The current state of diversity affairs, both in the US and globally, urges for a renewed emphasis on diversity scholarship, diversity principles, and leadership practices that better facilitate inclusion. Organizations, communities, and certainly educational institutions are all shuffling to better understand how to manage this most pressing 21st century dilemma, namely, diversity (Angelides et al., 2010; Lewis, 2016; Shore et al., 2018; Terenzini et al., 2001). Diversity, along with its surrounding constructs, (i.e. culture, multiculturism, intercultural relations) seems the likely emphasis for scholarship in this domain of issues in equity. With many campuses currently experiencing a boom in enrollment by diverse populations, still this increase has not been met with adequate practices and the necessary climate to match it (Pedersen & Pope, 2010; Solorzano & Yasso, 2000). Along with the demographic changes there has also come an increase in the level of inequities experienced by minoritized student populations (Harper, 2012). The work of critical theorists (Yosso, 2005; Parker & Villalpando, 2007; Theoharis, 2007) provides us with a more clear picture into the urgency for this work and the gaps that remain in the literature.
The emergent opportunity presented by the increasingly diverse student population in the US is well represented in census date (census.gov, 2020). The surge of diversity in higher education taken with the impacts of systemic educational inequities begs the question of how leadership might facilitate better inclusion on campuses in order to meet the present equity needs. Fortunately, research in the fields of social psychology, management, multicultural, human resources, leadership, management psych, and educational leadership have all contributed significantly to our understanding of leadership styles that might benefit educational organizations in this arena (Posselt et al., 2012). In the past 30 years, there has been a steadily growing number of articles published on the topic of inclusion and inclusive climates (Mor Barak, & Cherin, 1998; Pelled et al., 1999; Hornsey & Jetten, 2004; Shore et al., 2011; Randel et al., 2018). A search through a scholarly article search engine (Ebscohost), using only the topic of inclusive leadership found only 3 articles before 1990, 25 total between 1990 and 1999, 133 from 200-2009, and a total of 421 from 2010-2019. The articles on the broader topics of inclusion represent a swelling interest in the challenges faced by culturally diverse campuses nationally (see Table 1). With growing diversity in the public sector and in the educational context, there seems to a be noticeable lag in responsiveness on the part of leaders to adjust to this dynamic (Oseguera & Astin, 2004).
Publication Search Results
|Term||Prior to 1990||1990-1999||% increase||2000-2009||% increase||2010-2019||% increase|
Differing fields have undertaken this issue of disparity resulting in new inquiries directed toward the types of leadership that might help facilitate greater inclusion contextually. These explorations have led to a current trend that emphasizes the process of inclusive leadership and its resulting climates (Rankin, 2005). Portela (2011) provides a striking motive for inclusion research stating, “[h]ere, the central function of education is to allow for the free expression and collective consideration of ideas…schools are central institutions for making democracy deliberative” (p.19). In other words, the civic challenges that college campuses are experiencing might well be the very function they must serve to better prepare citizens for civic engagement and positive change. The deliberative function of democracy hinges on the ability of its citizenry to navigate differences with a common good in mind (Portela, 2011, p. 14). It is understandable that many perceive these “differences” as an obstacle to inclusion as they can be challenging to negotiate and potentially problematic where civic discourse and engagement are concerned. It has been suggested that in order to overcome this obstacle it is necessary to develop a more complex understanding of differences, how we experience them, and how to adapt to others (Bennet, 2004; Hammer, 2008). This is asserted as a way to better navigate toward meaningful inclusion in any context, certainly in the civic arena as well. The literature demonstrates the expansive benefits of inclusion, both for the individual as well as the society an individual belongs to (Brewer, 1991; Mor Barak & Cheri, 1998; Nishii, 2013; Spreitzer, 1995). It appears that diversity has expanded in many different organizations but there often remains a severe lack of inclusion in those same environments for factulty/staff in addition to student bodies. When examining the importance of inclusion research, it is necessary to also examine the absence of these practices which results in an opposing outcome of inclusion; namely exclusion. Jones et al. (2016) provide a clear connection between exclusion and resulting psychological and physical health; these authors detail how both overt and subtle discrimination operate to negatively impact the physical and psychological health of those targeted (p.1604). In simple terms, the stakes are very high when diversity is an organizational component and when inclusion is a stated goal.
Theoretical Conceptual Framework
This literature review explores the relevant inclusion scholarship in order to provide a more comprehensive review of inclusive leadership from its theoretical foundations to the current state of this construct academic literature. The study will aim to examine inclusive leadership from a variety of disciplines in order to better assess its potential usefulness. A special emphasis will be placed upon inclusive leadership in the educational context. This was done for several reasons, educational research, 1) has shown the longest history of publication related to this issue, 2) has provided the highest publication count in the area (inclusive leadership), and 4) has a context that shows a direct need for inclusive leadership practice (Mayrowetz & Weinstein, 1999; Strike 1999; Riehl, 2000).
In adding to this evolving dialogue, our aim is to better prepare other educational leadership scholars who will continue this work into the future. We utilized a modified version of the literature review strategy suggested by Waitoller and Artiles (2013). This adjusted process is summarized in Table 2.
Review Process (adjusted from Waitoller & Artiles, 2013)
|Criteria #1:||The study purpose emphasized at least one of the following two dynamics.
· Inclusive contexts (public orgs/civic spaces), outcomes, or practices.
· Leadership strategies related to inclusive outcomes
|Criteria #2:||The publication source was to be from academic sources, primarily peer reviewed articles or book chapters.
· This differs slighlty from the Waitwoller & Artiles (2013) that did not include book chapters.
· Practitioner based publications were not sought out.
|Criteria #3:||Time range was established to provide a multi-generational and still relevant scope of work.|
|Criteria #4:||Publication format was identified as a confidence/screening method and only certain types of were included.
· Examined articles began in 1990 and span to 2019 (3 decades).
· Ten primary sources were selected for each research decade
In adopting an inductive method of review, it became a necessity to organize and funnel the focus of inquiry more directly. In order to help for a cogent theme to emerge, we applied four research questions to position the article content within the scope of this study (assess the development of inclusion research). The questions were derived from Pierce and Newstrom’s framework for leadership (2011, figure 1).
- RQ1: What does this publication suggest to us about the role of leader in the outcome of inclusion?
- RQ2: What does this publication suggest to us about the role of follower in the outcome of inclusion?
- RQ3: What does this publication suggest to us about the role that context plays in the outcome of inclusion?
- RQ4: What does this publication suggest to us about the process leaders engage in toward the outcome of inclusion?
Figure 1. Leadership Framework (Pierce & Newstrom, 2011)
Using the 5 components in the framework, 1) leader, 2) follower, 3) process, 4) outcome, and 5) context, we are better situated to conclude with an analysis of both the foundation and current state of inclusive leadership. We review the findings by decades as they each provided a very clear and distinct theme from within the literature.
The first step of this process was to dentify a relevant pool of publications. Articles were selected using the two academic publication search engines (Ebsco Host, Ebsco Education Source). This was followed by a more targeted search of the top journals for leadership (e.g, Leadership, Journal of Leadership Studies, Journal of Management Studies, etc). Search terms of “inclusive leadership” and “inclusion” were utilized to generate the data. An additional dive into the the top educational administration journals (e.g., Education Administration Quarterly, Educational Researcher, Review of Educational Research, etc). From this initial process, 102 publications were identified and added and sifted in the next step.
The second step was to provide priority publication for each research decade that would then be analyzed more in depth. The amount of publications to sift through increased by decade with thr 1990s total going from twelve, the 2000s from thirty-three, and the final research decade (2010-2019) had fifty-seven to review. The third step involved taking the sequentially separated publications and stratifying them to identify the ten exemplar publications. The pool of publications for each decade were narrowed down to ten priority articles based on the following criteria, 1) relevance to the development of Inclusive Leadership, 2) relevance to practice or process of Inclusive Leadership. The list was limited to the ten most relevant for each decade in order to allow the researchers to review the significant studies from each decade in greater detail. The fourth step to the review was to take the thirty priority publications and assess them for the following elements; 1) publication type, 2) field of srtudy, 3) relevance to research questions, and 4) leadership framework emphasis. The final step was to identify the graduated themes for each research decade in order to better represent the foundation and formation of Inclusive Leadership as a concept.
Research Decade #1 (1990-1999): Nascent
Some interesting observations can be made with a cursory view into the makeup of the articles that span this Research Decade (RD). There is not much mention of inclusive leadership as a focus during this RD nor was there any clear evidence of its emphasis in educational research. The ten exemplary articles reviewed from this period were from the fields of education, social psychology, management, and social work. Much of the research in this time frame centered on transformational leadership (Qi et al., 2019) which also reflects the dominant leadership focus of those years. This RD is difficult to examine given the relatively limited number of available articles and the sparse references to inclusion as a construct. It would not form more fully as a cogent term until the second RD. Deeper analysis of the articles in isolation allowed for further confirmation of the themes that emerge as RDs were group and probed deeper.
It seems that social psychology can be attributed with laying the foundation of what would later become Inclusive Leaderhsip more formally. In the early 1990s social psychologists were becoming more and more focused on the internal definition of the person at the expense of sufficient emphasis on the importance of social identity (Brewer, 1991). Brewer is credited as the first to provide a sufficient model to explain why some behaviors of identity are not isolated to individualistic tendencies. It was the stance of this researcher to examine how a person moves their identity to who they are as me or “I” to a selected identity shared with a group or “we” (1991, p. 476). The potential relevance to educational leadership should be noted here as schools provide the primary context of socialization for the youth of America. The classroom is arguably the most important context for diversity acclimation as no other institution is more responsible for student identity and shared identity learning (Rankin, 2005; Cabrera, 2012). Brewer’s work in the optimal distinctiveness theory (ODT) built upon Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and uniqueness theory (Snyder & Fromkin, 1980) to provide the necessary rivulet of research that will grow over the decades to follow. As Brewer (1991) puts it, “[s]ocial identity can be viewed as a compromise between assimilation and differentiation from others” (p.477). This theory-building article examines how a person’s need for acceptance can be oppositional to that person’s active need to be valued as unique from others. This connection can be made very clearly to the educational leadership context as it is here that teachers/leaders assist students trying to both 1) belong to the group, and 2) simultaneously strive to stand out from their peers (Brewer, 1991).
In the introduction to the framework of ODT, Brewer (1991) explains how personal needs for uniqueness and for belongingness interact exclusively in social settings. The primary claim of ODT is that the identity individuals form socially can be understood as “a reconciliation of opposing needs for assimilation and differentiation from others” (Brewer, 1991, p.475). The most significant contribution of this seminal work is the development of the optimal distinctiveness model. Depicted in figure 1 is the proposed interaction of needs of assimilation and differentiation. An innovative addition to the canon of social psychology, this opposing process model provides a firm foundation that will assist in explaining the part leadership plays in establishing an inclusive environment. ODT will go on to inform much of the assumptions that build into inclusive leadership studies that follow in RD2 and RD3.
Figure 2. Optimal Distinctiveness Model (Brewer, 1991, p.477)
It was in this same period that other fields began to address the relevance of inclusion as a viable phenomenon to study. One of the first to empirically test dimensions and scales of inclusion, Mor-Barak and Cherin (1998) attempted to provide a continuum spanning from inclusion to exclusion in the workplace. Their studies provided a significant step forward in the comprehension of organizational acceptance. It was becoming clear that a “bridge” concept was missing in the existing framework of diversity and the desirable outcomes diversity might offer. The inclusion-exclusion continuum was presented as a means for explaining why people might move into a more involved organizational stance. Their emphasis on employee contribution will prove to be a hallmark of later inclusion studies and is advanced here as a predictor of successful organizational diversity (Shore, et al., 2011, p.1269). The work of these researchers and a few others provide a fitting summary of the work done in this particular research decade. We term this RD the Nascent section as this decade defines a period where formal inclusive research began. The graduated theme of this decade was titled, “Benefits of Inclusion for followers”.
Research Decade #2 (2000-2009): Formative
At the turn of the century academic attention pivots squarely to the topic of diversity and its place in societal priority. In this RD from 2000-2009, a concerted effort is applied to defining the problems triggered by diversity and the attempts to facilitate it effectively. Researchers appear in a hurry to identify processes of inclusion and simultaneously form strategies that will most efficiently facilitate it. This target and energy shift would evidence a phase transition in the evolution of this young theoretical field. The term “inclusion” will not be a central one for some time and was not widely recognized as a construct of interest in education until the third RD. Of the ten exemplar articles reviewed from this decade, half emphasized the process component of the leadership model (Pierce & Newstrom, 2011). This shift in focus should not be overlooked as it represents a significant change in the approach, research questions, and results that built in this decade. In educational circles this highlights the focus on institutional systems that either help or hinder inclusion (Cunningham, 2015). It is evident that there was a growing urgency to understand the phenomenon of inclusion as a process and thereby extend the conclusions of the 1990s. In RD1, merit of inclusion was established as an experience of followers and an outcome of social groups, but in RD2 we now see that there is an emphasis on the systems in place that induce either inclusion or exclusion. The results reveal this significant shift in content emphasis and the increased breadth in field type. In applying the research questions to the priority articles a focus on processes of leadership inclusion was descovered and resulted in the graduated theme of “Actions of Inclusion.”
Early in this decade of research, there is a less obvious connection that could be drawn to the field of communication and multicultural studies. The work of Bennett (2004) and Hammer (2008) will be important to note as they both contribute significantly to the broad effort shared by later inclusion researchers. The work of these two researchers (and others who would follow the tradition of their work) resulted in a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity, or DMIS (Bennett, 2004), and a well-respected instrument to measure this more complex perspective called the Intercultural Development Inventory (Hammer, 2008). Together, these two steps in intercultural communication studies provide a very promising bridge to the gap of inclusion research between leadership and education research.
Concurrent to the work being done by Bennett and Hammer, others were also working to articulate the experience of minorities and to identify the reach of diversity studies. The work of Brewer (1991) was revisited by authors Hornsey and Jetten (2004) in their review of the opposing needs articulated through ODT. This work provided some suggestions on how individuals might satisfy the needs of both inclusion and uniqueness. While little scientific basis was explicitly provided for their rationale, the strategies they provided allowed for greater attention and scrutiny to be applied to the “formative actions of inclusion.” Within the review these authors present eight strategies that are aimed to facilitate group balance in the same equilibrium introduced in RD1 by Brewer (1991). They provide four strategies to meet the need for belongingness and four to meet needs for uniqueness (provided in Table 3). No evidence of empirical tests for these strategies were found by this team in the literature. The clear pivot to the process of inclusion seems a natural outcome of the previous RD and reveals the sensible next step researchers took to understand how inclusion happens. These articles serve to mature the study of inclusion in leadership literature by emphasizing the role that leaders play in facilitating engagement while simultaneously exposing the need for educational research to speak to the area of inclusive leadership on campuses (Rayner, 2009).
Inclusion Strategies compiled from Hornsey & Jetten (2004, pp251-258)
|Belongingness Strategies||Uniqueness Strategies|
|1. Identify with a numerically distinct group||1. Differentiation through roles|
|2. Subgroup Identification||2. Identifying in group that normatively prescribes individualism|
|3. Identify with a group that defines itself against the mainstream||3. Tailoring self-perception: seeing oneself as loyal but not conformist|
|4. Perceptually enhancing the distinctiveness of one’s group||4. Seeing oneself as more normative than other group members.|
Research Decade #3 (2010-2019): Contemporary
Researchers Shore, et al. (2011) can be credited for providing the first cogent framework of inclusion in the literature we reviewed. This team of authors focused on managerial practices that lead to inclusion and built from the work of Brewer (1991) to do so (p. 1263). The authors used this theory-building article to present a framework for inclusion (Fig 2). The authors show how they postulate four possible outcomes when considering overall group inclusion. 1) Exclusion for those whose belongingness and uniqueness needs are not met, 2) Assimilation for those who feel they belong but are not valued for uniqueness, 3) Differentiation for those who are valued for uniqueness but do not feel they belong, and 4) Inclusion for those who have both needs met. In subsequent work, Shore et al. (2018) advanced an organizational framework. The article provides an effective review of the literature before setting out to better frame the experience of inclusion as it is aided and developed by leadership. They go beyond their previous work to introduce a new model that represents an inclusive organization. As a review and theory building article, this work also provides a more in-depth analysis of leadership styles in comparison to the inclusive leader designation. It does not, however, address the intercultural competency of leaders nor the climate that might facilitate inclusion.
Figure 3. Inclusion Framework (Shore et al., 2011)
Zheng et al. (2017) introduce several concepts that aid in announcing the benefits of inclusion. They used the concept of member contribution as a means to determine levels of perceived inclusion. Labeling assertive contribution behaviors as “taking charge”, they sought to explain how inclusion can benefit an organization. Deep level similarity, or meaning connection, is seen as a direct influence on employee willingness to take charge at work and contribute voluntarily (Zheng et al., 2017). Leaders are encouraged to facilitate this experience of deep similarity with followers to help them to identify with the group, its goal, and its work. The education stream of research touched on shared values (Strike, 1999) but not as cogently as is seen in articles within the leadership field. Weiss et al. (2018) exemplified this in their article detailing the impact of leadership behavior on follower communication and voice. The implication of this in an educational setting cannot be overstated. Teacher and administrators are together the biggest influence on the inclusive or exclusive nature experienced on campus (Luedke, 2017). Other articles from this decade serve to spread the focus of research beyond previous categories (Lewis, 2016) and to enhance the understanding of how leaders, followers, processes, outcomes, and context all interact to either inhibit or encourage inclusion (Dorczak, 2011;Weiss et al., 2018; Ovseiko et al., 2019). These studies show promise for additional research that will undoubtedly follow this contemporary section of inclusion evolution. The graduated theme of this decade is titled, “Leadership in the Process of Inclusion”.
From our analysis we were able to identify several factors of interest to the existing literature and to future research in this area. First, we were able to identify the fields that contributed significantly to the evolution of Inclusive Leadership over the span of each decade (see figure 1). From this analysis we can better see which disciplines were central at differing stages of this theory’s development.
Figure 4. Priority Publication Fields Compared by Research Decade
Secondly we discovered the types of articles utilized to evolve this construct over the span of these thirty years (see figure 5). This provided a sense of what the priority publications emphasized and allows for future research to provide literature to supplement the existing findings.
Figure 5. Priority Publication Fields Compared by Research Decade
Third, we provide an analysis of emphasis these priority publications exhibited over each decade reviewed (see figures 6-8). This information is helpful to any researcher that may attempt to identify gaps in the evolution of the theory as well as those seeking to add to the current understanding of Inclusive Leadership with model specific and targeted research. Our final finding is evident in the graduated themes that emerged upon deeper investigation of the research decades spanning 1990-2019. These themes provide possibly the most helpful insight to both researchers and practictioners alike in that they allow for a sweeping glance of what we found to be the instrumental aspects of Inclusive Leadership study over its relatively short life span.
Figure 6. Leadership Framework Emphasis for RD1
Figure 7. Leadership Framework Emphasis for RD2
Figure 8. Leadership Framework Emphasis for RD3
In reviewing the literature on Inclusive Leadership spanning 30 years in a very important period of the American timeline, it is evident that inclusion has climbed into the popular consciousness. At this stage of the evolution in this discipline, caution should be heeded as it appears there are connections that need to be made between various fields, all working diligently to answer the pressing questions of inclusion. The fields of social work, social psychology, leadership, diversity, management, human resources, special education, educational leadership, administrative science, and communication have all contributed in varying degrees to this query yet there does not seem to be a strong enough collaboration between shared scholarship. A systematic review of inclusion research seeks to catalogue the development of concepts in the various areas in order to extrapolate shared themes as well as complementary concepts. Lewis (2016) examines how power “happens” epistemologically and asserts that there is a clear need to better understand how leadership impacts the overlap of inclusion and activism. The author states, “the concept of action-oriented leader for inclusive education emerged from this evolution of managerial to distributed to transformative styles of leadership” (Lewis, 2016, p. 336). The importance of leadership is undeniable, and it is interesting to note that it took until the late RD3 before most disciplines began to assign significance to it by way of published articles.
It should be noted that we are in a time of expanding interest in diversity and inclusion on campuses and with that comes a strong push for research related to these concepts (Raynor, 2009). Lewis (2016) further explains that despite the efforts of society to reduce discrimination and its negative effects, “segregation practices have increased in the United States” (p. 330-331). The author states that, “[i]nclusion is about more than equal distribution of resources; it is about equal access and the full participation of historically marginalized groups” (p. 336). While incredibly helpful as a directional statement for research, this highlights the greatest current issue in the present evolution of inclusion research: how? How do educators and educational administrators facilitate inclusive leadership practices in this present and critical moment. The work of Hammer (2008) provides the most promising response to this gap in the present inclusion development. It is clear that a system is needed to both explain and expand leaders’ ability to identify and appreciate group members’ differences. Lewis (2016) added, “[a]lthough leadership roles of the early 2000s remained focused on building relationships and sharing power, reform efforts highlighted schools, not systems, as the unit of analysis” (p. 332). It seems many researchers have resorted to a stance of conclusion that “leaders must…” but instead of providing specifics on what they should do, there is an emphasis on what they should accomplish. This is a gap that is easy to miss if there is not adequate attention applied to all elements of the leadership framework provided by Pierce and Newstrom (2011). The gap of action versus outcome is problematic for this reason; raised expectations without raised explanation of internal and external processes will inevitably lead to failure and disappointment (Harris III & Bensimon, 2007). It is the opinion of these authors, therefore, that leadership pre-dispositions should be analyzed in more depth as a priority in this field. The research of Bennett (2004) and Hammer (2008) provides a helpful foundation from which to begin. The DMIS and IDI provide a developmental focus that might provide both leaders and followers with the necessary awareness and tools to better negotiate the needs of belongingness and uniqueness in a the classroom. We know that this context can serve to meet these needs but because of the work of the researchers studied, we know it can also restrict their fulfillment. Future research should seek to forge a strong connection between the work of multicultural/intercultural studies and inclusion research.
The final area of discussion on this review relates to future efforts to examine the evolution of this construct. It is clear that the field would benefit from a meta-analysis of Inclusive Leadership to better situated it in relation to historical happenings over this time and to more accurately assess what aspects of Inclusive Leadership are yet to be studied. There are many benefits to this approach and no shortage of indicators from this present study. As an example, we note in the third research decade that the “consequences” component of the leadership framework (Pierce & Newstrom, 2001) accounted alone for half the priority publications for that span in its development. Consider also that the component of “follower” does not occur at all, which should be considered in a meta-analysis of this evolving leadership area. Does the emphasis on consequences reveal a trend toward institutional measurement of diversity climate? Were the political swings of this decade a potential reason for an absence of follower focus within publications at that time? A meta-analysis of the literature borrowing from the adapted system we present here would allow for more general connections and insights to be gleaned.
As was mentioned in the introduction, the national discourse highlights the significant civic challenges we face in our societal development and identity formation. The increased recognition of new and important dynamics of difference has helped to position inclusion as a critical component in the ongoing process of valuing and integrating these differences in all contexts. The college campus might be the ideal environment to both investigate and refine the process of inclusion as it provides the most sensible avenue to prepare individuals for positive/effective civic discourse and engagement. It remains true that there are real challenges to this effort of inclusion. When differences are denied it can produce citizenry who are wary of others that are not like them, resulting in some of the red lining practices that we know have wrought drastic social consequences. When differences are viewed and modeled as polarizing forces it can be expected that they will trend toward creating civic conflict rather than productive understanding. When society minimizes differences we tend to mute the numerous benefits they actually bring to the educational and civic context. This review has also highlighted the function that inclusion can serve in all contexts. It also demonstrates that colleges can model and encourage this important dynamic. In the preamble to the US constitution our national goals are clearly stated. We are all striving to form a more perfect union; civic engagement, we know, is established as the social function reserved to promote and ensure that ultimate output. Inclusion, it seems, best provides us the sensible process to facilitate a more perfect union. This is especially true because there are so many voices that need to be considered and represented in the vast tapestry of our national landscape. When this happens, we have every reason to expect positive change. We can expect that individuals will experience personal acceptance and positive personal distinction. We can expect that nationally we will learn how to accept differences as we experience them and adapt to them in countless healthy and meaningful ways.
Authors’ Note: The following articles are priority publications included in the review but not included in the Reference section as they were not specifically mentioned in this article.
- Astin, A. W., & Oseguera, L. (2004). The declining” equity” of American higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 27(3), 321-341.
- Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning and practice of inclusion for students with learning disabilities: Themes and implications from the five cases. The Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 163-180.
- Barnett, C., & Monda-Amaya, L. E. (1998). Principals’ knowledge of and attitudes toward inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 19(3), 181-192.
- Bennett, C. I. (2002). Enhancing ethnic diversity at a Big Ten University through Project TEAM: A case study in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 31(2), 21–29.
- Berry, R. A. (2006). Inclusion, power, and community: Teachers and students interpret the language of community in an inclusion classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 489-529.
- Bilimoria, D., Joy, S., & Liang, X. (2008). Breaking barriers and creating inclusiveness: Lessons of organizational transformation to advance women faculty in academic science and engineering. Human Resource Management, 423-441.
- Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who Is This “We”? Levels of collective idenity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83-93.
- Brewer, M. B., Weber, J. G., & Carini, B. (1995). Person memory in intergroup contexts: Categorization verses individuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29-40.
- Fleming, J., & Love, M. (2003). A systemic change model for leadership, inclusion, and mentoring (SLIM). Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(1), 53-57.
- Hollander, E. P. (2009). Inclusive leadership. Taylor & Francis.
- Jaquez, F. (2016). THE Global Leadership TRIFECTA. (Cover story). TD: Talent Development, 70(9), 44–48.
- Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311.
- Kumar, R., Zusho, A., & Bondie, R. (2018). Weaving cultural relevance and achievement motivation into inclusive classroom cultures. Educational Psychologist, 53(2), 78–96.
- Leonardelli, G. J., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2010). Optimal Distinctiveness Theory: A framework for social identity, social cognition, and intergroup relations. In J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 63-113). Academic Press.
- Liou, Y.-H., & Daly, A. J. (2019). The Lead Igniter: A longitudinal examination of influence and energy through networks, efficacy, and climate. Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(3), 363–403.
- Nembhard, I. M., & Edomonson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 941-966.
- Randel, A. E., Dean, M. A., Karen, H. E., Chung, B., & Shore, L. (2016). Leader inclusiveness, psychological diversity climate, and helping behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(1), 216-234.
- Ryan, J. (2006). Inclusive Leadership. Education Review//Reseñas Educativas.
- Ryan, J. (2006). Inclusive leadership and social justice for schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(1), 3-17.
- Shambaugh, R. (2017). All Voices on Deck: How inclusive leadership can help define your leadership style. Leader to Leader, 2017(85), 12-17.
- Sonnenschein, W. (1999). The Diversity Toolkit. NTC/Contemporary Publishing.
- Stamper, C. L., & Masterson, S. S. (2002). Insider or outsider? How employee perceptions of insider status affect their work behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 875-894.
- Tienda, M. (2013). Diversity ≠ Inclusion: Promoting Integration in Higher Education. Educational Researcher, 42(9), 467–475.
- Wenner, J. A., & Campbell, T. (2017). The theoretical and empirical basis of teacher leadership: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 134-171.
Angelides, P., Antoniou, E., & Charalambous, C. (2010). Making sense of inclusion for leadership and schooling: A case study from Cyprus. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 319-334.
Bennett, M. (2004). Becoming interculturally competent. In J. Wurzel (Ed.), Toward Multiculturalism: AReader in Multicultural Education (2nd ed., pp. 62-77). Intercultural Resource Corporation.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 475-482.
Cabrera, N. L. (2012). Working through whiteness: White, male college students challenging racism. The Review of Higher Education, 35(3), 375-401.
Cunningham, G. B. (2015). LGBT inclusive athletic departments as agents of social change. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 8(1), 43-56.
Dorczak, R. (2011). School organisational culture and inclusive educational leadership. Contemporary Management Quarterly / Wspólczesne Zarzadzanie, 2, 45–55.
Hammer, M.R. (2008). The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI): An Approach for assessing and building intercultural competence. In M.A. Moodian (Ed.), Contemporary Leadership and Intercultural Competence: Understanding and Utilizing Cultural Diversity to Build Successful Organizations. Sage Publishing.
Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize racist institutional norms. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 9-29.
Harris III, F., & Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The equity scorecard: A collaborative approach to assess and respond to racial/ethnic disparities in student outcomes. New Directions for Student Services, 2007(120), 77-84.
Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2004). The individual within the group: Balancing the need to belong with the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 248-264.
Jones, K. P., Peddie, C. I., Gilrane, V. L., King, E. B., & Gray, A. L. (2016). Not so subtle: A meta-analytic investigation of the correlates of subtle and overt discrimination. Journal of Management, 1588-1613.
Lewis, K. (2016). Social justice leadership and inclusion: a genealogy. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 48(4), 324-341.
Luedke, C. L. (2017). Person first, student second: Staff and administrators of color supporting students of color authentically in higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 58(1), 37-52.
Mayrowetz, D., & Weinstein, C. S. (1999). Sources of leadership for inclusive education: Creating schools for all children. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 423-449.
Mor Barak, M. E., & Cherin, D. A. (1998). A tool to expand organizational understanding of workforce diversity. Administration in Social Work, 47-64.
Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1754-1774.
Oseguera, L. & Astin, A. W. (2004). The declining “equity” of American higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 27(3), 321-341.
Ovseiko, P. V., Pololi, L. H., Edmunds, L. D., Civian, J. T., Daly, M., & Buchan, A. M. (2019). Creating a more supportive and inclusive university culture: a mixed-methods interdisciplinary comparative analysis of medical and social sciences at the University of Oxford. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 44(2).
Parker, L., & Villalpando, O. (2007). A race(cialized) perspective on education leadership: Critical Race Theory in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(5), 519-524.
Pedersen, P. B., & Pope, M. (2010). Inclusive cultural empathy for successful global leadership. American Psychologist, 65(8), 841–854.
Pelled, L. H., Kedfird Jr, G. E., & Mohrman, S. A. (1999). Demographic dissimilarity and workplace inclusion. Journal of Management Studies, 1013-1031.
Pierce, J. L., & Newstrom, J. W. (2011). Leaders and the Leadership Process. McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Portela, A. (2011). Identity, school inclusion and leadership. Contemporary Management Quarterly/Wspólczesne Zarzadzanie, 2.
Posselt, J. (2014). Toward inclusive excellence in graduate education: Constructing merit and diversity in Ph.D. admissions. American Journal of Education: Special Issue on Racial Diversity in Graduate Education, 120(4), 481-514.
Qi, L., Liu, B., Wei, X., & Hu, Y. (2019). Impact of inclusive leadership on employee innovative behavior: Perceived organizational support as a mediator. PloS ONE, 14(2), e0212091.
Randel, A. E., Galvin, B. M., Shore, L. M., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., & Kedharnath, U. (2018). Inclusive leadership: Realizing potential outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniquness. Human Resource Management Review, 190-203.
Rankin S. R. (2005). Campus climates for sexual minorities. New Directions for Student Services, 2005(111), 17-23.
Rayner, S. (2009). Educational diversity and learning leadership: a proposition, some principles and a model of inclusive leadership? Educational Review, 61(4), 433–447.
Riehl, C. (2000). The principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 55-81.
Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. N., & Sanchez, D. (2018). Inclusive workplaces: A review and model. Human Resource Management Review, 176-189.
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 1262-1289.
Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference. New York: Plenum.
Solorzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. Journal of Negro Education, 60-73.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 1442-1465.
Strike, K. A. (1999). Can schools be communities? The tension between shared values and inclusion. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(1), 46–70.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel, & W. Austin, Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Terenzini, P., Cabrera, A., Colbeck, C., Bjorklund, S., & Parente, J. (2001). Racial and ethnic diversity in the classroom: Does it promote student learning? The Journal of Higher Education, 509-531.
Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221-258.
Waitoller, F. R., & Artiles, A. J. (2013). A decade of professional development research for inclusive education: A critical review and notes for a research program. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 319-356.
Weiss, M., Kolbe, M., Grote, G., Spahn, D. R., & Grande, B. (2018). We can do it! Inclusive leader language promotes voice behavior in multi-professional teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(3), 389-402.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91.
Zheng, X., Diaz, I., Zheng, X., & Tang, N. (2017). From deep-level similarity to taking charge: The moderating role of face consciousness and managerial competency of inclusion. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 89-104.