WOLF-WENDEL / WOMEN-FRIENDLY CAMPUSES
319
The Review of Higher Education
Spring 2000, Volume 23, No. 3, pp. 319–345
Copyright © 2000 Association for the Study of Higher Education
All Rights Reserved (ISSN 0162-5748)
Women-Friendly Campuses:
What Five Institutions Are
Doing Right
Lisa E. Wolf-Wendel
Some institutional traits greatly facilitate student success, traits so well
known that a research consensus has emerged about them. For example,
research suggests that students do better when they get one-on-one attention from faculty. Further, providing ample opportunities for extracurricular involvement in campus life helps students to achieve both socially and
academically (Astin, 1992; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Kuh, Schuh, Whitt,
& associates, 1991; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).
Much of this research looks at students broadly—not disaggregated by
race and gender. The implicit assumption is that all students need basically
the same types of institutional support to encourage their development and
to enhance the likelihood of their achieving success. This is not necessarily
a false assumption. However, it should be questioned, given the ample
Lisa E. Wolf-Wendel is Assistant Professor of Teaching and Leadership at the University of
Kansas in Lawrence. She presented an earlier version of this paper at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, March 1997, at Chicago, in a symposium
on “The Role of Special-Focus Colleges and Universities in the 21st Century.” With M. E.
Tidball, D. G. Smith, and C. Tidball, she coauthored Taking Women Seriously: Lessons and
Legacies for Educating the Majority (Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education/Oryx
Press, 1998). She expresses appreciation for the helpful comments of the Review’s external
reviewers and of her colleagues, which led to significant improvements in this article. Address inquiries to her at Teaching and Leadership Department, 202 Bailey Hall, Lawrence,
KS 66045; telephone: (785) 864-9722; fax: (785) 864-9722; e-mail: [email protected]
320
THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION
SPRING 2000
research demonstrating that predominantly White coeducational institutions are less effective for women than special-focus colleges, such as women’s
colleges, historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and Hispanicserving institutions (HSIs). There is considerable evidence, for example,
that women students in women’s colleges are more successful than those in
coeducational colleges (Riordan, 1992; Smith, 1990; Smith, Wolf, &
Morrison, 1995; Tidball, 1986; Wolf-Wendel, 1998). Such research led
Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) to conclude that
women’s colleges . . . have tended to enhance the educational attainment of
undergraduate women. . . . The evidence tends to support those who claim
that a women’s college provides a uniquely supportive climate for women to
experience themselves and other members of their gender in a wide range of
intellectual and social leadership roles. (p. 383)
Further, a recent study compared the baccalaureate origins of men and
women with doctorates and found an inverse relationship for doctoral productivity by gender. In other words, institutions with higher male doctoral
productivity had lower female productivity (Tidball, Smith, Tidball, and
Wolf-Wendel, 1998). The study concludes that while male students may
receive sufficient material supports and encouragement from their undergraduate institutions, these advantages are not necessarily available to women
at the same institution to the same degree. These findings further suggest
that environments conducive to the success of men might be different from
environments that enhance the success of women. My study here addresses
the need for more research to determine the hallmarks of the “uniquely
supportive climate for women” found at women’s colleges and to study those
coeducational institutions that demonstrate themselves to be “womenfriendly.”
A similar, though smaller body of literature, has found that attending a
historically Black college or university offers students benefits not found at
predominantly White institutions (Fleming, 1983; Pearson & Pearson, 1985;
Roebuck & Murty, 1993; Wolf-Wendel, 1998). Such research led Pascarella
and Terenzini (1991) to conclude:
Much evidence. . . suggests that Black students who attend predominantly
White colleges and universities experience significantly greater levels of social isolation, alienation, personal dissatisfaction, and overt racism than their
counterparts at historically Black institutions. . . . Given this evidence, one
might hypothesize that attendance at historically Black colleges enhances the
persistence and educational attainment of Black students, and indeed most
evidence supports this hypothesis. (p. 462)
My study also responds to the need for more research about the supportive
environments found at HBCUs. There is little research available on Hispanic-
WOLF-WENDEL / WOMEN-FRIENDLY CAMPUSES
321
serving colleges and universities.1 However, the two studies available show
that they graduate higher proportions of Latinas who attain a measurable
degree of post-baccalaureate success compared to predominantly White
institutions (Solorzano, 1995; Wolf-Wendel, 1998). My study is unique in
that it examines the environment found at one such institution to determine how it serves the needs of Latinas.
My study also extends the research on special-focus colleges by examining
particular institutions that have demonstrated extraordinary success in
granting undergraduate degrees to African American, White, and Latin
women who have achieved a measurable degree of post-baccalaureate success.
Specifically, this qualitative case study describes the various structural and
normative features of these “successful” institutions that encourage the postbaccalaureate success of their women students. My goal was to identify those
institutional characteristics and practices so that other campuses might
adopt them to improve the campus climate for women students. Although
the results of this study are not entirely generalizable to all institutions, campus
members can use them as a framework to identify ways of altering their
institution’s practices, values, and goals to better serve women students.
M ETHOD
This study examines institutions that demonstrate a remarkable ability
to grant undergraduate degrees to African American women, White women,
and Latinas who subsequently earned doctorates or who are listed in one of
three 1991-1992 editions of Who’s Who books: Who’s Who in America (1992),
Who’s Who Among Hispanic Americans (Unterburger, 1993), and Who’s Who
Among Black Americans (Brelin, 1992).2 This qualitative study is designed
to determine what campus constituents perceive as the important attitudes,
values, and behaviors that facilitate the success of women students. I used a
single-question protocol because it offered campus constituents the freedom
to voice their beliefs about their institutions without being influenced by
my preconceived notions (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The question I asked all
institutional informants was: “Why do you think your institution has produced
so many successful women graduates?” I asked follow-up questions as needed
to clarify points, elaborate on details, and verify comments made by others.
1
HSIs are institutions that belong to the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities and at least 25% of whose undergraduates are of Hispanic origin.
2
As measures of success, inclusion in a Who’s Who and attainment of a doctoral degree
are commonly and widely recognized as accomplishments of the “successful” individual in
United States culture. That is, while there may be other indicators of success, these are certainly valid measures. (For a more complete discussion of these criteria and the methodology, see Wolf-Wendel, 1998.)
322
THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION
SPRING 2000
Selection of Sites
I used data from a study of the baccalaureate origins of African American, White and Hispanic women who earned doctorates and who were listed
in Who’s Who books to determine the case study sites (Wolf-Wendel, 1998).
The choice of institution reflected my desire to achieve diversity of institutional types by selectivity, institutional gender, institutional race, and geographical region. In addition, I gave special consideration to institutions
that demonstrated an ability to facilitate the success of more than one group
of women. I then contacted the president of each institution to help set up
interviews. At that time, each president gave me permission to use the name
of the institution in the study.
I selected Bryn Mawr College and Pomona College to represent predominantly White institutions that granted undergraduate degrees to relatively
large proportions of White women who were listed in Who’s Who in America
(1992) or who earned doctoral degrees (Wolf-Wendel, 1998). Bryn Mawr, a
women’s college in Pennsylvania, was the most productive baccalaureategranting institution for White women who earned doctorates between 1975
and 1991. Bryn Mawr was also relatively successful at graduating Latina
and African American women doctorates. Pomona College, located in California, ranked as the second most productive coeducational institution for
graduating degrees to White women who went on to earn doctorates.
Pomona also graduated a disproportionate number of Latinas who earned
doctorates (Wolf-Wendel, 1998). Both institutions are highly selective, attract students nationally, and have relatively large endowments. I determined
relative doctoral productivity based on comparisons among all baccalaureate-granting institutions as well as among institutions of comparable
selectivity.
Bennett College, a historically Black women’s college in North Carolina,
and Tougaloo College, a historically Black coeducational institution in Mississippi, are part of this study because of their success in graduating large
proportions of African American women who earned doctorates (WolfWendel, 1998). Bennett was the third most productive institution for African American women who earned doctorates but has received little attention
from the media and none in academic literature. Tougaloo College was the
fourth most productive institution overall and the second most productive
coeducational institution for graduating African American women who
subsequently earned doctorates. Both institutions were among the top five
in graduating African American women listed in Who’s Who Among African
Americans (Brelin, 1992; Wolf-Wendel, 1998). Bennett and Tougaloo have
open-admission policies and attract a regional student clientele. From a
resource perspective, Bennett and Tougaloo seem to be doing more with far less
than other comparable institutions (Wolf-Wendel, Morphew, & Baker, 1998).
WOLF-WENDEL / WOMEN-FRIENDLY CAMPUSES
323
I chose one Hispanic-serving institution to represent schools that graduated high proportions of Latinas who earned doctorates: Incarnate Word
College in Texas, a former women’s college, now coeducational, that serves
a predominantly Mexican-American population. Incarnate Word, a member of the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, graduated the
highest proportion of Latinas who were listed in Who’s Who Among Hispanic Americans (Unterburger, 1993) and who earned doctorates (WolfWendel, 1998). A resource-poor, Liberal Arts II institution, it serves fewer
than 3,000 students.
Data Collection
I conducted four-day site visits at each institution in 1995. During each
visit, I held approximately 30 one-hour semi-structured interviews with
students, faculty, and administrators.3 I used status sampling—interviewing those who held specific positions—to establish the initial list of
interviewees: the president, chief academic officer, chief student affairs officer, director of admissions, director of institutional research, president of
the student government, and president of the faculty senate. In addition, I
asked the institutional contact to identify a minimum of five faculty members and five students representing the range of academic areas at the institution. I also requested that, when possible, the faculty and administrators
interviewed have a strong sense of institutional history.
I also used snowball sampling—asking this initial list of interviewees to
identify others on the campus whose opinions and experiences might add
depth to the study. This technique helps achieve maximum variation in
roles and perspectives among respondents (Crowson, 1993). Typically, this
technique added only two or three additional formal interviews per site. In
addition to the formal interviews, I also spent a significant amount of time
having informal conversations with students and faculty members in the
residence halls, the dining facilities, or around campus. My purpose in these
conversations was primarily to check unfolding perceptions of the campus
gleaned from the interviews. Generally speaking, conversations confirmed
my perceptions.
Along with the interview material, the case studies take into account
written information from each institution. The type of information gathered from these documents included, but was not limited to, faculty/staff
3
At Bryn Mawr, I conducted formal interviews one-on-one with 10 students, 12 professors, and 8 administrators; at Pomona, 6 students, 9 professors, and 8 administrators; at
Tougaloo, 7 students, 13 faculty members, and 5 administrators; at Bennett, 6 students (plus
a group interview with a class of 15), 14 professors, and 10 administrators; at Incarnate
Word, 5 students, 17 professors, and 9 administrators.
324
THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION
SPRING 2000
and student demographics, information about institutional resources, information about the institutional mission and goals, and the existence and
description of specific programs and services aimed at traditionally
marginalized groups.
A NALYSIS P ROCEDURES
I analyzed and interpreted interview transcripts using the constant comparative approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Strauss, 1987; Conrad, 1982;
Glazer, 1978; Glazer & Strauss, 1967). First, I sorted the transcripts by institution and then by respondent type (i.e., administrator, professor, student).
I did this to determine where one constituent group seemed to differ from
others within a case; these differences are noted in the results. I then read
through the transcripts for each case looking for major themes, color-coded
and highlighted the relevant quotations, and copied them into a separate
data file. This file included all quotations relating to each theme. Some quotations fell under multiple themes. I next re-read the quotations to determine if they fit together coherently for each of the case study sites.
If a new theme appeared in one case study, I went back through the already analyzed cases, checking for it. For example, commitment to community service appeared as a strong theme at Bennett College. I reanalyzed
the other cases and found it at two other schools as well. I also coupled
themes to make the data more manageable. For example, I initially categorized “history” and “rituals” as separate themes but ended up including both
in the category “mission.” This process of defining and grouping themes
continued until I was convinced that the themes represented the views of
the respondents and that they were organized in the clearest, most meaningful way.
Ensuring Trustworthiness
I used three common qualitative techniques to ensure that the data collection and analysis of these case studies met the highest standards of trustworthiness for qualitative research: triangulation, member checking, and
creating an audit trail (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This study employed three
types of member checking to ensure credibility. First, I held debriefing sessions
with respondents immediately after the interviews to test my initial understanding of the data. During the site visit, I also used informal conversations with
campus constituents to double-check my perceptions about the institution.
Second, I contacted select research participants approximately three
months after the interviews to test the evolving analytical categories, interpretations, and conclusions (Whitt, 1991). The research participants whom
I recontacted included the initial campus contact at each site and two other
respondents per site whom I deemed broadly knowledgeable about the site.
WOLF-WENDEL / WOMEN-FRIENDLY CAMPUSES
325
I sent them a draft of the interpretation of data from their site; these respondents did not offer any substantive changes to the categories and seemed
pleased with the representation of their campus in the case study write-up.
Lastly, as Lincoln and Guba (1985) recommend, I created an audit trail,
one that an external auditor could use to examine both the processes and
products of the study in appraising its dependability and confirmability.
While no researcher can be absolutely certain that the evidence he or she
collects is completely representative of a case study site, attempts to triangulate data demonstrated great convergence among sources of data at each site.
R ESULTS
Across institutions, the following eight categories, explored in detail in
the remainder of the paper, describe respondents’ thoughts about what their
institutions were “doing right”:
1. Having high academic expectations
2. Having a clear sense of mission and history
3. Providing positive role models
4. Creating a caring, supportive environment
5. Providing opportunities for leadership
6. Providing opportunities to learn about oneself
7. Creating a supportive and high-achieving peer culture of people like
oneself
8. Connecting students to their communities.
1. Having High Academic Expectations
“You are phenomenal women.”
“You have to believe that the students will do well.”
In all five institutions, respondents mentioned the high expectations and
encouragement that students received from members of the campus community to help explain the graduates’ success. Comments about high expectations fell into three broad categories: reiterating the idea that students
can succeed, not allowing students to use their backgrounds as an excuse
for failure, and holding students to high academic standards.
The most common approach to getting students to “aim high” was to tell
students, repeatedly and in a variety of ways, that they had potential, were
capable, and that the faculty and the school expected them to be high achievers. Respondents most frequently identified a concept like this: “If I tell you
long enough that you are the greatest, then you are going to believe it.” A
faculty member at Tougaloo explained that at her institution students are
always encouraged “to be their very best . . . that they can go as far as they
326
THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION
SPRING 2000
want to go. . . . Many of us around here believe that we can go beyond where
others stop and surrender.” A Bennett student elaborated on this point eloquently:
If you are continually told that you are stupid or ignorant you will begin to
perform to that capacity. If you are told you are phenomenal, excellent, then
you will perform on that level. And I truly believe that is what these young
women hear night and day. “You are phenomenal women.” “You are exceptional.” “You operate in a spirit of excellence.” This is continually told. . . . I
think that puts them in a mind to see themselves that way.
Respondents also stressed that students were not “allowed” to use their
backgrounds as an excuse for failure. For example, respondents at Bryn Mawr
talked about how it was unacceptable for students to claim that women
“can’t do math.” Similarly, socioeconomic status or racial background was
not accepted as an excuse for failure at Bennett, Incarnate Word, or Tougaloo.
For example, a professor at Incarnate Word explained:
It didn’t matter that your father made $80 a week, it didn’t matter that you
had six siblings, it didn’t matter that there may have been some dysfunction
in your family. . . . The thing that mattered was that you could achieve and
you could work to upgrade your level of understanding, work to upgrade the
quality of your work.
Just as students could not use their backgrounds as an excuse for failure,
faculty members at Bennett, Bryn Mawr, Tougaloo, and Incarnate Word
suggested the importance of not giving up too early on students who are
having academic difficulties; respondents at Pomona did not mention this
aspect of high expectations. The philosophy at Incarnate Word College, according to one administrator, is that “when they get here, we’ll do whatever
is necessary to help them be successful.” Similarly, a Bennett professor stated:
“The emphasis is placed on helping students succeed, not on screening out
the ones that shouldn’t be here.” A professor at Bryn Mawr echoed these
sentiments by explaining how his institution avoids the trap of socializing
women out of the sciences by creating “an atmosphere where students are
not penalized for the way they are brought up.” A Bennett science professor
added:
One of the differentiators is that the expectation at a majority school is that
you have the “right stuff ” from day one. . . . Their orientation is distinction,
differentiation, grooming the best. . . . [At Bennett] if you have the interest
and some ability, you are going to find some level of success and then you
can slug it out in the higher-level courses to see if you really have the right
stuff. . . . Where you cut people off is further along.
WOLF-WENDEL / WOMEN-FRIENDLY CAMPUSES
327
Another point consistently reported to me was that the faculty would
not accept substandard work. This comment from a Bennett professor was
typical:
Bennett takes in a lot of students who probably wouldn’t get into other colleges based on their SAT scores and their grade point averages. . . . But when
they leave Bennett College they are going to be prepared to compete with
everybody else out there who has gotten a bachelor’s degree.
Respondents at Bryn Mawr and Pomona did not explicitly mention high
academic standards, perhaps because they were a given. However, faculty at
both Bryn Mawr and Pomona actively encouraged students to see themselves as scholars. This attitude, according to respondents at these two institutions, is directly related to their students’ eventual success. According to a
professor at Bryn Mawr, for example, “Once you have almost acted like a
colleague with people in the field, it then wouldn’t come as a great surprise
that [it] becomes an option or something that you feel comfortable with.”
Similarly, a professor at Pomona indicated that these academic activities
serve as a positive socialization process by giving students “a taste of what
graduate school would be like.”
While respondents at all five institutions mentioned the importance of
having high academic expectations for students, the institutions had important differences in their approaches to this issue. Most of the difference
can be accounted for by dividing the five case study sites into two groups
based on selectivity. The prevailing philosophy at the less selective institutions—Bennett, Incarnate Word, and Tougaloo—was centered on providing a “value-added” education for their students. Value-added, according to
Astin (1985), entails a talent-development conception of excellence, which
focuses on “changes in the student from the beginning to the end of an
educational program. These changes can cover a wide range of cognitive
and affective attributes” (p. 61). Respondents at the less selective institutions articulated a goal of “bring[ing] students from where they are when
they enter, to where they should be when they exit.” The underlying philosophy of the two more selective institutions—Bryn Mawr and Pomona—
was that the better a student is when she enters, the more one can expect of
her while she is enrolled, and the more successful she will eventually become. Because of the high admission standards at these schools, faculty’s
high expectations came naturally.
The research literature supports the idea that high academic expectations are related to student success (e.g., Ayres, 1983; Green, 1989;
Kannerstein, 1978; Whitt, 1992). In Involving Colleges, for example, Kuh,
Schuh, Whitt and associates (1991) found that the presence of faculty members who “assume that all students can learn anything given the proper circumstances” (p. 284) was a trait common to successful institutions. They
328
THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION
SPRING 2000
also emphasized the ethic of membership, meaning, “Because you have chosen us . . . we will do everything we can to help you succeed” (p. 56).
Respondents at all five colleges in my study expressed the same concept.
The psychological theory of attribution (Kelley, 1973) supports the importance of high expectations by suggesting that someone who credits her success to effort rather than ability will have higher self-esteem and a greater
willingness to approach challenging tasks; simultaneously, she credits failure to insufficient effort rather than to low ability. According to Sanford
(1962), challenge is necessary in enhancing student learning and personal
development. The high expectations that faculty and administrators at these
five colleges communicate to their students provide such a challenge by
introducing students to new skills, new experiences, and a more complex
self-understanding.
2. Having a Clear Sense of Mission and History
“There is an attempt made to live the mission.”
“There is an almost constant reminder that you are part of the mission of the
college.”
In discussing the importance of institutional mission and history, respondents at all five institutions mentioned several points. First, they emphasized the importance of having a focused mission, and several suggested
that it is helpful for an institution to dedicate itself to a particular group of
students. Dedication and commitment to the mission also helps institutions to facilitate the success of their students.
Respondents at all of the institutions talked about the positive impact of
having a highly focused mission. “The starting place for anything,” according to a professor at Incarnate Word, “is to be very clear headed about where
you want to end up and where you want to go.” Similarly, according to a
professor at Bennett, “The clearer the mission, the better you can do it.”
One of the ways these colleges expressed that mission is that each institution serves a particular student clientele. Respondents at Tougaloo, for example, talked about the institution’s dedication to educating African
Americans, regardless of gender. Members of the Bennett community reiterated the importance of being a college dedicated to serving the needs of
African American women. Bryn Mawr constituents emphasized the importance of the college’s emphasis on educating high-achieving women. Respondents at Incarnate Word expressed their commitment to educating the
population of San Antonio and South Texas, many of whom are Hispanic.
While Pomona does not serve a single group of students, respondents noted
that women in general, including Hispanic women, respectively have always been “an accepted part of the institutional culture.” The effect of serving
WOLF-WENDEL / WOMEN-FRIENDLY CAMPUSES
329
a narrowly focused student body, according to an administrator at Bryn
Mawr, was a concept like Virginia Woolf ’s “a room of one’s own” in that the
campus provides a space purposefully designed to enhance the intellectual
and social development of women.
Not surprisingly, intense commitment to the mission was a trademark
of constituents from the case study sites. For example, a professor at Bennett
claimed, “Those who come and stay believe in the mission of Bennett College.” Similarly, an administrator at Tougaloo claimed, “I work too hard, I
am always too tired, but I am always fulfilled in terms of what I do.” Finally,
a faculty member at Incarnate Word indicated, “It [the mission] is almost
an obsession, in a good sense. People look to the mission to justify everything they do.” Faculty and administrators at these institutions were quick
to cite examples of policy decisions that were made in direct support of the
institutional mission.
Along with living the mission of these institutions, campus members
were acutely aware of their schools’ institutional saga. Members of the Incarnate Word community, for example, talked about the founding sisters
from France who came to San Antonio in late 1800s to serve the needy.
Those at Bryn Mawr talked about the impact of the founding dean—M.
Carey Thomas—and her goal to create a college where “our failures only
marry.” Members of the Pomona, Tougaloo, and Bennett campuses also were
aware of the origins and influence of their founders.
Respondents at Bennett, Bryn Mawr, Tougaloo, and Incarnate Word saw
ritual and tradition as important factors underlying the success of women
graduates. Specifically, they discussed how their institutions readily and formally acknowledge the success and achievements of their students. According to a faculty member at Bennett, “Ceremony is taken very seriously. It is
part of building self-esteem, part of validating the educational experience.”
Ritual at Bryn Mawr took a slightly different form. Rather than offering a
series of congratulatory ceremonies, respondents at Bryn Mawr talked about
the presence of symbolic gestures that represent students’ efforts towards
academic pursuits. For example, it is a Bryn Mawr tradition that whoever
wins the Senior Hoop Race in the spring will be the first to receive her doctorate. According to a Bryn Mawr administrator, this type of activity is
“geared to push you along the way to success as an intellectual.” Respondents at Pomona did not mention the existence or importance of ritual and
tradition.
Chickering and Reisser (1993) state that “a strong sense of shared values
and purpose is the foundation for institutional coherence and integrity” (p.
480). Other authors echo the importance of having a strong, focused mission (Astin 1985; Gardener, 1989; Kuh, Schuh, Whitt, and associates, 1991).
Campus constituents at the case study sites know their mission, believe in
their mission, and live their mission. As with the distinctive colleges that
330
THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION
SPRING 2000
Clark (1991) described, the members of these communities know their
organization’s saga and use it to build and maintain community. Similarly,
like those at the “involving colleges” described by Kuh, Schuh, Whitt and
associates (1991), members of the campus community in this study can
clearly articulate the values of their institutions.
The campuses highlighted in this study not only have a clear mission but
also a very student-centered focus. Research has demonstrated that when
students perceive their institution as student-centered positive outcomes
such as high degree aspirations, satisfaction with college, and a sense of
competence result (Smith, Wolf, Morrison, 1995). Even places like Pomona,
whose mission is more diffuse, have found a way to keep students as the
focus. As more colleges and universities are being held accountable for student learning outcomes, the need for a focused, student-centered mission
becomes more important.
For Bennett, Bryn Mawr, and Tougaloo, in particular, the singular focus
on meeting the educational needs of a particular group of students gives
them an advantage compared to many other post-secondary institutions.
Women and students of color are an explicit part of the mission at these
institutions. Other institutions do not have the luxury of being able to focus exclusively on women and students of color. Nonetheless, by purposefully considering the needs of women and students of color, coeducational,
predominantly White institutions may be better able to serve students from
these traditionally disenfranchised groups.
3. Providing Positive Role Models
“They create a visual correlation between image and possibility.”
“Once you see successful people . . . success becomes familiar.”
When asked to explain the success of their alumnae, respondents at all
five institutions were quick to mention the importance of role models—
alumnae, current students, campus visitors and lecturers, administrators,
support staff, and faculty members. They emphasized the need for connections between students and those held up as role models. Those connections were based on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic
background, and multiple combinations of these traits. Role models were
considered important because they helped the students feel, “I can do that,
too.”
At all of the institutions, women faculty and administrators, regardless
of race, were mentioned as important models for women students. Having
women in positions of power within the institution, respondents said, helped
women students balance “the parenting and career thing” and also created
“a visual correlation between image and possibility.” The case for women
WOLF-WENDEL / WOMEN-FRIENDLY CAMPUSES
331
leaders was made more strongly at the women’s colleges or those with a
majority of women students—Bryn Mawr, Bennett, Tougaloo, and Incarnate Word. As an administrator at Bryn Mawr explained:
I think it’s just terribly exciting to young women to come to an institution
where the portraits on the wall are women, where the people teaching them
are women, where the president is a woman. . . . Young women at a very
impressionable time in their development are in an institution where women
have taken on the burdens and pleasures of leadership equally or with something of an advantage. And that is so different from the world most of them
have known, and that has a lot more influence than they are conscious of.
Depending on the diversity of the faculty and administration, responses
varied on the extent to which there was an emphasis placed on having samerace role models. At institutions like Tougaloo and Bennett, where there
were strong African American women faculty and administrators, for example, respondents frequently stressed the importance of having same-sex
and same-race role models for African American women students. According to a student at Tougaloo, “We have a lot of Black professors. They have
an impact on me, especially the women. There is just this largeness about
being a woman, being Black, and being a professor. I guess it’s not that they
teach you to live to their standards; they teach you to live beyond your own
standards.” Similarly, a faculty member at Bennett explained:
To have these people. . . who are so successful, who are just like them [the
students], many of whom will tell stories that are just like their stories, their
beginnings—it just proves that you don’t have to be born into a well-educated family or into a lot of money to achieve, and I am convinced this plays
a very important role.
At Incarnate Word, where there are few Latinos in positions of power, the
race of the role models was deemphasized, while their gender and religious
background was stressed. As an Incarnate Word professor explained, “Conservative Polish Catholic is not that different from conservative Hispanic
Catholic in terms of expectations for daughters. . . . We know what it feels
[like] to be torn between your family’s expectations and your own aspirations. If you have lived through it, you can see it working on students and
you can model a solution.”
At both Pomona and Bryn Mawr, while there were relatively few Latino
and African American faculty members and administrators, the few available were cited as being “very strong, very vocal role models.” Alumnae,
outside speakers and lecturers, and current students were more likely to be
mentioned as role models at institutions with fewer minority and women
faculty and administrators. At the same time, while African American women
and Latinas at Bryn Mawr, Pomona, and Incarnate Word readily listed a few
332
THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION
SPRING 2000
specific but important role models at their institutions, many of them discussed the unspoken “negative message” that these institutions might be
sending to their students by not having women of color in positions of
power. A student at Incarnate Word commented, “It would be nice to see
more Hispanic people for encouragement, but the people who are here are
very encouraging.” According to a professor at Bryn Mawr, who was making a critique of coeducational colleges, “I can’t figure out what departments tell their women students . . . when there are no women faculty
members. . . . It is such a glass-ceiling message.” Though she was talking
about the need for women role models, her message applies equally well to
role models reflecting the race/ethnicity of students.
It is often assumed that being able to interact with successful people who
are “like you” will further an individual’s chances of success and improve
her self-concept. That individuals learn by observing another person in a
situation similar to their own is at the heart of this belief (Bandura & Walters,
1963). While Tidball (1973) found a correlation between the number of
female faculty and the number of women achievers, there is relatively little
research evidence to support the strong belief in role models. For example,
Speizer’s (1981) literature review found no conclusive evidence that female
professors directly influence their female students. She stated, “We must
take it on faith that knowing a woman academician and being close enough
to see something of the reality of her life and action will help the young
intellectual woman to concretize her role concept” (p. 702). My study offers
further evidence that campus constituents perceive role models to be important to student success, especially to White women and women of color.
4. Creating a Caring, Supportive Environment
“You help them feel secure and find themselves and get launched.”
“Sometimes I worry that we take too good care of them.”
In all five institutions, respondents frequently mentioned the support
and care that students received from faculty and administrators as a factor
underlying their students’ success. While constituents mentioned formal
support services at each institution, they credited faculty with providing
most of students’ support.
A student at Incarnate Word summed up the relationship between students and faculty: “Instead of just having somebody who gives you a bunch
of notes, they [faculty members] actually get involved in your life.” In fact,
support from faculty members included not only guidance related to academic issues but also guidance and advice on personal matters. In talking
about support, respondents used words like “one-on-one,” “mentoring,” and
“hand holding” to describe relationships between faculty members and students. As a professor at Bennett explained, “I feel a strong sense of responsibility for the success of my students.”
WOLF-WENDEL / WOMEN-FRIENDLY CAMPUSES
333
At three of the campuses (Bennett, Incarnate Word, and Tougaloo), faculty and administrators engaged in “intrusive advising”—not waiting for
students to ask for help but proactively providing guidance. Faculty and
administrators at both Bennett and Tougaloo do not hesitate to go to a
student’s dorm room to “wake them up if they sleep through class.” It was
also said to be common practice at Bennett, Tougaloo, and Incarnate Word
for faculty members to telephone a student’s parents to solicit their assistance in helping a student. In many ways, in loco parentis is the norm at
these schools. A faculty member from Tougaloo explained:
It is not a “just leave you out there” type school. They take you by the hand
and they pull you on and they direct you into the right way to go, not by
telling you, but by talking together to find out exactly what you want; . . . but
then you make them understand their responsibility. You have to be selfreliant because once you leave here you are on your own.
While faculty at Bryn Mawr and Pomona do not go to this extreme, they
also believe that it is their job to actively assist students—even if the student
is unaware that she needs help. A Bryn Mawr faculty member stated, “We
take our students in the early years and try very hard to be helpful, supportive, and encouraging of them without being condescending to them.”
Faculty and administrators at each of these institutions talked about their
institutional commitment to give students the support they need. Respondents, for example, mentioned that teaching and working directly with students was an important factor in determining promotion and pay raises at
all of the institutions. A professor at Bennett indicated, “It is not in your job
description. You either bring it with you, or you intuit that is what is needed
and you either say ‘okay’ . . . or you decide this is not what I want to do and
you find a job somewhere else.” Similarly, a faculty member at Tougaloo mentioned, “Somehow we become used to the idea that students come first.” Faculty at Incarnate Word, Bryn Mawr, and Pomona expressed similar sentiments.
While support is extremely important, respondents at all five institutions also looked beyond support for its own sake to the concept that ultimately students must become responsible for themselves. According to a
faculty member at Tougaloo, “I let the students know that I care for them. I
would say you can call that nurturing . . . but I also give them a kick in the
butt when they need that too.” Similarly, a faculty member at Bryn Mawr
stated that “[we] try very hard to be helpful, supportive, and encouraging
to them . . . but . . . we are not going to be holding their hands through every
step of the way. We expect a certain maturity and initiative on their part.” A
professor at Bennett explained:
334
THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION
SPRING 2000
I try to make it clear to my students [that] there is going to be a grade at the
end of the semester. That is something they have to live with, but I am going
to apply as much support and encouragement over the course of the semester as I can and be as understanding of students that are coming up to speed
as I can without compromising academic integrity.
Some degree of personal support on a campus is pivotal for student success. Schlossberg’s (1989) theory of “mattering” puts the importance of support into perspective. “Mattering,” which is measured by student perceptions,
occurs when students feel that they are noticed, that what they say or do is
important, and that they are appreciated. Mattering further suggests that
students must feel appreciated for who they are and what they do, if they
are to grow, develop, and succeed in college. The Involving Colleges (1991)
study also talks about the importance of mattering; students at these colleges perceive “that faculty care and are interested, responsible, and available” (p. 286).
Levels of support differed between the less selective and the more selective campuses. At the less selective institutions, for example, respondents
described proactive support systems; faculty and administrators at these
colleges sought to help students, even if the students didn’t seek assistance.
At Bryn Mawr and Pomona, support was available, but the students had
more responsibility to seek it out. Indeed, many of those interviewed at the
more selective institutions expressed concerns that they might be providing too much “hand-holding” and support. Regardless of the differences, it
is clear that at all of the campuses, students felt that they mattered. The
benefits of being student-focused are clear. According to Schlossberg, Lynch,
and Chickering (1989): “Institutions that focus on mattering . . . will be
more successful in creating campuses where students are motivated to learn,
where their retention is high, and ultimately, where their institutional loyalty for the short- and long-term future is ensured” (p. 14).
5. Providing Opportunities for Leadership
“We are serious when we say we prepare women for leadership roles.”
“It’s a given that women will do it.”
Respondents at all five institutions commented that students had many
opportunities to be involved in extracurricular activities. These opportunities, according to respondents, helped students develop strong leadership
skills, kept them active in their institutions, and generally facilitated their
overall success. In general, administrators were more likely than the faculty
at all of the colleges to comment on the importance of student involvement. Respondents at Bennett and Bryn Mawr both pointed out that, because they were women’s colleges, women were not only expected but
WOLF-WENDEL / WOMEN-FRIENDLY CAMPUSES
335
obligated to hold all of the available leadership positions. As one participant stated, “If it needs to be done, it’s a given that women will do it.” A
Bryn Mawr professor pointed out that the all-women school organizations
“enables young women . . . to gain confidence. This place is very much a
proving ground so that skills and experience are fostered.” Similarly, an administrator at Bennett commented, “Women have an opportunity to be
creative, to develop their leadership skills without having to compete with
men until they get to the larger society. And, by that time they are pretty
well equipped to do that.”
Respondents at the coeducational institutions mentioned that women
were as likely as men to hold leadership positions, statements I did not independently verify. Pomona structured several key leadership positions so
that both male and female participants were required as, for example, resident advisors and peer mentors. At Incarnate Word and Tougaloo, administrators suggested that women of color held many of the campus leadership
positions because, as a group, they represented the majority of the student
population. Being a former women’s college, according to an administrator
at Incarnate Word, was helpful: “Because women were always in the majority, and still are, they tended not to take a back seat because now the males
were here. I think that they felt more pushed to excel even after it became
coed.” At Pomona, an administrator explained that, when the Dean of Students office noticed a preponderance of male achievers, they pointed out
the discrepancy and “nagged” students to remedy the situation. Interestingly, Pomona is one of the last colleges in the United States to maintain the
position of Dean of Women; this position is designed to make sure that
women students become and stay involved in campus activities and organizations and have a voice on campus.
Of all of the factors listed, opportunities for involvement receive the most
attention in the wider literature. Involvement, as defined by Astin (1977),
entails the investment of psychological and physical energy in tasks, people,
and activities. Involvement is reportedly associated with a variety of positive educational outcomes (Astin, 1992; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Whitt
(1994) and the Involving Colleges study (1991) both emphasize how women’s
colleges provide involvement opportunities for their students. Whitt’s case
studies of students at three women’s colleges identified extensive opportunities that women’s colleges provide for women students to assume leadership positions, findings that sound very much like the situation at Bryn
Mawr and Bennett. The other campuses would also meet the definition of
“involving colleges” (Kuh, Schuh, Whitt, & associates, 1991). Because they
are coeducational, however, they have to work harder to provide leadership
opportunities for women, including “pushing” women to become more involved when they notice a gender imbalance. These behaviors encourage
women and women of color to have a voice and to become involved.
336
THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION
SPRING 2000
6. Providing Opportunities to Learn about Oneself
“For students to know where they are going, they must know who they are.”
“Women’s issues are all over the place.”
At all five institutions, constituents mentioned the benefits of including
gender and/or racial issues in the formal and informal curriculum. A Bennett
alumna indicated, “For students to know where they are going, they must
know who they are—they must believe in that, embrace that, and feel good
about that.” Similarly, a faculty member at Incarnate Word claimed, “If you
know who you are and you like who you are, you will have a better chance
of getting where you need to go.” At the same time, however, constituents at
all five institutions were not calling for the dissolution of the “traditional”
curriculum. As a faculty member at Bennett College explained, the curriculum was fairly mainstream because “we need to prepare them to know the
same material as other students so they can do well on the standardized
tests.” Similarly, a faculty member at Pomona stated that the curriculum
should be “designed to help people go to graduate school and get jobs.”
How the five institutions balanced their belief in teaching the traditional
canon and in presenting information specific to the race and gender of their
student populations varied slightly among the institutions. Tougaloo, for
example, required a course for all first-year students that emphasized African American issues. At Bryn Mawr, Tougaloo, and Bennett College, issues
pertaining to women generally and, more specifically, to women of color
appeared in the general curriculum through classroom examples, lectures,
and assigned readings. In addition, at these three institutions, topics about
white women and women of color were a major part of the extra-curriculum, presented through planned (often required) lectures, speaker series,
and discussion groups. At Pomona and Incarnate Word, however, when
women and people of color were included in the curriculum, these topics
were most likely to occur in courses sponsored by Women’s Studies or Ethnic Studies departments. What can be said is that, across the institutions,
respondents found themselves constantly grappling with how to include
the diverse experiences of White women and women of color in the learning experiences of their students. Regardless of the form such inclusion
took, respondents agreed that providing opportunities for students to learn
about themselves and about others who have been historically marginalized
was important because it provides “students with role models and knowledge about where they come from.”
The literature on the impact of diversity initiatives indicates some positive outcomes from addressing issues of race, gender, and social class in the
curriculum (Appel, Cartwright, Smith, & Wolf, 1996; Smith & associates,
WOLF-WENDEL / WOMEN-FRIENDLY CAMPUSES
337
1997). It was not surprising, therefore, to find that many respondents mentioned the importance of learning about gender and racial issues in both
the formal and informal curriculum. Respondents emphasized the importance of exposing students to their own history, literature, and backgrounds
to help students become aware of the racism, sexism, and classism they
would face in the “real world.” Expanding the curriculum to educate all
students to live in a multicultural society, according to Smith (1995), is the
best way for institutions to deal proactively with the changing demographics of society. Including the voices of women and people of color is not
something an institution does merely to enhance the self-esteem of
underrepresented students; instead, infusing diversity into the curriculum
helps all students understand how to succeed and how to fight societal discrimination and injustice.
7. Creating a Supportive and High-Achieving Peer Culture of People like
Oneself
“Our students develop a kinship with each other.”
“Sheer numbers create a culture of acceptance.”
Members of the campus communities emphasized the benefits of having a supportive peer culture that created both a safe space for students and
a motivating force for them to achieve. When I asked how the campus peer
culture influences women students to succeed, the respondents generally
identified two general categories: having a “driven, high-achieving” peer
culture and having a culture that emphasizes peer support. Bryn Mawr
interviewees described the peer climate as one that “rewards academic
achievement.” Similarly, a respondent at Pomona described the peer community as supporting a “culture of working hard.” Respondents at the other
institutions made similar comments and described how well students supported each other. In the words of a Bennett student: “You battle, but you
always try to support.” A Tougaloo administrator reiterated: “Your only competition is your peers, who are more than willing to help bring you to where
they are because they know that we are all in this together.”
While there were similarities among the institutions in terms of the importance of peer culture, White women articulated its value differently than
women of color. Specifically, while White women are a numerical majority
on most college campuses, respondents at Bryn Mawr suggested that there
was something “powerful for women about being at a place that is theirs . .
. . They identify with the culture and see the culture as taking them seriously and really being invested in them.” A student at Bryn Mawr explained,
“I felt like I belonged here. . . . I was struck by being in a community of
women.” A Bryn Mawr professor talked about the importance of having a
338
THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION
SPRING 2000
place where intellectual women “find camaraderie and [the] colleagueship
of other women who are trying to do the same thing. . . . It creates a gendered
intellectual density.” At women’s colleges, this type of women-centered peer
culture comes naturally.
In contrast, respondents at Pomona admitted that, even though women
students are a majority on campus, the college must still deal with many of
the problems inherent at all coeducational institutions. A faculty member
explained that Pomona women occasionally feel that they have to make a
choice between being “brilliant and strong . . . or dateable.” Pomona’s unusual retention of its Dean of Women office, means that “issues facing
women students are not lost in the problems faced by men.” Pomona also
has an active Women’s Commission, a multi-constituency group that meets
weekly about women’s issues on campus. As one administrator explained,
The commission’s “aim is to recommend, to investigate, to be a kind of
critical presence. . . . It is supposed to be kind of a force that brings women
together, mobilizing them in a way that helps the whole institution.” Both
students and faculty identified these two administrative entities as ways to
“provide women students with a lot more voice” and to provide women
with “a greater sense of community than might be found at other coeducational institutions.”
Respondents at the historically Black and Hispanic-serving institutions
frequently used the term “critical mass” as they discussed the peer culture
and its effect on the success of women of color. Unlike White women, who
are in the majority at many campuses, women of color rarely find themselves surrounded by driven, motivated, talented students from similar backgrounds. A Tougaloo professor, who was also an alumna of the college,
explained:
You suddenly find yourself in a situation where . . . you are in an environment where most of the people look like you to some degree, and they are
smart, and you haven’t been in that situation before. It is incredible. . . . I used
to think there was something wrong with me that I wanted to read books,
that I was the only one. But then to come and find that there were other
people like me—that had an impact.
Similarly, an administrator at Bennett explained that students “get the
chance to be surrounded by African American women who all have similar
achievement goals. . . . This is the first and only time that this will happen in
their lives, and it has a powerful effect.” A student at Incarnate Word echoed
this idea: “Part of what happens automatically when you have a high percentage is creating a culture of acceptance and nurture. . . . Just the sheer
numbers creates a culture within the college where it is obvious and it’s a
given that being Hispanic is acceptable and normal.”
WOLF-WENDEL / WOMEN-FRIENDLY CAMPUSES
339
The fact that women students represent the majority at most institutions of higher education creates an interesting conundrum: Why is it that
many women students don’t feel a strong sense of peer support and community on coeducational campuses? (Hall & Sandler, 1984; AAUW, 1995;
Pascarella et al., 1996) This area is worthy of more research and exploration, especially as colleges and universities work to increase the representation of women of color on their campuses. Research suggests that the
proportion of different types of individuals within an institution impacts
both how they are viewed by the organization and how they fit in (Kanter,
1976; Tidball, 1983). Increasing the representation of students of color is a
goal worth striving for, as this group is most likely to feel marginalized at
mainstream institutions of higher education (e.g., de los Santos & Rigual,
1994; Wilson, 1994). It would appear, however, that critical mass means
more than just “adding more” students from a particular group; it also means
consciously paying attention to their needs and providing a supportive climate. It means fostering an effective community, as described by Gardener
(1989), which entails, among other things, incorporating diversity, creating
a shared culture, and promoting caring, trust, and teamwork. According to
respondents in these case studies, being around peers who share certain
characteristics makes students feel comfortable, safe, supported, and included. Moreover, having this “critical mass” expands how they perceive
limitations, assets, and possibilities. In contrast, the absence of a supportive
peer culture makes students feel isolated and limited.
8. Connecting Students to Their Communities
“We are not just in it for ourselves; we are in it for our . . . communities.”
“It’s not just about self-achievement”
Respondents at three of the institutions—Bennett, Incarnate Word, and
Tougaloo—emphasized the role of community service in facilitating their
students’ success. Currently, all three institutions require substantial volunteer hours for graduation and have a strong history of “giving back to their
communities.” Faculty, administrators, and students at these institutions
participate generously in a range of service activities in their local communities. In general, when interviewees at these institutions discussed how
community service facilitated their alumnae’s success, they were less likely
to discuss benefits to the individual of volunteering than to discuss the importance of having students recognize their eventual role as community
leaders—”to feel connected to those in their community.”
Repeatedly, respondents indicated that students learn that they have a
“social commitment, a commitment to improving the world and their
community.” To do this, according to one administrator, “You have to be
340
THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION
SPRING 2000
prepared yourself. Being prepared means being educated.” The underlying
concept conveyed to students at all three institutions is: “We are not just in
it for ourselves; we are in it for our families and our communities.” A professor from Incarnate Word summarized the importance of community
involvement:
Knowing that you are part of a larger context, and translating that [knowledge] into cultural and ethnic terms is part of the issue. That gives people—
women especially in this context—a larger resource and a sense of responsibility. To put it into a larger context, to see that there are more reasons for
your trajectory and to see that your trajectory impacts the community, is
important.
While many studies demonstrate the benefits of student participation in
community service projects (Bringle & Kremer, 1993; Cohen & Kinsey, 1994;
Giles & Eyler, 1994), this study offers a new perspective. Respondents at
Bennett, Incarnate Word, and Tougaloo defined community service as a
crucial factor underlying student success. At these schools, working in the
community allows students to learn first-hand about the realities of racism, poverty, and disempowerment faced by many in their communities.
The importance of community service was less connected to making students feel good about themselves or teaching them skills than helping students feel connected to and responsible for “giving back” to those “who
lifted them up.” Students at these institutions were taught to recognize that
the decisions they make affect not only their personal success but also the
success of the whole community.
Community service, by its very nature, is a vehicle by which schools become linked to the larger community that surrounds them (Zlotkowski,
1993). These three colleges therefore emphasize the concept of connecting
to the community; they stress the importance of “doing with” rather than
“doing for” and communicate that their students’ academic success benefits their families and communities. In this conceptualization of community service, both the community and the individual reap reciprocal rewards.
The literature on community service and its curricular counterpart, service-learning, found that the rationale for such service typically stresses benefits to the institution and to the student rather than benefits to community
members (Wolf-Wendel & Ward, 1997). As such, the approach to community service at these special-focus colleges differs from what one typically
sees at predominantly White institutions (Ward & Wolf-Wendel, in press).
As service-learning and community service become more popular, additional research should examine how schools like Bennett, Tougaloo, and
Incarnate Word involve students in community-centered service. With more
exploration, this approach to community service could be implemented at
any academic institution.
WOLF-WENDEL / WOMEN-FRIENDLY CAMPUSES
341
D ISCUSSION
The impact of campus climate on students is the focus of many who
study higher education. Kuh and Whitt (1988) define the “invisible tapestry” of an institution, a primary determinant of its culture, as the “persistent patterns of norms, values, practices, beliefs and assumptions that shape
the behavior of individuals and groups in a college or university and provide a frame of reference within which to interpret the meaning of events
and actions on and off campus” (p. 1). This definition of climate identifies
institutional aspects that influence the learning environment which, in turn,
influences student outcomes. Recognizing that college outcomes are a result of student pre-matriculation characteristics combined with students’
experiences and involvement in college, it is still helpful to isolate components of the campus climate that seem to encourage student success. A brief
reexamination of the factors associated with creating an environment that
facilitates the success of women, illuminates important differences and similarities among the cases and provides an opportunity to make connections
between the cases and the wider literature.
Before concluding, however, this study’s limitations should be noted.
While the research method lends itself to understanding what is significant
about individual cases and subjects, it does not allow for broad generalizations
about all academic institutions. Indeed, the usual limitations attendant to
qualitative research are present here, particularly the risks of generalizing
broadly from an exploratory study and incorporating the subject’s perspectives in negotiating meanings and outcomes. Perhaps these institutions are
outliers, representing settings and contexts that would be difficult to replicate at other institutions. Further, some scholars question the validity of
connecting baccalaureate origin to institutional success because these studies fail to control for students’ self-selection. That different institutions and
different institutional types may attract unique types of students is beyond
the control of this study. Like the institutions chosen for the Involving Colleges study, however, the practices, policies, and contexts of the sites in this
study offer other academic institutions models for possible responses to the
needs of women students. An additional limitation of this study is that its
focus is exclusively on women students, which means that direct comparisons about what types of environments are supportive of women as compared to men cannot be made based on these data. Instead, one must rely
on comparisons between these sites and the larger research literature, most
of which deals with coeducational settings.
At first glance, the characteristics of these case study sites parallel research findings on the traits connected to student-centered institutions for
both men and women. In fact, there is evidence in the wider literature that
having a focused mission, high expectations, a supportive environment, role
342
THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION
SPRING 2000
models, a supportive peer culture of high-achieving students, opportunities for extracurricular involvement, and the inclusion of women and people
of color in the curriculum are all traits associated with institutions that
facilitate student success. What sets these five institutions apart from other
student-friendly institutions is the purposefulness with which they respond
to the needs of their women students. The success of White women and
women of color is central to the values held by campus constituents. This
belief undergirds many of the actions of both the institutions and their
individual constituents. These environments are not only favorable to
women but empowering: a critical mass of women faculty, nurture and challenges for women students, and campus discussions dominated by women’s
issues. Taking women seriously, an important trait of all five colleges in this
study, requires an intentionality that is manifest in a living history and the
translation of their historical mission into both small and large decisions in
institutional life.
The five campuses in this study carry out these traits in different ways,
underscoring the idea that “successful” colleges are not all alike. Differences
in race, ethnicity, social class, and other experiences influence what students need from their campuses and how campuses should respond. While
separate examinations of each institution’s characteristics are illuminating,
it is important to understand that their whole is greater than the sum of
their parts; it is not feasible to look at a single element in isolation. Instead,
it is the combination of characteristics—their ethos—that makes them
unique, able to facilitate their students’ success. What these campuses do
that sets them apart from other campuses is that they are purposeful in
adopting structures, policies, practices, and curriculum that are sensitive to
the needs of women. These are campuses that are proactive about taking
women seriously. As such, they offer examples to other campuses for ways
to improve the academic climate for women students as a means to facilitate post-baccalaureate success.
R EFERENCES
Appel, M., Cartwright, D., Smith, D., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (1996). The impact of diversity on students: A preliminary review of the research literature. Washington
DC: American Association of Colleges and Universities.
Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years: Effects of college on beliefs, attitudes and knowledge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1992). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ayres, Q. W. (1983). Student achievement at predominantly Black and predominantly White universities. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 291-304.
WOLF-WENDEL / WOMEN-FRIENDLY CAMPUSES
343
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bringle, R. G., & Kremer, J. F. (1993). An evaluation of an intergenerational servicelearning project for undergraduates. Educational Gerontologist, 19, 407-416.
Brelin, C. (Ed.). (1992). Who’s who among Black Americans (7th ed.) Detroit: Gale
Research.
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2d ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Clark, B. R. (1991). The organizational saga in higher education. In M. W. Peterson
(Ed.), Organization and governance in higher education: An ASHE reader.
Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press, 1991.
Cohen, J., & Kinsey, D. (1994, Winter). “Doing good” and scholarship: A servicelearning study. Journalism Educator, 48(4), 4-14.
Conrad, C. (1982). Grounded theory: An alternative approach to research in higher
education. Review of Higher Education, 5, 239-49.
Crowson, R. L. (1993). Qualitative research methods in higher education. In C.
Conrad, A. Neumann, J. G. Hawarth, & P. Scott (Eds.), Qualitative research in
higher education: Experiencing alternative perspectives and approaches (pp. 167208). ASHE Reader Series. Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press.
de los Santos, A., & Rigual, A. (1994). Progress of Hispanics in American higher
education. In M. L. Justiz, R. Wilson, & L. C. Bjork, (Eds.), Minorities in higher
education (pp. 173-194). Phoenix: American Council on Education/Oryx
Press.
Fleming, J. (1983). Black women in Black and White college environments: The
making of a matriarch. Journal of Social Issues, 30(3), 41-54.
Gardener, J. W. (1989, Fall). Building community. Kettering Review, 73-81.
Giles, D. E., & Eyler, J. (1994). The impact of a college community service laboratory on students’ personal, social, and cognitive outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 17, 327-339.
Glazer, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glazer, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Green, M. F. (1989). Minorities on campus: A handbook for enhancing diversity. Washington DC: American Council on Education.
Hall, R., & Sandler, B. (1984). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women? Project
on the Status and Education of Women. Washington, DC.: Association of
American Colleges.
Kannerstein, G. (1978.) Black colleges: Self-concept. In C. V. Willie, & R. R. Edmonds
(Eds.), Black colleges in America: Challenge, development, survival (pp. 2950). New York: Teachers College Press.
Kanter, R. M. (1976). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kelley, H. E. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2),
107-128.
Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (1991). Involving colleges: Successful
approaches to fostering student learning and development outside the classroom.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
344
THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION
SPRING 2000
Kuh, G. D., & Whitt, E. J. (1988). The invisible tapestry: Culture in American colleges
and universities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 1. Washington,
DC: ERIC Clearing House on Higher Education.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and
insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., Whitt, E. J., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L. S., Yeager, P. M., &
Terenzini, P. T. (1996). Women’s perceptions of a “chilly climate” and their cognitive outcomes during the first year of college. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Memphis,
TN.
Pearson, W., & Pearson, L. C. (1985). Baccalaureate origins of Black American scientists: A cohort analysis. Journal of Negro Education, 54(1), 24-34.
Riordan, C. (1992). Single- and mixed gender colleges for women: Educational,
attitudinal, and occupational outcomes. Review of Higher Education, 15(3),
327-346.
Roebuck, J. B., & Murty, K. S. (1993). Historically Black colleges and universities:
Their place in American higher education. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Sanford, N. (1962). The American college: A psychological and social interpretation
of the higher learning. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Schlossberg, N. K. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. In D. C. Roberts (Ed.), Designing campus activities to foster a sense of
community. New Directions for Student Services, No. 48. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Schlossberg, N. K., Lynch, A. Q., & Chickering, A. W. (1989). Improving higher education environments for adults: Response programs and services from entry to
departure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, D. G. (1990). Women’s colleges and coed colleges: Is there a difference for
women? Journal of Higher Education, 61(2), 181-197.
Smith, D. G. (1995). Organizational implications of diversity in higher education.
In M. Chemers, S. Oskamp, & M. Costanza (Eds.), Diversity in Organizations,
(pp. 220-244). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Smith, D. G., and associates. (1997). Diversity works: The emerging picture of how
students benefit. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
Smith, D., Wolf, L., & Morrison, D. (1995). Paths to success: Factors related to the
impact of women’s colleges. Journal of Higher Education, 66(3), 245-266.
Solorzano, D. G. (1995). The baccalaureate origins of Chicana and Chicano doctorates in the social sciences. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 17(1), 3-32.
Speizer, J. (1981). Role models, mentors, and sponsors: The elusive concept. Signs,
6(4), 692-712.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
WOLF-WENDEL / WOMEN-FRIENDLY CAMPUSES
345
Tidball, M. E. (1973). Perspective on academic women and affirmative action. Educational Record, 54(1), 130-135.
Tidball, M. E. (1983). The ideal gas, a critical mass, and homeostasis. Women’s Studies
Quarterly, 11(2), 5-7.
Tidball, M. E. (1986). Baccalaureate origins of recent natural science doctorates.
Journal of Higher Education, 57, 606-620.
Tidball, E., Smith, D., Tidball, C., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (1998). Taking women seriously: Lessons and legacies for higher education from women’s colleges. Phoenix,
AZ: American Council of Education/Oryx Press.
Unterburger, A. L. (Ed). (1993). Who’s who among Hispanic Americans, 1992-93
(2d Ed.). Detroit: Gale Research.
Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (in press) A discourse analysis of community-based
learning: Moving from “I” to “We.” Special Thematic Issue of the American
Behavioral Scientist on “The University’s Responsibilities in Troubled Times.”
Whitt, E. J. (1991). Artful science: A primer on qualitative research methods. Journal of College Student Development, 32(5), 406-415.
Whitt, E. J. (1992). Taking women seriously: Lessons for coeducational institutions
from women’s colleges. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Minneapolis, MN.
Whitt, E. J. (1994). I can be anything! Student leadership in three women’s colleges.
Journal of College Student Development, 35, 198-207.
Who’s Who in America, 1992-1993. (1992). Chicago: Marquis.
Wilson, R. (1994). The participation of African Americans in American higher education. In M. L. Justiz, R. Wilson, & L. C. Bjork (Eds.), Minorities in Higher
Education. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education/Oryx Press.
Wolf-Wendel, L. E. (1998). Models of excellence: The baccalaureate origins of successful African American, European American and Hispanic women. The
Journal of Higher Education, 69(2), 144-172.
Wolf-Wendel, L. E., Morphew, C., & Baker, B. G. (1998). Dollars and sense: A study
of the relationship between resources and doctoral productivity. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education,
Miami, FL.
Wolf-Wendel, L. E., & Ward, K. (1997). A discourse analysis of community-based
learning: Moving from “I” to “We.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Albuquerque, NM.
Zlotkowski, E. (1993). Service learning as campus culture. In T. P. Y. Kupeic (Ed).,
Rethinking tradition: Integrating service with academic study on college campuses, pp. 47-51. Providence, RI: Campus Compact.