Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • 3 - Our Conjoint Experiments

  • John M. Carey, Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, Katherine Clayton, Stanford University, California, Yusaku Horiuchi, Dartmouth College, New Hampshire
  • Book:
    Campus Diversity
    Published online:
    13 December 2019
    Print publication:
    19 December 2019, pp 45-67

  • Summary

    Fully randomized conjoint analysis can mitigate many of the shortcomings of traditional survey methods in estimating attitudes on controversial topics. This chapter explains how we applied conjoint analysis at seven universities and describes the population of participants in our experiments.

  • 8 - How Student Attitudes Differ from Faculty Attitudes

  • John M. Carey, Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, Katherine Clayton, Stanford University, California, Yusaku Horiuchi, Dartmouth College, New Hampshire
  • Book:
    Campus Diversity
    Published online:
    13 December 2019
    Print publication:
    19 December 2019, pp 144-157

  • Summary

    This chapter reports on results from conjoint experiments on undergraduate admissions conducted at the University of New Mexico and the University of Nevada that included both faculty and student participants. It shows that pro-diversity preferences among faculty are substantially stronger even than those among students. We conjecture that the source of these differences could be generational, or could reflect that students interact primarily with junior and contingent faculty who are likely drawn from more demographically diverse backgrounds than permanent faculty.