Welcoming Ain’t Belonging: A Case Study that Explores How Two-year Predominantly White Colleges Can Foster an Environment of Validation and Mattering for Men of Color
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The qualitative case study explored the factors that foster an atmosphere of belonging for men of color (MOC) attending a 2-year Predominantly White Institution. The pressing issue is the PWI colleges make the erroneous assumption that an extension or invitation of welcome is the same as fostering a sense of belonging for men of color (MOC). This led colleges to construct policies and practices that do not intentionally and deliberately create an atmosphere where MOC feel valued, validated, and visible. According to Maestas, Vaquera, and Zehr (2007), fostering a sense of belonging is paramount to the retention and graduation of students of color. The study surfaced three central themes: (a) experiencing an atmosphere of welcome, (b) desire for cultural representation and celebration (c) importance of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) training. Though most colleges boast of creating a sense of belonging, the National Center for Education Statistics (2019) reports 25% of men of color graduate from a community college within 150 % or three-years of normal time. Additionally, the Community College Survey of Men (CCSM) reports a lack of validation, engagement, and high attrition rate for men of color attending these institutions (Harris & Wood, 2013). This can be problematic considering the majority of men of color began their academic journey by attending 2-year colleges. Community and 2-year colleges are critical to the educational system and positioned to improve access and equity for students of color, particularly males (Bailey, Jaggars, & Jenkins, 2015).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".