Disrupting Deficit Mindsets: Mitigating Ideology That Derails Equitable Continuous Improvement

• In Event: Adapting Continuous Improvement Methods to Advance Equity-Related Goals

Abstract

Continuous improvement (CI) does not necessarily lead to equitable outcomes (Bang & Vossoughi, 2016; Bush- Menenas, 2022; Capper, 2019; Horsford et al., 2018; Safir & Dugan, 2021). Accreditation agencies have standards around continuous improvement yet outcomes for marginalized populations remain disparate. Too often, we focus efforts on “fixing” or assimilating minoritized individuals into the current system instead of transforming the system. Our tendency to locate problems of practice (or opportunities for improvement) inside of people and communities instead of systems is the result of deficit ideological frames (Gorski, 2011). This study examines how scholar-practitioners engaged in CI address and mitigate the impact of deficit ideology in the problem definition and intervention selection stages of CI projects.

Deficit ideology is well documented in K-12 and higher education literature as a mental schema that justifies unequitable outcomes by finding fault in marginalized students and/or their communities (Gorski, 2011; Ladson-Billings, 2007; McNair et al., 2020; Milner, 2012; Valenica, 1997). Gorski (2011) explains a deficit worldview fails to see the system producing the results, but instead “discounts sociopolitical contexts, such as systemic conditions (racism, economic injustice) that grant some people greater social, pollical and economic access” than others (p.153). Deficit mindsets and low expectations are contributing factors that lead to inequitable opportunities to learn (Milner, 2012).

This paper reports preliminary findings from a qualitative multi-case study, examining the phenomenon of deficit ideology within the CI process. Guided by Merriam’s (1998) conception of case study as particular, descriptive, and heuristic, we use multiple data sources. Participants in this study are recent graduates of an equity focused, Carnegie inspired, EdD program that requires a dissertation in practice (DiP) where doctoral candidates use improvement science to address a problem of practice (Perry, et al, 2020). The published, publicly available, DiPs serve as documentary evidence, particularly early chapters and artifacts such as the Ishikawa or decision tree diagrams that illuminate the problem definition process or driver diagrams illustrating working theories of improvement. We use initial document analysis to inform protocols for conducting phenomenological interviews with each graduate. Interviews are semi-structured in nature, asking participants to recount conversations and collaboration with stakeholders during different phases of the improvement initiative.

Preliminary results show that deficit perspectives are present in the problem definition process. Even when scholar-practitioners attempt to assemble a team of equity minded practitioners, deficit ideas about students, families, and communities appear. Ideas such as “culture of poverty,” “motivation,” “priorities,” and “apathy” appear on Ishikawa diagrams, locating the cause of inequitable outcomes within the students instead of the system.

Systems create and uphold inequality, but people create and uphold systems. While it is necessary for equity work to be institutionalized, improvers cannot neglect that people must change to support equitable systems. Mindsets, worldviews, and ideologies matter. Sealy-Ruiz recently wrote, educators’ “beliefs about students and their community dictate how much or little they will invest in them” (2022, p.24). Beliefs matter in improvement work, and a good methodology will be rendered ineffective if the axiology behind it is problematic.

Authors

• Brandi N. Hinnant-Crawford, Clemson University
  Presenting Author

• Rebecca Childs, Western Carolina University
  Presenting Author