Faculty Perspectives on the Recruitment,Retention,and Preparation of Special Education Doctoral Students of Color

Abstract

The field of special education continues to grapple with the presence and implications of disproportional representation related to race and ethnicity. While research focuses mostly on disproportional representation of students, there remains long-standing acknowledgment that too few students of color populate our special education university doctoral programs. The present study, therefore, surveyed current special education faculty members at doctoral degree granting institutions to understand the practices used to recruit and retain doctoral students of color and perspectives on their programs’ climate related to racial and ethnic diversity. In addition, the research team conducted a series of exploratory analyses to examine whether responses depended on respondent race or whether the respondent worked at a minority-serving institution. Results suggest a general commitment to increasing doctoral student diversity; however, there appears a lack of formalized plans and culturally relevant coursework. Findings of the exploratory analyses suggest that programs within minority-serving institutions may provide important leadership in this area. We conclude with limitations and recommendations for doctoral programs.

Keywords

diversity teacher preparation practices and outcomes teacher preparation participant characteristics equity teacher preparation policy/service delivery recruitment retention

The disproportionate representation of students of color in special education remains a widely acknowledged and hotly debated topic (Cruz & Rodl, 2018). While much of the attention regarding disproportionality in special education focuses on students, many recognize similar imbalances as they pertain to the special education teacher workforce (Ingersoll et al., 2019). Billingsley et al. (2019) estimate that special education teachers of color comprise less than one-fifth of the workforce with a disproportionate number of those working in urban or high-poverty schools. In contrast, students of color make up nearly half of those with disabilities, suggesting an underrepresentation of special education teachers of color relative to the student population. Researchers have long discussed the benefits of a more racially and ethnically diverse special education workforce (Tyler et al., 2004), and though recent studies suggest a complex association with student outcomes (Fish, 2019; Gottfried et al., 2019), the dearth of special education teachers of color reduces the number available to pursue doctoral education. For instance, Table 1 presents the number and percentage of earned doctorates in special education by race and ethnicity as reported by the National Science Foundation (NSF, 2021). Over this 5-year span, approximately one-quarter of conferred degrees in special education were to individuals of color with the proportion earned consistent with those adumbrated by Billingsley et al. for the teacher workforce. The implication of these numbers, therefore, is that racial and ethnic disproportionality persists within special education doctoral programs. In the following sections, we outline the importance for increasing the diversity of special education doctoral programs and describe the need for intentional recruitment, retention, and programmatic strategies to support doctoral students of color.

Table 1.

Frequency and Percentage of Special Education Earned Doctorates From 2014 to 2019 by Race and Ethnicity.

Race or ethnicity	Year
Race or ethnicity	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	Total
Hispanic or Latino	12 (5.58%)	12 (5.29%)	15 (7.61%)	13 (6.05%)	17 (8.06%)	69 (6.48%)
American Indian or Alaskan Native	2 (0.93%)	3 (1.32%)	0 (0.00%)	0 (0.00%)	2 (0.95%)	7 (0.66%)
Asian	4 (1.86%)	13 (5.73%)	10 (5.08%)	11 (5.12%)	10 (4.74%)	48 (4.51%)
Black or African American	20 (9.30%)	18 (7.93%)	16 (8.12%)	11 (5.12%)	20 (9.48%)	85 (7.98%)
White	172 (80.00%)	169 (74.45%)	149 (75.63%)	168 (78.14%)	151 (71.56%)	809 (75.96%)
More than one race	4 (1.86%)	6 (2.64%)	4 (2.03%)	3 (1.40%)	7 (3.32%)	24 (2.25%)
Other race or not reported	1 (0.47%)	6 (2.64%)	3 (1.52%)	9 (4.19%)	4 (1.90%)	23 (2.16%)
Total doctorates earned	215	227	197	215	211

Source. National Science Foundation (2021) annual survey of doctorate recipients from U.S. Universities.

Importance of Special Education Doctoral Student Diversity

The National Research Council (NRC) (2011) notes that individuals earning doctoral degrees provide their fields with critical expertise to support innovation and contribute intellectual leadership. In special education, graduates of doctoral programs serve in a range of important roles including as teacher preparers, researchers, policy experts, and advocates (Rodriguez et al., 2019). Given the reach and responsibility of special education doctorates, the underrepresentation of both faculty and doctoral students of color in university programs results in several recursive and detrimental consequences. For instance, deBettencourt et al. (2016) argue that the ongoing stagnation in recruiting special education teachers and doctoral students of color relates, in part, to the current lack of racial and ethnic diversity within programs. Moreover, increased diversity in our doctoral programs ensures a broader and more accurate representation of practice and policy challenges confronting our most vulnerable students. That is, the imbalance between the proportion of special educators of color working in urban, under-resourced schools, and those pursuing doctoral education, constrains the discipline’s focus and preparation to serve students with disabilities in our nation’s underserved schools (McLaughlin et al., 2016). While many scholars have acknowledged the importance of increasing the racial and ethnic diversity of special education doctoral programs (Tyler et al., 2004), the field continues to develop appreciation for the complexities and multifaceted nature of successful recruitment, retention, and graduation.

Recruitment and Retention of Special Education Students of Color

The development of a more racially and ethnically diverse university workforce in special education requires successful recruitment and retention of doctoral students of color. However, research suggests little change in the demographic makeup of special education doctoral students of color. Tyler et al. (2003) surveyed special education doctoral students on their aspiration and satisfaction with their program and found that approximately 20% of students were from non-White demographic groups. In a follow-up to Tyler et al., Wasburn-Moses (2008) surveyed doctoral students to understand their satisfaction with their programs with students of color comprising 30% of the sample. These estimates are consistent with those in Table 1 suggesting that doctoral students of color comprise approximately one-quarter of all students over the past two decades. Based on data presented by Smith and Montrosse (2012) as part of a 10-year retrospective of special education doctoral programs, these proportions persist as graduates take faculty positions. Specifically, in their sample of special education faculty, approximately four-fifths were White, underscoring the need to recruit and retain students of color to ensure representation into the special education professorate.

The consistency in the demographics of students of color in special education doctoral programs over time suggests a need to develop more effective recruitment and retention strategies. For instance, Hipolito-Delgado et al. (2017) emphasizes the importance of making personal connections with applicants of color to explain the availability of support from both financial and programmatic perspectives. Actively recruiting students of color allows faculty to understand the individual’s motivations for pursuing a doctoral degree and contribute to more focused advising (Janta et al., 2014). Moreover, Merrell-James et al. (2020) found that successful recruitment strategies for students of color include facilitating connections to students of color in the program, emphasizing that the program values diversity through curricular, field experience, and research opportunities, and the availability of financial supports that often deter students from pursuing doctoral studies. Taken together, doctoral programs interested in recruiting applicants of color have a range of practices and strategies at their disposal to develop a systematic and intentional approach, though questions remain regarding the extent of current implementation.

Following the recruitment and matriculation of students, Tyler et al. (2004) advise that programs engage in intentional retention efforts to promote positive experiences to support students of color in successfully completing the program and developing competitive curriculum vitae for employment opportunities. Indeed, research on factors that contribute to retaining students of color in graduate programs underscores the importance of academic and social support within the program (Trent et al., 2020). For instance, Slay et al. (2019) noted that the retention and positive programmatic experiences for students of color were positively influenced with mentorship from minoritized faculty members, even when the primary adviser was White. In fact, students of color reported that having access to a scholarly community of students and faculty of color reduced experiences of marginalization and isolation within the program. In addition, research on the retention of doctoral students of color indicates the importance of developing a programmatic commitment to racial and ethnic diversity.

Program Climate

Increasing the representation of doctoral students of color within special education constitutes an important objective though the quality of student experiences remains an equally important goal (Griffin et al., 2012). Research examining the experiences of students of color in special education doctoral programs suggests the need for intentional planning and support. For instance, Wasburn-Moses (2007) found greater rates of dissatisfaction with their doctoral experience among African American and Asian students than students from other racial and ethnic groups. Wasburn-Moses hypothesized that the differences in satisfaction for African American and Asian students related to the lack of mentorship because students from these groups reported not considering the importance of their adviser or program faculty when selecting a program, whereas students from other racial and ethnic groups prioritized alignment with their interests. Williams Shealey (2009) found a similar trend when interviewing Black special education doctoral students, as they reported feelings of isolation within their program while noting the importance of developing a network of individuals to provide support.

Following matriculation to a program, many doctoral students of color report finding a superficial commitment to racial and ethnic diversity resulting in a graduate experience that does not meet expectations (Slay et al., 2019; Wasburn-Moses, 2007). As such, special education doctoral faculty must consider racial and ethnic diversity across all facets of the program including providing culturally relevant, student-centered advising and infusing content around diversity throughout the curriculum. Carter et al. (2017) describe the importance of engaging in discussions around racial and ethnic disparities to craft more equitable school policies and interventions. For special education doctoral students and graduates to constructively engage in conversations around race and ethnicity and consider these issues within their own research, it is important to provide opportunities thorough coursework and research experiences (Malone & Ishmail, 2020). Presently, however, the field lacks information on the extent to which programs consider issues of race and ethnicity within their programs, though some hypothesize that faculty of color and those working at minority serving institutions (MSI) may provide important insight into personal and organizational factors that may contribute to more successful outcomes for underrepresented doctoral students (Perna et al., 2010).

Purpose of the Current Study

The contributors to underrepresentation in doctoral programs and the need to implement intentional recruitment and retention efforts remains an oft overlooked aspect of disproportionality in special education. Special education graduate programs are tasked with training culturally competent educators, and doctoral programs have the critical role of also training special education researchers and faculty members. To assess the current state of the field with regard to racial and ethnic diversity and cultural competence in the preparation of doctoral-level trainees, the purpose of this study was to understand current perspectives on recruitment, retention, and programmatic climate from special education faculty members in doctoral programs. Faculty members’ perspectives were solicited regarding their programs’ efforts to recruit and retain minoritized students, train students on cultural competence, and promote a positive, culturally affirming program climate, as well as their own preparedness to promote diversity and teach diversity-related content. The research team then compared responses based on the respondents’ race and ethnicity and whether the respondent worked at a minority-serving institution. The following research questions guided this study:

To what extent do program faculty report using active recruitment and retention methods to attract and support students of color? Do responses vary as a function of respondents’ race and ethnicity and/or whether the respondent works at an MSI?

To what extent do program faculty report a positive program climate related to racial and ethnic diversity? Do responses vary as a function of respondents’ race and ethnicity and/or whether the respondent works at an MSI?

To what extent do program faculty report adequate attention of racial and ethnic diversity within their coursework? Do responses vary as a function of respondents’ race and ethnicity and/or whether the respondent works at an MSI?

To what extent, and for what reasons, do program faculty consider racial and ethnic diversity important? Do responses vary as a function of respondents’ race and ethnicity and/or whether the respondent works at an MSI?

To what extent do program faculty report personal readiness to support doctoral students of color? Do responses vary as a function of respondents’ race and ethnicity and/or whether the respondent works at an MSI?

Method

Participants

Sample identification

Participants consisted of special education faculty members at Carnegie-designated doctoral universities with very high research activity. Carnegie doctoral universities refer to those granting 20 or more research-focused doctoral degrees or those with fewer than 20 research-focused doctoral degrees and 30 or more professional practice doctorate degrees. Moreover, the research expenditures for the university must exceed $5 million annually. Using the Carnegie classification list, the research team reviewed university websites to determine if they conferred doctoral degrees in special education regardless of whether it was a PhD or EdD. The appendix contains the list of universities designated by Carnegie as high-research activity with special education doctoral degree programs. From this list of universities, the research team reviewed program websites to identify those faculty associated with special education via a department, program, concentration, or otherwise noted as having expertise on their faculty profile. If the individual met the criteria, the research team located their email and recorded it onto a spreadsheet with their university affiliation. Following these procedures, the research team collected 784 emails of special education faculty members in the United States.

Survey dissemination and response rate

Following the collection of email addresses, the research team disseminated the survey using the email function provided within the Qualtrics survey platform. The email accompanying the survey link provided an overview of the research purpose and noted that participation was voluntary. In addition to the initial, introductory email, the research team sent three additional follow-up reminders to non-responders separated by approximately 3 weeks each. The initial dissemination consisted of the 784 email addresses identified through the search though the system reported that 12 were not deliverable. As such, the system indicated the successful dissemination of 772 emails. From the emails delivered, the research team received 241 (31.22%) completed responses with variable responding across items. While less than one-third of the sample responded, the response rate is consistent with those typically obtained in social science research (Baruch & Holtom, 2008). Moreover, the racial and ethnic characteristics of the sample match those from prior surveys on doctoral programming (e.g., Tyler et al., 2003; Wasburn-Moses, 2008) and appear consistent with trends of recent graduates (see Table 1) indicating the representativeness of the sample to the target population.

Table 2 presents the demographic, professional, and university characteristics of the sample. As can be seen, the sample was predominantly White and female with a relatively even dispersion across the professorial ranks and most reporting 12 or more years of experience. The research team classified the geographic region of each university from which a response was received with the results suggesting relatively even distribution. Specifically, responses were obtained from New England (n = 16, 6.93%), Mid-East Atlantic (n = 21, 9.09%), Southeast (n = 71, 30.74%), Great Lakes (n = 28, 12.12%), Plains (n = 25, 10.82%), Rocky Mountains (n = 16, 6.93%), Southwest (n = 26, 11.26%), and the Far West (n = 28, 12.12%). Moreover, most respondents reported working at public universities with approximately one-fifth working at a MSI. Of the 51 respondents working at an MSI, 20 (39.22%) respondents worked at Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI), 22 (43.14%) worked at Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander (AANAPISI) or Alaskan Native-Hawaiian Native (AANHSI) Serving Institutions, 8 (15.69%) worked at universities with AANAPISI and HSI designations, and 1 (1.96%) worked at a university with AANAPISI and a Predominantly Black University (PBI).

Table 2.

Survey Respondent Characteristics.

Characteristic	n (%)
Gender
Male	70 (30.30)
Female	159 (68.83)
Prefer not to Answer	1 (0.01)
Other^a	1 (0.01)
Ethnicity
Asian	9 (3.89)
Black	8 (3.46)
Latino	9 (3.89)
White	191 (81.97)
Other^b	13 (5.62)
Prefer Not to Answer	3 (1.29)
Professional Role
Assistant Professor	58 (24.89)
Associate Professor	79 (33.90)
Full Professor	84 (36.05)
Other^c	12 (5.15)
University Type
Private	24 (10.38)
Public	207 (89.61)
Minority Serving Institution
Yes	51 (22.08)
No	180 (77.92)
Years of Service
0–3	35 (15.15)
4–7	58 (25.10)
8–11	37 (16.01)
12+	101 (43.72)
Type of Degree
EdD	12 (5.15)
PhD	221 (95.67)

Other gender roles reported included non-binary. ^b Other races included Middle Eastern and Multiple Identified. ^c Other professional roles included professor emeritus, research scientist, senior lecturer, research were not mutually exclusive and indicate members of the sample serve in both capacities.

Survey Development

The research team developed the survey using a three-step process. First, the research team reviewed scholarship related to racial and ethnic diversity in graduate programming to select the most pressing topic areas. The review included research focused on special education doctoral programs and recent scholarship from other areas of the social sciences. As part of this review, the research team examined previous surveys focused on special education doctoral programs (e.g., Smith & Montrosse, 2012; Tyler et al., 2003) and more general surveys used to examine perceptions of racial and ethnic diversity within the university setting and doctoral programming in particular (e.g., Maruyama & Moreno, 2000). From this review, the research team identified five topic areas deemed important for supporting students from traditionally underrepresented groups, including (a) recruitment and retention, (b) programmatic climate, (c) programmatic attention to issues of racial and ethnic diversity, (d) perceived importance of ethnic and racial diversity, and (e) personal readiness to support graduate students from traditionally underrepresented groups. The research team developed novel items for each topic area based on the information gleaned from this review of research and survey instruments.

Second, the research team validated the content of the topics and items by sending the survey to six subject matter experts who worked as university faculty members in doctoral degree granting institutions and who conducted research on issues of racial and ethnic diversity in special education and school psychology. The content validation consisted of each subject matter expert rating (a) each topic area and (b) each preliminary item on a 3-point scale ranging from not important to important. The research team decided a priori to maintain topic areas with all subject matter experts indicating importance and to select items rated as important by at least three-quarters of the subject matter experts. In addition, subject matter experts provided narrative comments on the topics and items. Based on the content validation process, the research team maintained each of the topic areas and reduced the item pool to those meeting the established criteria. Third, the research team conducted a pilot test with three faculty members not included in the sample to ensure readability and obtain additional feedback. The pilot resulted in additional revisions to the items and descriptions to improve clarity, though content did not change.

Survey Content

The fully developed survey disseminated to the target sample is included in the appendix and consisted of 27 items. The sections included (a) recruitment and retention, (b) program climate, (c) student preparation and coursework, (d) perceived importance of ethnic and racial diversity, and (e) personal readiness to support doctoral students. Unless otherwise specified, the respondents rated each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from agree to disagree. The following sections provide descriptions of each topic area and the accompanying items.

Recruitment and retention

The purpose of the recruitment and retention section was to document perceptions of the extent to which doctoral programs recruit and retain doctoral students from minoritized cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Example items for this section included (a) program faculty engage in efforts to recruit doctoral students of color, (b) my doctoral program has an adequate number of students of color, (c) my doctoral program has an adequate number of faculty of color, and (d) my doctoral program has a detailed plan for retention of doctoral students of color.

Program climate

The purpose of the program climate section was to document perceptions of the programmatic environment with particular emphasis on the supportiveness and responsiveness to race and ethnicity. Example items included (a) my doctoral program climate is supportive of racial and ethnic diversity, (b) program faculty demonstrate a commitment to supporting students of color, and (c) I have experienced or witnessed an instance of racism or prejudice from program faculty. For data analysis, the research team dichotomized items asking whether the respondent experienced racism by grouping those who agreed and somewhat agreed and those who were unsure, somewhat disagreed, or disagreed with the statement.

Student preparation and coursework

The purpose of the student preparation and coursework section was to document perceptions regarding the extent to which doctoral programs prepare students to serve minoritized populations and consider the cultural appropriateness of interventions and assessments. Example items included (a) students in my doctoral program are prepared to work in settings with school populations of color, (b) students in my doctoral program are prepared to evaluate the cultural appropriateness of interventions, (c) students in my doctoral program are prepared to reflect on their own cultural biases, and (d) issues related to issues of race and ethnicity are adequately addressed in my doctoral program’s curriculum.

Perceived importance of diversity

The purpose of the perceived importance of diversity section was to document faculty perceptions on the reasons racial and ethnic diversity is important in special education doctoral programs. Example items included (a) increasing the racial and ethnic diversity of special education university is important, (b) increasing racial and ethnic diversity in special education doctoral programs is importance because it challenges people to confront their own biases, and (c) increasing the racial and ethnic diversity in special education doctoral programs is important because it exposed people to new perspectives.

Personal readiness

The purpose of the personal readiness section was to document faculty perspectives on their own preparation and ability to support and advise doctoral students of color, and consider issues of race and ethnicity. Example items included (a) I feel prepared to advise a doctoral student of color, (b) I feel prepared to respond when issues of race and ethnicity come up in classes I teach, and (c) I incorporate issues or race and ethnicity in my teaching.

Data Analysis

The intent of this research was to understand the extent to which special education faculty members working in research intensive universities perceive (a) the efforts made to recruit and retain students of color, (b) the racial and ethnic climate of their doctoral programs, (c) the preparation of doctoral students to consider issues of race and ethnicity, (d) the importance of diversity within doctoral education, and (e) their own readiness to support doctoral students of color. In addition, the research team was interested in comparing (a) responses from faculty members of color with their White colleagues and (b) responses from faculty working at minority serving institutions (MSI) with those from non-MSIs. As such, the research team conducted descriptive and exploratory data analyses. The descriptive data analysis consisted of computing the frequency and percentage of respondents endorsing each response option to identify trends. Descriptive results are presented as frequencies and percentages for responses on each item. Following the descriptive analyses, the research team conducted comparative exploratory analyses through a series of χ² tests of independence. Specifically, the research team examined the p-value of each χ² to determine if responses depended on whether the respondent was a faculty of color or whether the respondent worked at an MSI with those below .05 indicating dependence. Because of the exploratory nature of these analyses, the research team did not address family-wise error rate. Moreover, due to the ordinal nature of the data, the research team used gamma and Kendall’s tau-b to assess the degree of association following computation of the χ². Both measures range from −1.0 to 1.0 with values lower than 0.25 indicating a weak association, those between 0.25 and 0.50 indicating a moderate association and those exceeding 0.50 indicating a strong association (Svenson, 2012).

Results

Recruitment and Retention

Table 3 presents the perspectives of faculty members on the recruitment and retention of students from traditionally underrepresented groups. Based on the responses, nearly three-quarters of respondents indicated that faculty actively recruit doctoral students of color, though more than half indicated a dearth of racial and ethnic diversity for both students and faculty. Moreover, more than half of respondents indicated a lack of formal plans to recruit and retain students of color, though most reported the availability of financial support. Finally, approximately three quarters (76.67%) of respondents reported advising at least one doctoral student of color.

Table 3.

Faculty Perspectives on the Recruitment and Retention of Students of Color.

Items	Agreen (%)	Somewhat agreen (%)	Neither agree nor disagreen (%)	Somewhat disagreen (%)	Disagreen (%)
Program faculty actively recruit doctoral students of color.	105(43.56)	78(32.36)	21(8.71)	25(10.37)	12(4.97)
My doctoral program has an adequate number of students of color.	31(12.86)	48(19.91)	33(13.69)	56(23.23)	73(30.29)
My doctoral program has an adequate number of faculty of color.	14(5.80)	31(12.86)	20(8.29)	46(19.08)	130(53.94)
My doctoral program has a detailed plan for recruitment of students of color.	30(12.44)	46(19.08)	34(14.10)	54(22.40)	77(31.95)
My doctoral program has a detailed plan for retention of doctoral students of color.	23(9.54)	44(18.25)	32(13.27)	59(24.48)	83(34.43)
My program uses available financial resources to support doctoral students of color (e.g., fellowships, scholarships, GA positions).	90(37.34)	45(18.67)	38(15.76)	22(9.12)	46(19.08)

Program Climate

Table 4 presents the perspectives of faculty members on the doctoral programmatic climate as it pertains to issues of race and ethnicity. More than three-quarters of the respondents reported their program as supportive of racial and ethnic diversity and faculty commitment to supporting doctoral students of color. However, more than one-quarter of faculty reported experiencing or witnessing an instance of racism or prejudice from a colleague or student.

Table 4.

Faculty Perspectives on Doctoral Program Climate.

Items	Agreen (%)	Somewhat agreen (%)	Neither agree nor disagreen (%)	Somewhat disagreen (%)	Disagreen (%)
My doctoral program climate is supportive of racial/ethnic diversity.	123(51.68)	76(31.93)	21(8.82)	11(4.62)	7(2.94)
Program faculty demonstrate a commitment to supporting doctoral students of color.	122(51.26)	67(28.15)	30(12.60)	13(5.46)	6(2.52)

Student Preparation and Coursework

Table 5 presents faculty perspectives on doctoral coursework and preparation to serve populations of color and consider the cultural appropriateness of interventions and assessments. Approximately three-quarters of respondents reported preparing doctoral students to work with school populations of color and to serve populations whose race and ethnicity is different from their own. Two-thirds of faculty reported that students were prepared to evaluate the cultural appropriateness of interventions and assessments, and to consider their own cultural biases. Approximately one-third of faculty reported having a standalone course on diversity and slightly more than half indicated that issues of racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity are adequately addressed in the doctoral curriculum.

Table 5.

Faculty Perspectives on Doctoral Student Preparation.

Items	Agreen (%)	Somewhat agreen (%)	Neither agree nor disagreen (%)	Somewhat disagreen (%)	Disagreen (%)
Students in my doctoral program are prepared to work in settings with school populations of color.	83(35.31)	88(37.44)	27(11.48)	27(11.48)	10(4.25)
Students in my doctoral program are prepared to serve school populations whose race/ethnicity is different from their own.	77(32.76)	101(42.97)	23(9.78)	24(10.21)	10(4.25)
Students in my doctoral program are prepared to evaluate the cultural appropriateness of interventions.	47(20.00)	94(40.00)	36(15.31)	37(15.74)	21(8.93)
Students in my doctoral program are prepared to evaluate the cultural appropriateness of assessments.	51(21.70)	99(42.12)	25(10.63)	38(16.17)	22(9.36)
Students in my doctoral program are prepared to reflect on their own cultural biases.	79(33.61)	81(34.46)	35(14.89)	27(11.48)	13(5.53)
Issues related to race/ethnicity are adequately addressed in the doctoral program curriculum.	44(18.80)	85(36.32)	30(12.82)	51(21.79)	24(10.25)
Issues related to linguistic diversity are adequately addressed in the doctoral program curriculum.	43(18.37)	82(35.04)	33(14.10)	50(21.36)	26(11.11)

Perceived Importance of Diversity

Table 6 presents faculty perspectives on the importance of diversity within doctoral programs. Nearly all respondents noted the importance of increasing the diversity of the special education teacher and university faculty workforce. Moreover, nearly 90% of respondents indicated at least partial agreement that racial and ethnic diversity is important because it allows for the confrontation of personal biases while more than 95% of respondents found it important because of exposure to new perspectives.

Table 6.

Faculty Perspectives on the Importance of Diversity in Doctoral Programs.

Items	Agreen (%)	Somewhat agreen (%)	Neither agree nor disagreen (%)	Somewhat disagreen (%)	Disagreen (%)
Increasing the racial/ethnic diversity of special education teachers is important.	217(93.53)	11(4.74)	2(0.86)	1(0.43)	1(0.43)
Increasing the racial/ethnic diversity of special education university faculty is important	214(92.24)	12(5.17)	3(1.29)	2(0.86)	1(0.43)
Increasing racial/ethnic diversity in special education doctoral programs is important because it challenges people to confront their own biases.	152(65.51)	46(19.82	21(9.05)	9(3.87)	4(1.72)
Increasing racial/ethnic diversity in special education doctoral programs is important because it exposes people to new perspectives.	194(83.62)	29(12.50)	6(2.58)	2(0.86)	1(0.43)

Personal Readiness to Advise

Table 7 presents faculty perspectives on their own personal readiness to support and advise doctoral students. For each item, approximately 90% of respondents indicated agreement or partial agreement regarding their preparation to support doctoral students of color, respond adequately when issues of race and ethnicity arise in class, and incorporate issues of race and ethnicity into their teaching. Moreover, approximately 90% of the sample reported incorporating issues of race and ethnicity in their teaching. Approximately three-quarters of respondents indicated that they have advised a doctoral student of color.

Table 7.

Faculty Perspectives on Personal Readiness to Support and Advise Doctoral Students of Color.

Items	Agreen (%)	Somewhat agreen (%)	Neither agree nor disagreen (%)	Somewhat disagreen (%)	Disagreen (%)
I feel prepared to advise a doctoral student of color.	146(63.20)	68(29.43)	12(5.19)	4(1.73)	1(0.43)
I feel prepared to advise a doctoral student who wishes to conduct research on populations of color.	124(53.67)	76(32.90)	16(6.92)	13(5.62)	2(0.86)
I feel prepared to respond adequately when issues of race/ethnicity come up in classes that I teach.	96(41.55)	112(48.48)	7(3.03)	15(6.49)	1(0.43)
I feel prepared to incorporate issues of race/ethnicity in my teaching.	123(53.24)	85(36.79)	10(4.32)	11(4.76)	2(0.86)
I incorporate issues of race/ethnicity into my teaching.	141(61.03)	68(29.43)	13(5.62)	6(2.59)	3(1.29)

Exploratory Analyses

Respondent race and ethnicity

The exploratory analyses examining the dependence of responses based on the race and ethnicity of the faculty member revealed three instances of dependence with each relating to self-reported readiness. Specifically, responses on self-perceived preparedness to (a) advise doctoral students of color (χ² = 13.48, p < .01, Kendall’s tau-b = .22), (b) respond when issues of race come up in class (χ² = 12.38, p < .01, Kendall’s tau-b = .18), and (c) incorporate issues of race and ethnicity into my teaching (χ² = 13.23, p = .01, Kendall’s tau-b = .18).varied on whether the respondent was a faculty of color or not. Inspection of the expected and observed frequencies for each item revealed a consistent pattern with faculty of color agreeing with each statement at a higher than expected rate while White faculty agreed at a lower than expected rate. Moreover, White faculty indicated somewhat agree at a higher than expected rate contributing to the statistically significant though generally weak measures of association.

Respondent minority serving institution status

The exploratory analyses examining the dependence of responses based on whether the faculty member’s institution is an MSI or not revealed nine instances of dependence. For instance, faculty at MSIs were more likely to agree with the statements that the program has an adequate number of students (χ² = 28.61, p < .001, Kendall’s tau-b = .26) and faculty (χ² = 22.85, p < .001, Kendall’s tau-b = .27) of color. Moreover, faculty at MSIs agreed more often with the statement that the program has a detailed plan for the retention of doctoral students of color (χ² = 24.21, p < .001, Kendall’s tau-b = .23). In terms of program climate, faculty at MSIs reporting experiencing or witnessing instances of racism from a student at a higher rate than faculty at non-MSIs (χ² = 14.97, p < .01, Kendall’s tau-b = .16). MSI faculty agreed more often with the statements indicating that their students were prepared to work in schools with populations of color (χ² = 16.38, p < .01, Kendall’s tau-b = .20), to evaluate the cultural appropriateness of interventions (χ² = 25.69, p < .001, Kendall’s tau-b = .25), and assessments (χ² = 11.87, p < .01, Kendall’s tau-b = .18), and that their program included a standalone course on diversity (χ² = 11.93, p < .01, Kendall’s tau-b = .21). Faculty working at MSIs reported better preparedness to advise doctoral students of color (χ² = 9.80, p < .05, Kendall’s tau-b = .09).

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to understand the perspectives of special education faculty members in doctoral programs regarding various aspects of diversity within their programs. In particular, we examined faculty members’ perceptions of programmatic efforts to recruit and retain minoritized students and train all students in cultural competence, as well as their own preparedness to address issues of diversity in their programs. We then explored whether responses depended on self-reported race and minority-serving institution status to determine whether perceptions varied as a function of these individual or organizational factors. The current study represents an important step in training a more diverse and culturally competent doctoral-level workforce in special education. These data reveal the current state of special education faculty members’ perspectives on doctoral training, indicating some current strengths, areas for growth, and directions for future research.

Recruitment and Retention Strategies

The recruitment of minoritized doctoral students is important for increasing the diversity of special education faculty and providing access to the resources and platform to conduct research, inform policy, and prepare teachers (deBettencourt et al., 2016). Results of the current investigation indicated that while many respondents reported that their program faculty engage in efforts to actively recruit students of color, respondents from MSIs were more likely to report the existence of a detailed recruitment and retention plan. Moreover, respondents from MSIs were more likely to indicate that their programs have an adequate number of minoritized doctoral students and faculty than those not working at MSIs. For most respondents, therefore, there appears to be a tension between a commitment to recruit of students of color and the actualization of those efforts. However, the organizational context of MSIs may suggest a deeper commitment to operationalizing recruitment and retention plans. Given that respondents from MSIs indicated that their programs consisted of a sufficient number of students and faculty of color, the intentional organizational policies and practices have created environments where racial/ethnic diversity is supported. It is important to note, however, that faculty at MSIs reported higher rates of racism or prejudice among students, indicating that the work of improving program climates and eradicating racism is necessary in all spaces. As Merrell-James et al. (2020) noted, well-operationalized plans are needed to raise awareness of doctoral studies for many students of color, limit any barriers to successful matriculation into programs (e.g., biased admissions policies and practices), and successfully recruit and retain them. Moreover, Hipolito-Delgado et al. (2017) described the need for faculty to develop a long-term strategy for recruiting underrepresented students through the development of personal relationships. As such, recruiting underrepresented students from teacher preparation programs and constructing methods to provide pre-program mentorship may prove effective. Importantly, research on the recruitment of applicants of color appears to suggest that the development of a shared commitment to diversity across multiple aspects of the program appears important for successful doctoral student recruitment (Foxx et al., 2018). The fact that not all respondents have advised a doctoral student of color also raises questions about individuals’ experience and perparedness to adequately support a doctoral student of color with culturally relevant and student-centered advising. Results of the present investigation indicate that faculty working at non-MSIs may benefit from examining the practices, policies, and supports employed by MSIs to recruit and retain doctoral students of color.

Improving Programmatic Climate

Slay et al. (2019) adumbrate the importance and multifaceted nature of establishing and maintaining a positive program climate for minoritized students. Specifically, these authors note that program climate consists of curricular, inter-personal, and organizational components that work collectively to establish a supportive environment for students of color. For the current study, the majority of respondents perceived their program climate as positive for racial/ethnic minoritized students and that their faculty demonstrated a commitment to supporting doctoral students of color. However, approximately one-quarter of faculty reported experiencing or witnessing instances of racism or prejudice from faculty and/or students in the program with faculty at MSIs more likely to agree with this statement. These data call into question how positive and affirming the program climate is for minoritized students and faculty if instances of racism and prejudice have occurred in the program. Milem et al. (2005) recommend moving beyond the representation of students of color and considering diversity as an educationally important process in and of itself. As such, program faculty may consider how they assess program climate in their programs and disaggregate those data for minoritized students in the program. Student-centered and culturally relevant mentoring and advising are also necessary components to assess minoritized students’ experiences in the program (Merrell-James et al., 2020). In addition, policies around how program faculty prevent and respond to instances of racism and/or prejudice on the part of faculty and students would codify systems of accountability in the program.

Program Coursework and Doctoral Student Preparation

Research on the recruitment and retention of doctoral students of color suggests the importance of faculty demonstrating a commitment to diversity beyond the development of policies to support representation (Slay et al., 2019). Rogers and Molina (2006) noted the importance of addressing issues of racial and social equity within the curriculum as a means for demonstrating a commitment to diversity and supporting student success. For the current sample, the majority of special education faculty indicated positive ratings of their programs’ training of students to consider the cultural appropriateness of interventions and assessments, work in settings with populations of color and those different from their own race/ethnicity, and consider their own biases in their practice. For each of these items, faculty at MSI were more likely to agree with these statements rather than somewhat agree, indicating a stronger perception on preparing doctoral students on these areas than their non-MSI colleagues. Moreover, while relatively few respondents indicated that their program includes a standalone course on diversity, faculty at MSIs were more likely to agree with that their program provides a specific course on diversity. To recruit and retain doctoral students of color and ensure proper training to all students, programs may benefit from reviewing their curriculum to ensure cultural relevance, as well as the representation of authors in assigned readings and other materials. While a standalone course may provide important context, it is critical to integrate diversity throughout the curriculum to ensure adequate coverage (deBettencourt et al., 2016). Fortunately, there appear models that exist, particularly at MSIs, to assist interested programs develop such coursework via cross-university collaboration.

Perspectives on Importance of Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Doctoral Studies

Training a more diverse and culturally competent workforce requires an assessment of current faculty members’ perspectives on the importance of diversity (Merrell-James et al., 2020). If faculty members view diversity as irrelevant or unimportant, they are unlikely to engage in intentional efforts to diversify their programs’ student population or curricula. The overwhelming majority of respondents indicated that increasing the racial and ethnic diversity of special education programs is an important issue. Although these results may reflect social desirability or acquiescence biases, they reflect acknowledgment of the importance of diversity, an important minimum bar. Consistent with scholarship on the benefits racial and ethnic diversity (Dieker et al., 2014), respondents indicated that both students and faculty benefit through increased exposure to new perspectives and providing an opportunity for self-reflection of their own biases. As such, special education programs would benefit from regular self-assessment of the importance of diversity and the connection between one’s own perceptions of importance and intentional actions around promoting diversity in special education doctoral programs.

Faculty Preparation to Serve Doctoral Students of Color

Faculty members’ preparedness to support doctoral students of color must accompany their stated commitment to diversity (Barker, 2011). For instance, research indicates that many minoritized doctoral students appreciate advisers who recognize racial inequities and the dynamics associated with race within doctoral education (Barker, 2016). As such, faculty would benefit from consuming research and engaging in ongoing professional development around culturally informed mentoring and advising of minoritized graduate students. While most respondents felt prepared to support doctoral students of color through advising and teaching, results of the exploratory analyses indicated that respondents of color considered themselves better prepared to advise students of color, respond when instances of race are discussed during class, and incorporate issues of race into their teaching. More collaboration on approaches for incorporating considerations of race into coursework and advising may support the development of a more diverse doctoral workforce by raising interest among students of color in the importance and reach that doctoral studies afford (NRC, 2011). In addition, programs may consider the development of formal mechanisms to support retention such as providing opportunities for doctoral students of color to develop same-race relationships with students and faculty (Slay et al., 2019). While programs may consider both formal and informal methods, it is also important to ensure a balance for minoritized faculty to prevent overburdening them with additional, undocumented advising. As such, there is a need for careful planning and perhaps the development of cross-university partnerships to support doctoral students of color across the field.

Limitations and Future Directions

The results of the present investigation must be considered with the following limitations in mind. First, the level of participation among special education faculty was below one-third of the initial sample size. While consistent with response rates found in the social sciences (Baruch & Holtom, 2008), that nearly 70% of the sample did not respond raises questions about the comparability of the results to the broader population of special education faculty. However, it is important to note that the demographic characteristics of the sample reflected those of previous studies and more recent doctoral graduate rates indicating a representative sample (e.g., Tyler et al., 2003; Wasburn-Moses, 2012). Second, while we explored whether responses depended on self-reported race and MSI status, these questions were ancillary to the broader intent of the study. As such, readers must interpret these results with caution and the field would benefit from more focused research on the perspectives of doctoral students and faculty of color and the organizational context of MSIs. Third, the focus on faculty members’ perspectives did not account for students’ perspectives on programmatic diversity and related efforts. Future research should center the voices of minoritized students to determine their perspectives on their faculty members’ commitment to diversity, preparation to address issues of diversity, and incorporation of diversity into their programs’ curricula. Fourth, participants may have responded in a socially desirable manner given the sensitive nature of the topic. Moreover, it is possible that faculty members with a stronger commitment to diversity responded to a survey specifically about diversity in programs. Fifth, the current racial climate of the country may have shaped participants’ responses to be more optimistic about diversity and less transparent about their programs’ outcomes, resulting in a social desirability bias. It is important to note that although respondents indicated high levels of commitment and importance regarding diversity, they did not report adequate outcomes. Similar to much of the literature about diversity training in teacher preparation programs, the results focused on the perspectives and commitment of the participants rather than their actual behavior (Cochran-Smith et al., 2015). Therefore, there is a need for more studies on diversity-related outcomes of special education programs and whether the commitment of special education faculty is actualized in their behaviors and the systems they maintain. Sixth, the survey items allowed for the coverage of several areas related to the recruitment, retention, and programmatic climate for doctoral students of color. However, the survey did not allow for more focused responses that would provide important detail on the practices, policies, and perspectives of the respondents. Seventh, the university context of respondents is critically important and while we provided some information on programs, we did not collect information on the racial and ethnic composition of respondents’ doctoral program which may prove important in responses.

Conclusion

The preparation of a racially and ethnically representative workforce is an increasingly important pursuit in special education (Billingsley et al., 2019). While most of the attention focuses on the teaching workforce, there remains a need to increase the diversity of our doctoral programs to draw on the broadest set of experiences, perspectives, and talent. As such, faculty in special education programs must commit to the recruitment and retention of minoritized students and promote programmatic structures to support student success. Given the importance of same-race mentorship (Slay et al., 2019), increasing the number of doctoral students of color may assist with diversifying the special education workforce of future faculty members. The present study sought to initiate research on the recruitment and retention of minoritized students into special education doctoral programs. Results revealed that special education faculty appear committed to increasing diversity, though many programs appear to have a dearth of specific policies and practices currently in place. Notably, respondents from MSI tended to report the presence of more formal structures, suggesting a potentially important role of these programs for the recruitment, retention, and preparation of a more diverse special education doctoral workforce. It is also clear that faculty members of color in the field have reported more preparedness to support doctoral students of color than their White colleagues, which reflects both an opportunity for mentoring and support among students and faculty of color and a need for professional development on the part of White faculty. Moreover, future research should examine students’ perspectives on these topics and highlight policies and practices in graduate education that are supportive of increased racial/ethnic diversity and equitable outcomes. These affirmative steps would strengthen the ability of special education doctoral programs to train researchers and practitioners to serve an increasingly diverse population of school-aged students and promote positive, equitable outcomes for all students with disabilities.

Footnotes

Appendix

The following list represents those universities identified as research intensive with a special education doctoral program. The research team extracted faculty emails using publicly available information from each university website.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Daniel M. Maggin

Kandace W. Mossing

Author Biographies

Daniel M. Maggin, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Special Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago where he coordinates the doctoral program. His research focuses on supporting students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) in classroom contexts.

Tai A. Collins, Ph.D., BCBA-D is an Associate Professor and Coordinator of the School Psychology Program at the University of Cincinnati. His research interests include school-based interventions for Black students using a Critical Race Theory framework, as well as social justice research, training, and practice in school psychology.

Josalyn A. Foster, M.Ed., is a second-year doctoral student in the School Psychology program at the University of Cincinnati. Her research interests include the development of identity by examining the role of racial and gendered socialization. More specifically, she is interested in promoting the academic success and emotional well-being of school-aged Black girls through empowerment and community.

Meagan N. Scott, M.Ed., is a fourth-year doctoral student at the University of Cincinnati’s school psychology program. Her research focuses on creating a culturally enriched socio-emotional learning curriculum for Black girls to foster sisterhood and academic engagement. Additionally, her other research interests include culturally responsive assessments and interventions, the adultification of Black girls, access to inclusion for individuals with intersecting identities, and the recruitment and retention of future school psychologists from minoritized backgrounds.

Kandace W. Mossing, M.Ed. is a doctoral student in the School Psychology program at the University of Cincinnati. She is interested in externalizing behaviors, their relationship with academic performance, and the implications for intervention and prevention efforts. She is particularly interested in minoritized students, the school-to-prison pipeline, and a social justice framework.

Catrina M. Dorsey, Ph.D., is a recent graduate of the Special Education program at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She is interested in parent advocacy, the professional experiences of Black educators, and disproportionality in special education.

References

Barker

M. J.

(2016). The doctorate in Black and White: Exploring the engagement of Black doctoral students in cross race advising relationships with White faculty. Western Journal of Black Studies, 40(2), 126–140.

Barker

M. J.

(2011). Racial context, currency and connections: Black doctoral student and white advisor perspectives on cross-race advising. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48, 387–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2011.617092

Baruch

Holtom

B. C.

(2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139–1160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708094863

Billingsley

B. S.

Bettini

E. A.

Williams

T. O.

(2019). Teacher racial/ethnic diversity: Distribution of special and general educators of color across schools. Remedial and Special Education, 40(4), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517733047

Carter

P. L.

Skiba

Arredondo

M. I.

Pollock

(2017). You can’t fix what you don’t look at: Acknowledging race in addressing racial discipline disparities. Urban Education, 52(2), 207–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916660350

Cochran-Smith

Villegas

A. M.

Abrams

Chavez-Moreno

Mills

Sterns

(2015). Critiquing teacher preparation research: An overview of the field, part II. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114558268

Cruz

R. A.

Rodl

J. E.

(2018). An integrative synthesis of literature on disproportionality in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 52(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918758707

deBettencourt

L. U.

Hoover

J. J.

Rude

H. A.

Taylor

S. S.

(2016). Preparing special education higher education faculty: The influences of contemporary education issues and policy recommendations. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39(2), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406416641007

Dieker

Wienke

Straub

Finnegan

(2014). Reflections on recruiting, supporting, retaining, graduating, and obtaining employment for doctoral students from diverse backgrounds. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406413505874

10.

Fish

R. E.

(2019). Teacher race and racial disparities in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 40(4), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518810434

11.

Foxx

S. P.

Kennedy

S. D.

Dameron

M. L.

Bryant

(2018). A phenomenological exploration of diversity in counselor education. Journal of Professional Counseling: Practice, Theory & Research, 45(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/15566382.2019.1569320

12.

Gottfried

M. A.

Kirksey

J. J.

Wright

(2019). Same-race student–teacher: Comparing outcomes for kindergartners with and without disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 40(4), 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518810870

13.

Griffin

K. A.

Muñiz

M. M.

Espinosa

(2012). The influence of campus racial climate on diversity in graduate education. The Review of Higher Education, 35(4), 535–566. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2012.0031

14.

Hipolito-Delgado

C. P.

Estrada

Garcia

(2017). Counselor education in technicolor: Recruiting graduate students of color. Revista Interamericana de Psicología/Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 51(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.30849/rip/ijp.v51i1.293

15.

Ingersoll

May

Collins

(2019). Recruitment, employment, retention and the minority teacher shortage. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(37), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3714

16.

Janta

Lugosi

Brown

(2014). Coping with loneliness: A netnographic study of doctoral students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38(4), 553–571.

17.

Malone

C. M.

Ishmail

K. Z.

(2020). A snapshot of multicultural training in school psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 57(7), 1022–1039. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22392

18.

Maruyama

Moreno

J. F.

(2000). University faculty views about the value of diversity on campus and in the classroom. In Maruyama

Moreno

J. F.

Gudeman

R. H.

Marin

(Eds.), Does diversity make a difference? Three research studies on diversity in college classrooms (pp. 61–84). American Council on Education.

19.

McLaughlin

V. L.

West

J. E.

Anderson

J. A.

(2016). Engaging effectively in the policy-making process. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39(2), 134–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406416637902

20.

Merrell-James

J. J. R.

Coker

J. K.

Ghoston

Pérez

J. F. C.

Field

T. A.

(2020). Recruiting, retaining, and supporting students from underrepresented racial minority backgrounds in doctoral counselor education. The Professional Counselor, 10(4), 581–602. https://doi.org/10.15241/jj.10.4.581

21.

Milem

J. F.

Chang

M. J.

Antonio

A. L.

(2005). Making diversity work on campus: A research-based perspective. Association of American Colleges & Universities. https://web.stanford.edu/group/siher/AntonioMilemChang_makingdiversitywork.pdf

22.

National Research Council. (2011). A data-based assessment of research-doctorate programs in the United States. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12994

23.

National Science Foundation. (2021). Doctorate recipients from U.S. universities. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/doctorates/

24.

Perna

L. W.

Gasman

Gary

Lundy-Wagner

Drezner

N. D.

(2010). Identifying strategies for increasing degree attainment in STEM: Lessons from minority-serving institutions. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2010(148), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.360

25.

Rodriguez

Powell

Straub

Vince-Garland

Wienke

(2019). Developing effective advocates during doctoral preparation: An examination of federal-level special education policy internships. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 15, 67–75. https://doi.org/10.22230/ijepl.2018v15n4a468

26.

Rogers

M. R.

Molina

L. E.

(2006). Exemplary efforts in psychology to recruit and retain graduate students of color. American Psychologist, 61(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.2.143

27.

Slay

K. E.

Reyes

K. A.

Posselt

J. R.

(2019). Bait and switch: Representation, climate, and tensions of diversity work in graduate education. The Review of Higher Education, 42(5), 255–286. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0052

28.

Smith

D. D

Montrosse

B. E.

(2012). Special education doctoral programs: A 10-year comparison of the suppliers of leadership personnel. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406412444760

29.

Svensson

(2012). Different ranking approaches defining association and agreement measures of paired ordinal data. Statistics in Medicine, 31(26), 3104–3117. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5382

30.

Trent

Dwiwardani

Page

(2020). Factors impacting the retention of students of color in graduate programs: A qualitative study. Training and Education in Professional Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000319

31.

Tyler

N. C.

Yzquierdo

Lopez-Reyna

Flippin

S. S.

(2004). Cultural and linguistic Diversity and the special education workforce: A critical overview. The Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669040380010301

32.

Wasburn-Moses

(2007). Minority students’ perceptions of their doctoral programs in special education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(5), 456–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487107307948

33.

Wasburn-Moses

(2008). Satisfaction among current doctoral students in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 29(5), 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932507312014

34.

Williams Shealey

(2009). Voices of African-American doctoral students in special education: Addressing the shortage in leadership preparation. Race Ethnicity and Education, 12(3), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320903178295