Introduction

In many institutions of higher learning, there is a culture that thrives and influences the majority of the organization’s components. In these educational centers, cultural influence is beyond professors or even learners’ conscience. This means that they do not consider it significant in influencing learning in universities and colleges. Culture is an important aspect of the designing and implementation of student procedures and processes as it is essential in promoting peaceful and stable environments for learning. This essay focuses on the cultural issues affecting an institution of higher learning and how to resolve them utilizing Duncan and Zaltman’s Strategies for Panned Change book and the Affective Domain Concept.  The selected institution is Arizona University.

Cultural definition

Culture is merely the dominant beliefs and values that influence and affect decision-making for individuals and organizations. The institution’s culture or class significantly impact content selection, attitudes, and skills which are fostered, the association between lecturers and students, among others. Just as earlier on indicated, almost all components of an organization are influenced by its culture. For example, students can opt to join universities or colleges which reflect their personal beliefs and values, and so the features of the rest of the students will not only be influenced by the culture of their origin but also that of the campus. This means that culture can be reinforcing.

Culture and the student-centered environment in higher learning institutions

The consideration as to whether or not culture has credible or undesirable influence in a university or college is based on whether a person rejects or shares in the underlying beliefs or values of the dominant culture. In universities and colleges, it has been portrayed as vague and nebulous, but it has a potent influence in the lives of students, tutors, and other significant stakeholders. It may differ between institutions or among departments within the same learning center. A good culture within an institution of higher learning should encompass mutual respect among the key players in a student-centered environment of learning in universities and colleges.  These parties are students and instructors. Any arising argument or reasoning should be evidence-based. The culture should also allow learning to be fun and engaging. Also, it should boost mutual support and collaboration, enhancing respect and recognition of personalities. It is important to note that the above aspects are relative among various institutions of higher learning.

The University of Arizona culture

The students of this great institution area surrounded by a multiplicity of backgrounds, nationalities, shades, individual identities, beliefs, and values. The university values uniqueness for all people and fosters interdependence among the students. Diversity is key to the uniting of the students in the institution. The mentally and the physically challenged are acquainted with the necessary materials for learning and survival. The English language is also taught to international students who do not understand it.

Diversity and inclusivity challenges

It is true that the above institution promotes diversity through the incorporation of many students from diverse backgrounds as well as providing adequate learning materials for all, regardless of the gender, sexual orientation, color, language or any other basis of discrimination. Nevertheless, a culture embracing diversity does not lack issues arising from it.  Majority of the problems arising from this kind of culture are unconscious.  The intentional ones are not widely practiced since the university authority, and the law enforcement mechanism is available to safeguard people from any discrimination.  There are some unconscious biasness that has risen with the university with time. This biasness denotes a prejudice which the perpetrator is unconscious of practicing it. Some of the unconscious issues facing Arizona University as a result of its culture include the following

Gender bias:  this happens in a situation whereby female students are seen to be incapable of holding top student leadership positions. No wonder, female student executive leaders are not so many on the campus.  Again, the achievement of women is usually viewed from the angle of lack and not toil or working for it.  The success of men, on the other hand, is perceived to be as a result of skills and ability. Also, the ladies who are in positions of leadership and show ability are unfavorably evaluated as they are considered to be violating gender rules.

Racial bias: this is very rampant in public areas where people of all colors meet.  In a university like Arizona, a person of a particular color of the minority when hired can be considered to have gotten appointed for purposes of affirmative action. In this case, a lot of pressure is mounted on the person to prove that he or she is able and deserve the position. The number of admissions can also evidence racial biasness into a particular faculty. It is important to note that the US in the 18th century was characterized by rampant racism more so on the African-Americans. They were considered inferior, slaves and equated to monkeys. Although the abolition of the slave trade and the promotion of universal human rights promoted equality to all, some areas and campuses still practice undercover racism. Black culture and that of the whites are the only things which bring about the disagreement.

Sexual orientation bias: this issue has elicited an international outrage whereby some nations support LGBTQ rights as others decry them. In the case of this paper and for the selected example, it is important to note that some people at the university may not be biased to the LGBTQ groups although they can assume other individuals do.  The students in the first year of study may believe that their peer friends have a negative attitude towards the LGBTQ people, which can lead to a behavioral adjustment to mirror the misconception.  The issue can also cause the LGBTQ department report to be taken as the ‘power’ over the affairs of LGBTQ notwithstanding real research interests.

Effects of culturally instigated biases

When the above preferences go unchecked for a longer time, the problem poses a significant threat to the sustainability of the university. For instance, the failure to address gender bias can cause discomfort to the female students hence affecting their studies.  Women may feel off especially in classes where males dominate. Sexist language may ensue as well as ideas of disparage on the ladies among other stereotypes.  Sexual harassment is also likely to take effect and differential handling from their instructors. The retention rate of students diminishes when unconscious biases continue in a university like Arizona. in the US, research shows that where this vice thrives, only  40”% of back scholars, 49% of Latino and 60% of whites graduate from their 6-year degree. for LGBTQ group, it is only 33% who graduate implying that they are greatly harassed and consider fleeing for their safety.

Moreover, many of the scholars are also bored by the student-centered environments which are discriminatory hence, affecting conducive academic development Research shows that limited experience with interacting with the minority groups causes the majority to anxiously yearn to communicate with them in fear that they may misbehave, do or say wrong things. This kind of anxiety can evoke hostility in the interaction between the two groups hence impeding any accruing benefit from the association.

To the faculty, tense inter-colleague relationships, unequal job allocation, and lower job-satisfaction are some of the challenges of culture instigated biases. The minority groups and women in several areas of their work like tenure, promotion, decision-making involvement, committee assignments, professional association with colleagues and committee assignments are less satisfied than the male faculty members who are the majority.  There is also a likelihood that the color faculty together with that of the LGBTQ group will report exclusion, alienation, and isolation in their association with associates in principally white universities. As such, less productivity concerning associations will be registered.

Besides, the minority faculty ideas may be misattributed to traitors in spite of contrary proofs or undervalued. This scenario indicates that culturally instigated biasness is precarious as leads to inequitable promotion decisions and evaluations.  The minority faculty people may also be having high expectations for the publication of more of their quality publications and tenure but their anticipations frustrated. Deterred collaboration may also occurs in a situation whereby the faculty coming from an institution of higher learning other than big research campuses face the likelihood of undervaluation.                                               Chances of benefiting from the colleagues’ expertise from several other institutions like old black universities, private industry or government, four-year colleges face the likelihood of being overlooked.

Another likely problem of biasness is unfairness in the allocation of responsibilities. The unrepresented groups and women’s capacity to supervise learners or operating a research group may be undervalued and may affect teaching assignments and committees respectively. Specifically, the underlying assumptions concerning the likely responsibilities of a family and their resultant impact on the colleague’s job path can undesirably influence merit evaluation, despite proof of productivity.

Intervention to shape the institution’s attitudes and values

The above challenges associated with the culture of the described organization clearly shows that there is a need for change. The staff members and the students should inculcate within themselves the attitude and values of change for advantageous inclusivity to be factored in the institution. No single party within the campus should feel left out as far as the reaping the benefits of a student-centered environment of learning is concerned.  Minority groups, people of all colors and the LGBTQ people should have their dignity as human beings respected. Inclusivity and promotion of the fundamental human rights should be at the center of every activity geared at fostering a culture free from biasness. The university should include in their curriculum lessons regarding the respect of everyone including LGBTQ members, and the importance of gender inclusivity. In this way, students will attain the values of respecting each other in the student-centered learning surrounding. The instructors and the tutors should also promote women inclusivity in the teaching faculty to act as an excellent example for the learners to follow.

The rolling out of the above plans, among others which can see the organization recover from detrimental effects of its culture, cannot just be done via small talk and prescription; a sequence of steps must be followed as postulated by Zaltman & Duncan (1977).

Strategies for Planned Change

Zaltman & Duncan (1977) propose seven steps for a planned change. These steps are very applicable in this paper as they will assist in providing a direction to the case university and other organizations on how to carry on a strategized change. At first, the management of the university and other major stakeholders like the government who are the change agents should first gauge whether the institution is ripe for transformation. Upon doing this, they are then supposed to propose the necessary changes, depending on their specific diagnosis of the underlying issues, emotional inclination or concealed self-interest, and commitment to the objectives of the organization.  The management and the stakeholders should be aware of the possible reaction of the students and other people affected by the change. Some may join the change agent; others reserve their respective positions even as others resist leading to conflicts. The key stakeholders and the management should positively respond to the disagreements via doing appropriate cajoling, educating, supporting and persuading the reacting participants about the need for transformation in the institution. If the viewpoints of the change agents are considered after the persuasion, a decision for changing the status quo is endorsed. If a participative approach to change is taken, the prescribed interventions will succeed despite any intruding obstruction. If the results of the deliberation are assessed as desirable and practical, the amendment is adopted, and hence the institution will be free from any adverse effects of a diverse culture. Otherwise, revision seeds will be sown for better control of the situation.

The authors of the above steps Zaltman’s & Duncan (1977) put more emphasis on step four which acknowledges the fact that there are impediments to planned alteration of an institution’s status quo. They emphasize on properly persuading and cajoling any party reacting to the imminent change in the most appropriate manner. For instance, when students strike following a move to solve the biasness issue, the management can organize peaceful talks with them to show them the essence of the change in the institution.

Affective Domain and the Interventions assessment

The interventions of bolstering inclusivity via informing students about the importance of the same, encouraging of management to act as an example and promoting equality and respect for human rights including those of the LGBTQ group can also be linked to the Affective Domain taxonomy. This domain explains learning goals which stress on emotions, feeling tone, acceptance or rejection degree. The four steps can be utilized in bolstering the importance of the required change in the minds of the students and other individuals influenced by the change.

Receiving

the learners can be made aware of the importance of promoting an ethical culture free from unconscious biasness for them to listen to, tolerate or accept the proposed interventions.

Responding: this means that the students will commit themselves to measure the necessity of the ideas hence responding to them appropriately.

Valuing; the change targets will also support the ideations as a way of assessing the. in this case they will show to the university management that they are willing to relinquish any resistance and help the proposed interventions.

Organization: this involves relating the value of the proposed action plans to the preexisting ones, harmonize them and derive a theory or philosophy from the same.

Characterization: this will entail the students consistently valuing the entire information they have gotten regarding the proposed changes. this means that they will uphold the values and beliefs which are necessary for promoting harmonious living in the university

conclusion

Although an organization can have a credible culture, some issues may arise out of it which may be detrimental to some minority groups, a particular race, or sex among others. These issues are very damaging to the sustainability of higher learning institutions, and hence reasonable interventions should be created to solve the cultural problems. Zaltman’s & Duncan (1977)7 steps are some of the best ways of strategizing for an already planned change. In so doing, coupled with the application of the Affective Domain taxonomy, the biasness issues associated with the culture of higher education centers will be eliminated.

Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?