the likelihood that students of color matriculate into higher education, but most experts would argue that this test has been far from equitable given their inherent cultural bias that disadvantages underserved communities and the fact that more affluent students have disproportionate access to test preparation resources (Park & Becks, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref77">44</reflink>]). Similarly, underserved students who receive a merit scholarship might be more likely to succeed in higher education, but such awards are not inherently equitable because they can be designed to reward privilege and be disproportionately given to affluent students (Heller & Marin, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref78">18</reflink>]). Therefore, if evidence shows that HIPs are correlated with success among marginalized students, it is not sufficient to conclude they are equitable.</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Culture and identity are just contexts and not central considerations </bold> . Researchers, policymakers, and educators can perpetuate the misconception that culture and identity are simply contexts. In doing so, they can fail to see that culture and identity permeate every aspect of the design and delivery of educational programs and practices. Educators' and students' cultural backgrounds and identities shape what gets centered in programs and practices, the interactions that take place in them, how students experience them, and how people might differentially define and measure their impact (Museus, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref79">31</reflink>]; Rendón, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref80">47</reflink>]). To ignore the central role that culture and identity play in the educational experience is to disregard the complexities of students' lives and realities—not only but especially those from the margins.</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Culture and identity are only relevant to people of color </bold> . It is a common misconception that culture and identity are only relevant to people of color and irrelevant to everyone else. This view ignores the reality that White and relatively affluent people have historically and disproportionately shaped the cultures that exist on college campuses across the nation (Museus & Quaye, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref81">41</reflink>]), and educational experiences that are relevant and responsive to White and more affluent students' communities and identities facilitate their success (Museus et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref82">35</reflink>], Museus, Yi, & Saelua, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref83">36</reflink>]). This misconception also fails to recognize the importance of intersecting identities and the diversity that exists in white communities. For example, campuses might relatively devalue queer and trans* or first‐generation White students' community cultures and identities, while offering a plethora of opportunities and activities that validate the realities of White affluent cisgender heterosexual men (Mobley et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref84">28</reflink>]; Nicolazzo, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref85">43</reflink>]; Patton et al., 2015). In sum, culture is just as relevant to White campus community members, even though it shapes their experiences in different ways than their non‐White counterparts.</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Culturally engaged learning is not academically rigorous </bold> . Educational leaders and practitioners typically espouse the notion that one aspect of higher education's mission is to intellectually challenge students. Unfortunately, we also commonly hear educators argue that connecting curricula and programs to students' cultural communities falls short of forcing these students out of their comfort zones and therefore fails to academically challenge them. This false notion that culturally relevant curricula and programs inherently lack rigor or the ability to challenge students dismisses the realities of these communities and the need to provide an education that serves them. In reality, many underserved students have been denied the opportunity to learn about their own community histories and realities in the education system, and therefore <emph>are</emph> challenged through such experiences. This perspective also assumes that making curricula and programs relevant to students' backgrounds precludes educators from simultaneously facilitating learning across their communities‐an assumption that is incorrect.</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> If big data do not center it, then it is not that important </bold> . Policymakers and educators often require and rely on surveys and data to inform how they will invest their energy and material resources. While survey data can certainly be useful, we must think about the consequences when the priorities of marginalized communities are decentered within or completely left out of the data. In such cases, the tools and data can function to maintain a focus on inequitable agendas while dismissing or devaluing more equitable ones. Many educators rely on surveys and data systems that ignore or minimize culture and identity, limiting their capacities to center, engage, and understand experiences from the margins. Many also use the resulting "insufficient" data on culture and identity as an excuse to ignore concepts that are often viewed as vital among communities at the margins.</item> </ulist> <p>When such dismissals are pervasive, they dehumanize communities of color. In other words, they are inherently inequitable.</p> <p>Epistemic injustice also occurs when people in positions of power and privilege lack the capacity to understand marginalized positions and perspectives, which leads them to dismiss this knowledge (Fricker, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref86">14</reflink>]; Fricker et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref87">15</reflink>]). However, it is important to note that people with power and privilege choose whether (not) to invest time and energy in developing the capacity to understand marginalized perspectives.</p> <p>It is easy to see how choosing <emph>not</emph> to invest time and energy in understanding and meaningfully engaging knowledge and perspectives from the margins can be convenient and individually rewarding. In the current political and economic context, higher education pressures us to constantly maximize output and minimum cost (Museus & LePeau, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref88">39</reflink>]). If dominant narratives and systems (theories, instruments, literature, big data) are founded on a HIPs narrative that disregards culture and identity, then individuals might find it efficient to align research and practice with these views and invest in and benefit from the resources that exist in these systems. It is much less "efficient" for people to center knowledge from marginalized communities and question the dominant structures in which government and higher education institutions continually invest massive amounts of resources. Thus, investing in the dominant framings of HIPs arguably consumes less individual time and energy for most people, while providing greater potential access to resources, output, and prestige. Yet sometimes we must let go of ego and the desire to maximize profit and productivity in the name of equity.</p> <hd id="AN0164437907-7">CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS</hd> <p>The aim of this chapter is not to blame any individual researchers or practitioners for the inherent inequities in HIPs discourse. At the same time, researchers and educators have some agency to decide whether they will adopt or challenge dominant agendas and narratives that have ignored the priorities and needs of subjugated communities for decades. Of course, we are not advocating that anyone completely dismiss the value of HIPs either. However, we do underscore how adopting an uncritical frame of these practices that ignores the power of culture and identity in shaping student trajectories is negligent at best and damaging at worst.</p> <p>Higher education researchers, policymakers, and practitioners should acknowledge the history surrounding HIPs discourse. The roots of dominant behavior‐focused narratives around student success are grounded in predominantly White western academic cultures and logic (Patton et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref89">45</reflink>]). The early concept of student integration and what can be interpreted as subsequent iterations of majoritarian success narratives decenter the knowledge, voices, and priorities of communities at the margins. Awareness and consideration of this historical context are necessary for researchers and educators to understand how their choices and actions might be harmful or alternatively how they can inform more fruitful experiences for diverse communities.</p> <p>Uncritically centering dominant frameworks and agendas is counterproductive at best. Little progress toward equity will be achieved through conversations about increasing participation of marginalized students in inherently inequitable practices. Similarly, substantial progress will not likely come from being consumed in conversations about whether underserved students who participate in these practices are marginally more successful. Such conversations perpetually detract attention and energy away from those things that marginalized communities have continuously told us are most important to them and necessary for them to thrive. In other words, such discussions perpetuate inequities by consuming energy and resources that could be channeled toward truly equitable projects.</p> <p>Philanthropists, policymakers, researchers, and educators who are authentically concerned with producing equitable outcomes should advocate overhauling existing agendas or advancing new narratives, structures, and tools that center marginalized voices and knowledge. Such discussions might capitalize on the efforts of those already designing and deploying HIPs in culturally relevant and responsive ways. Such programs and practices hold much more promise in efforts to create the conditions for diverse students to thrive.</p> <p>The theme that runs throughout our discussion is that refusing to meaningfully engage research that centers the voices of marginalized communities and underscores the role of culture and identity in their experiences is to deny the validity of their knowledge and voices. Our hope is that increased consciousness about the historical contexts surrounding such choices and their consequences will lead to more equitable approaches to understanding, discussing, and fostering student success. In the end, readers who research or implement HIPs will have to decide for themselves whether they will keep an eye out for the devil that might lie in the details.</p> <ref id="AN0164437907-8"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Authors critique the power inequities embedded in high‐impact practices discourse and how they exclude knowledge and perspectives from marginalized communities.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0164437907-9"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> American Association of Colleges and Universities [AAC&U] (2022). High‐impact practices. https://<ulink href="http://www.aacu.org/trending‐topics/high‐impact">www.aacu.org/trending‐topics/high‐impact</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref11" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Association for the Study of Higher Education [ASHE] (2022). History. https://<ulink href="http://www.ashe.ws/history">www.ashe.ws/history</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref12" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25 (4), 297 – 308.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref35" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Beer, D. (2015). Productive measures: Culture and measurement in the context of everyday neoliberalism. Big Data & Society, 2 (1), 1 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref69" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Blake, D., Gasman, M., Esmieu, P. L., Castro Samayoa, A., & Cener, J. (2020). Culturally relevant study abroad for students of color: Lessons from the Frederick Douglass Global Fellowship in London. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 13 (2), 158 – 168.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref16" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Braxton, J. M. (2000). Reworking the student departure puzzle. Vanderbilt University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref51" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Castro Samayoa, A. (2018). "People around me here, they know the struggle": Students' experiences with faculty member's mentorship at three Hispanic serving institutions. Education Sciences, 8 (2), 49.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref30" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Darder, A. (2012). Neoliberalism in the academic borderlands: An on‐going struggle for equality and human rights. Educational Studies, 48 (5), 412 – 426.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref59" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Dowd, A. C., Sawatzky, M., & Korn, R. (2011). Theoretical foundations and a research agenda to validate measures of intercultural effort. The Review of Higher Education, 35 (1), 17 – 44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Druery, J. E., & Brooms, D. R. (2019). "It lit up the campus": Engaging Black males in culturally enriching environments. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 12 (4), 330 – 340.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ewell, P. T. (2010). The US national survey of student engagement (NSSE). In Public policy for academic quality (pp. 83 – 97). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferguson, R. A. (2017). We demand: The university and student protests (Vol. 1). University of California Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finley, A., & McNair, T. (2013). Assessing underserved students' engagement in high‐impact practices. Association of American Colleges and Universities.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fricker, M., Peels, R., & Blaauw, M. (2016). Epistemic injustice and the preservation of ignorance. In The epistemic dimensions of ignorance (pp. 160 – 177). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garcia, G. A. (2019). Becoming Hispanic‐serving institutions: Opportunities for colleges and universities. Johns Hopkins University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garcia, G. A., Núñez, A. M., & Sansone, V. A. (2019). Toward a multidimensional conceptual framework for understanding "servingness" in Hispanic‐Serving institutions: A synthesis of the research. Review of Educational Research, 89 (5), 745 – 784. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319864591</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heller, D. E., & Marin, P. (2004). State merit scholarship programs and racial inequality. Harvard University Civil Rights Project.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, S. R., & Stage, F. K. (2018). Academic engagement and student success: Do high‐impact practices mean higher graduation rates? The Journal of Higher Education, 89 (5), 753 – 781.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Katsumoto, S., & Bowman, N. A. (2021). The link between high‐impact practices and college success among international students in the US. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2022-06132-001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kilgo, C. A., Linley, J. L., Renn, K. A., & Woodford, M. R. (2019). High‐impact for whom? The influence of environment and identity on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer college students' participation in high‐impact practices. Journal of College Student Development, 60 (4), 421 – 436.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuh, G. D. (2008). High‐impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuh, G. D. (1993). In their own words: What students learn outside the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 30 (2), 277 – 304.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out‐of‐class experiences associated with student learning and personal development. The Journal of Higher Education, 66 (2), 123 – 155.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial climate on Latino college students' sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70, 324 – 345.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, A. L., Rocconi, L. M., & Dumford, A. D. (2018). Focus on the finish line: Does high‐impact practice participation influence career plans and early job attainment? Higher Education, 75 (3), 489 – 506.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mobley, S. D., McNally, T., & Moore, G. T. (2019). Revealing the potential for historically Black colleges and universities to be liberatory environments for Queer students: (Re) centering the narrative. In E. M. Zamani‐Gallaher, D. D. Choudhuri, & J. L. Taylor (Eds.), Rethinking LGBTQIA students and collegiate contexts (pp. 99 – 119). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muñoz, S. M., & Espino, M. M. (2017). The freedom to learn: Experiences of students without legal status attending Freedom University. The Review of Higher Education, 40 (4), 533 – 555.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Museus, S. D. (2023). An evolving QuantCrit: The quantitative research complex and a theory of racialized quantitative systems. In L. W. Perna (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 631 – 664). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Museus, S. D. (2014). The culturally engaging campus environments (CECE) model: A new theory of success among racially diverse college student populations. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 189 – 227). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Museus, S. D. (2008). The role of ethnic student organizations in fostering African American and Asian American students' cultural adjustment and membership at predominantly White institutions. Journal of College Student Development, 49 (6), 568 – 586.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Museus, S. D., & Chang, T. H. (2021). The impact of campus environments on sense of belonging for first‐generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 62 (3), 367 – 372.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Museus, S. D., Shiroma, K., & Dizon, J. P. (2016). Cultural community connections and college success: An examination of Southeast Asian American college students. Journal of College Student Development, 57 (5), 485 – 502.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Museus, S. D., Yi, V., & Saelua, N. (2017). The impact of culturally engaging campus environments on sense of belonging. The Review of Higher Education, 40 (2), 187 – 215.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Museus, S. D., Yi, V., & Saelua, N. (2018). How culturally engaging campus environments influence sense of belonging in college: An examination of differences between White students and students of color. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11 (4), 467 – 483.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Museus, S. D., Wright‐Mair, R., & Mac, J. (2018). How Asian American Native American and Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs) are creating the conditions for college students to thrive. Center for Minority Serving Institutions.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Museus, S. D., Chang, T., & Zilvinskis, J. (2020). Merging cultural diversity and academic quality to (re)envision 21 st century college campuses: The promise and power of culturally relevant high‐impact practices in promoting racial equity in higher education. In C. B. Newman, C. S. Platt, A. A. Hilton, & B. Hinnant‐Crawford (Eds.), Multicultural education in the 21st century: Innovative research and practices. Information Age Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Museus, S. D., & LePeau, L. (2019). Navigating neoliberal organizational cultures: Implications for higher education leaders advancing social justice agendas. In A. Kezar & J. Posselt (Eds.), Administration for social justice and equity in higher education: Critical perspectives for leadership and decision making (pp. 209 – 224). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Museus, S. D., & Maramba, D. C. (2011). The impact of culture on Filipino American Students' sense of belonging. Review of Higher Education, 34 (2), 231 – 258.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Museus, S. D., & Quaye, S. J. (2009). Toward an intercultural perspective of racial and ethnic minority college student persistence. The Review of Higher Education, 33 (1), 67 – 94.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Museus, S. D., Griffin, K. A., & Quaye, S. J. (2019). Engaging students of color. In Student engagement in higher education (pp. 17 – 35). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nicolazzo, Z. (2016). Trans* in college: Transgender students' strategies for navigating campus life and the institutional politics of inclusion. Stylus Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park, J. J., & Becks, A. H. (2015). Who benefits from SAT prep?: An examination of high school context and race/ethnicity. The Review of Higher Education, 39 (1), 1 – 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patton, L. D., Harper, S. R., & Harris, J. (2015). Using critical race theory to (re)interpret widely‐studied topics related to students in U.S. higher education. In A. M. Martínez Alemán, E. M. Bensimon, & B. Pusser (Eds.), Critical approaches to the study of higher education (pp. 193 – 219). Johns Hopkins University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Provencher, A., & Kassel, R. (2019). High‐impact practices and sophomore retention: Examining the effects of selection bias. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 21 (2), 221 – 241.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rendón, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19, 33 – 51.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rendón, L. I., Jalomo, R. E., & Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical considerations in the study of minority student retention in higher education. In J. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 127 – 156). Vanderbilt University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seymour, E., Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S. L., & DeAntoni, T. (2004). Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three‐year study. Science Education, 88 (4), 493 – 534.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slater, G. B., & Seawright, G. (2018). Putting homo economicus to the test: How neoliberalism measures the value of educational life. The Wiley handbook of global educational reform (pp. 371 – 388). Wiley‐Blackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stewart, D. L., & Nicolazzo, Z. (2018). High impact of [whiteness] on trans* students in postsecondary education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 51 (2), 132 – 145.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tachine, A. R. (2022). Native presence and sovereignty in college: Sustaining Indigenous weapons to defeat systemic monsters. Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tierney, W. G. (1999). Models of minority college‐going and retention: Cultural integrity versus cultural suicide. The Journal of Negro Education, 68 (1), 80 – 91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45 (1), 89 – 125.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wright‐Mair, R., & Museus, S. D. (2021). Playing the game just enough: How racially minoritized faculty who advance equity conceptualize success in the neoliberal academy. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 16, 109 – 119.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zilvinskis, J. (2019). Measuring quality in high‐impact practices. Higher Education, 78 (4), 687 – 709.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Samuel D. Museus and Lucy A. LePeau</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Samuel D. Museus is a Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of California, San Diego.</p> <p>Lucy A. Le Peau is an Associate Professor of Higher Education and Student Affairs at Indiana University, Bloomington.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref85"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1381733
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Devil in the Details: How High-Impact Practices Can Miss the Mark
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Museus%2C+Samuel+D%2E%22">Museus, Samuel D.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22LePeau%2C+Lucy+A%2E%22">LePeau, Lucy A.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22New+Directions+for+Student+Services%22"><i>New Directions for Student Services</i></searchLink>. Spr 2023 (181):7-17.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Practices%22">Educational Practices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Outcomes+of+Education%22">Outcomes of Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Misconceptions%22">Misconceptions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equal+Education%22">Equal Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/ss.20451
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0164-7970<br />1536-0695
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Higher education researchers and practitioners increasingly rely on high-impact practices in their efforts to promote success among diverse college students. In this chapter, we discuss the dangers of uncritically adopting one-size-fits-all notions of high-impact practices, and we underscore the need to meaningfully consider culture and identity in efforts to design and deliver such initiatives in equitable ways. We also offer five common misconceptions that inhibit advancing more equitable conversations about high-impact practices.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1381733
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1381733
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/ss.20451
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 7
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Practices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Outcomes of Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Misconceptions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Equal Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Devil in the Details: How High-Impact Practices Can Miss the Mark
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Museus, Samuel D.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: LePeau, Lucy A.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0164-7970
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1536-0695
          Numbering:
            – Type: issue
              Value: 181
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: New Directions for Student Services
              Type: main
ResultId 1