Diversity in United States forensics: a report on research conducted for the American Forensic Association.

• Author: Allen, Mike

Scholarly advocates for competitive forensics have held a belief in forensics as a source of training in public speaking and critical thinking. A meta-analysis published in Communication Education (Allen, Berkowitz, Hunt, & Louden, 1999) indicates significant improvement in critical thinking for students participating in competitive forensics. This improvement in critical thinking was found to be more substantial than that derived from a classroom experience in public speaking or argumentation. The evidence that forensics serves a valuable educational purpose provides one justification for continued support of the activity. The future challenge is to enlist and gain participation from underrepresented groups. Wider participation and opportunity would extend educational advantages to more individuals. As a practical matter, the long-term success of forensics requires that its participation rates reflect the changing dynamic of the population.

Many writers have considered issues of diversity in forensics (Baisinger, 1996; Bile, 1999; Friedley & Manchester, 1985; Griffin & Raider, 1992; Loge, 1991; Logue, 1986; Simerly, 1999; Sowards, 1999b). Suggestions and calls for improvement in forensics that would increase the appeal to various groups have been suggested (Billings, 2000; Pineda, 1999; Simerly, Biles, & Scott, 1992). The critical factor is whether the participants that coach, administrate, and organize such activities feel the need to increase and diversify the participation (Frank, 1997; Fugate, 1997; Stepp, 1997a, 1997b).

The structure and practice of forensics has received much attention as a starting place for change. Negative behaviors in forensics, like sexual harassment and racism, have begun to receive much needed attention and redress (Bjork & Trapp, 1994; Stepp, 2001; Sowards, 1999a; Szwapa, 1994). In addition, the issue of finding new ways of motivating a whole new and different generation of participants requires consideration. Alternative formats and evaluations for speaking informed by work in feminism, for example, may provide the potential to encourage more diverse participation (Bartanen, 1995; Beattie, 1996a, 1996b; Crenshaw, 1996; Lowerie, 1999; Madrid, 1996; Stepp, 1996; Wilkins & Hobbs, 1997). A critical examination of the current assumptions about what factors motivate participation and the need to generate alternative rewards should remain an ongoing consideration by persons in the community.

The problems affecting participation include whether success in forensics reflects overt or subtle biases that favor particular groups (Bruschke & Johnson, 1994; Hayes & McAdoo, 1972; Hensley & Strother, 1968; Hobbs & Hobbs, 1999; Stepp, Simerly, & Logue, 1994; Rosen, Dean, & Willis, 1978). The perception that groups are favored or that other persons are disadvantaged becomes a major barrier to participation (Hunt & Simerly, 1999; Murphy, 1989). Given that speech events are not objective, but rather, are evaluated by judges can create a perception of bias (Hunt & Simerly, 2000). The composition of the coaching and judging community in terms of gender and ethnicity should receive attention (Legge, 1999; Leonard, 1996). Additionally, consideration should be given to the professional and personal demands that are characteristic of coaching forensics and whether this element limits the diversity of persons serving in such a mentoring role (Pettus & Danielson, 1994).

Educators involved in forensics should be concerned with the perception that the activity is selective and exclusive and therefore does not welcome diverse participants. The first step, however, is a consideration and examination of the empirical indicators of participation and success and an assessment of whether any perception that forensics is not diverse is accurate (Kay & Aden, 1984; Larson & Vreeland, 1985; Williams, McGee, & McGee, 1999).

The focus for most forensic programs has traditionally been the competitive tournament and that particular format may not promote diversity. The use of alternative formats like campus speech contests represent one possibility to increase and diversify participants (Cates & Eaves, 1996). The focus on "multidimensional" forensic programs provides the potential to generate a sense of accomplishment by envisioning more divergent outcomes for program participants (Derryberry, 1996; Hunt, Sarard, & Simerly, 1999). The development of the Urban Debate League (UDL) provides an alternative use of forensic experience to assist in the development of civic improvement for communities (Wade, 1998). Whether these format differences have or will contribute to diversity in forensic participation remains an unanswered question.

The challenge to the community is simply one of adaptation to the changing dynamics of population change. A critical examination should be made of what motivations exist to encourage persons not traditionally a part of forensics to participate (Hill, 1997; Nadler, 1985). The community may be required to alter formats, rewards, content, or style in an effort to create diversity at many levels. The central issue is creating an activity that will attract and retain participants from a population that is manifesting increasing levels of diversity.

This survey of forensics is intended to assess the level of diversity of current participants across the different forms of forensic participation. A central issue in the academy is the transition from a majority white and male college/university student population to one that includes nonwhites and females. The appeal of competitive forensics seen in the participation rates of white males may not be as great to other groups. As the demographics change, the ability of forensics to remain healthy and a viable activity is questionable if it cannot attract persons of color and women as participants. This survey is an effort to provide a snapshot of the forensics community that may serve an informational function to the leadership in forensics. The survey should provide some information about the level of diversity found in forensic programs nationwide.

Previous surveys have examined specific organizations or national championships. Hunt and Simerly (2000) report the findings of Stepp's surveys of the CEDA national championships that found minority participation rates of 15% (1992), 9% (1993), and 14% (1994). In Stepp and Gardner (2001), overall findings as measured at CEDA Nationals indicate that the level of minority participation has been increasing during the decade of the 1990s. The end of the decade saw a high of 19% in 1998, 17% in 1999, and 15% in 2000. Other surveys similarly have examined either CEDA or another national championship (Friedley & Manchester, 1985; Loge, 1991; Logue, 1991). Another set of studies has not examined participation rates but instead focused on whether minority (or women) participants achieved success (Bruschke & Johnson, 1994; Hayes & McAdoo, 1972; Rosen, Dean, & Willis, 1978). One survey of 3 individual events tournaments (Billings, 2000) reported a minority participation rate of 27%. However, 41% of the persons responding to that survey did not answer the question about ethnicity, so the author cautions about the possible application of the results. At the current time there is little information about the rate of participation of groups across the panoply of forensics organizations and opportunities. Most surveys are limited to one form of forensics (usually CEDA) and often only one tournament (the National Championships). The percentage of minority participation is usually reported at over 15%.

One problem of measuring participation in forensics is that the activity can take many forms. Debate has several different manifestations with different organizational norms. National Debate Tournament (NDT) is sponsored as part of the American Forensic Association (AFA), but debate is also the province of the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA), the National Educational Debate Association (NEDA), and the American Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA), to name a few examples. The activity of individual events encompasses a range of speaking contests where a single person speaks in some identified manner (impromptu, extemporaneous, oratory, expository, communication analysis), interprets literature (poetry, prose, dramatic, duo, program oral interpretation, reader's theatre), and can extend to such events as radio commentary, puppetry and storytelling. In spite of its rifle, this category includes some instances that are not entirely individual activity, as duo and reader's theatre involve multiple persons. Mock trial (as well as mock mediation) provides a contest that involves a demonstration of public speaking skill, as well as knowledge about legal issues, and preparation in a formalized situation. Some events are held for entertainment and enlightenment, as well as to provide a forum to demonstrate skills that win trophies and scholarships. In addition, outreach activities to community groups, high schools (including summer workshops), civic, and cultural events can also provide a basis for the application of forensic skills to serve the community (Preston, 1997; Preston & Jensen, 1995).

The structure of forensic organizations varies from institution to institution. In some cases, there are multiple and separate organizations that pursue various avenues...