Kennesaw State University

Campus Culture and Climate Assessment

Report Results

September 30, 2014

1

Climate In Higher Education

Climate (Living, Working, Learning)

Create and Distribute

of Knowledge

Community Members

2Barcelo, 2004; Bauer, 1998, Kuh & Whitt, 1998; Hurtado, 1998, 2005; Ingle, 2005; Milhem, 2005; Peterson, 1990; Rankin, 1994, 1998, 2003, 2005; Rankin & Reason, 2008; Smith, 2009; Tierney, 1990; Worthington, 2008

Assessing Campus Climate

3Rankin & Reason, 2008

What is it?

• Campus Climate is a construct

Definition?

• Current attitudes, behaviors, and standards and practices of employees and students of an institution

How is it measured?

• Personal Experiences• Perceptions• Institutional Efforts

Campus Climate & Students

How students experience their

campus environment influences both learning and

developmental outcomes.1

Discriminatory environments have a negative effect on student learning.2

Research supports the pedagogical value of

a diverse student body and faculty on enhancing learning

outcomes.3

4

1 Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 20052 Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella, & Hagedron, 1999; Feagin, Vera & Imani, 1996; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005. 3 Hale, 2004; Harper & Quaye , 2004; Harper, & Hurtado, 2009; Hurtado, 2003.

Campus Climate & Faculty/Staff

The personal and professional

development of employees including

faculty members, administrators, and staff members are impacted by campus climate.1

Faculty members who judge their campus

climate more positively are more

likely to feel personally supported and perceive their work unit as more

supportive.2

Research underscores the relationships between (1) workplace discrimination

and negative job/career attitudes and (2)

workplace encounters with prejudice and lower health/well-being..3

5

1Settles, Cortina, Malley, and Stewart, 20062Sears, 20023Costello, 2012; Silverschanz, Cortina, Konik, & Magley, 2007;

9

Project Overview

Phase I

• Focus Groups

Phase II

• Assessment Tool Development and Implementation

Phase III

• Data Analysis

• Final Report and Presentation

Phase IV

Survey Limitations

Self-selection

bias

Response rates

Social desirability

Caution in generalizing results for constituent

groups with low response rates

13

Method Limitation

Data

were

not re

porte

d f

or

gr

oups

of fe

wer t

ha

n

5 i

ndi

vi

duals

where i

de

ntit

y c

oul

d

be c

ompr

omise

d

Instea

d, s

mall

gr

oups

were c

ombi

ne

d t

o eli

mi

nate

possi

bilit

y

of i

de

ntif

yi

ng i

ndi

vi

duals

14

Results

Response Rates

17

Who are the respondents?

5,128 people responded to the call to participate 17% overall response rate

Student Response Rates

19

15%• Undergraduate (n =

3,360)

11% • Graduate (n = 213)

3%• Continuing

Education (n = 55)

Employee Response Rates

20

52% • Staff (n = 815)

28% • Faculty (n = 685)

Results

Additional Demographic Characteristics

21

Respondents by Racial/Ethnic Identity (%)(Duplicated Total)

22

Middle Eastern

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Is-lander

Other

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Asian/Asian American

Latino(a)/Chicano(a)/Hispanic

Black/African/African American

White

1%

1%

2%

3%

4%

7%

20%

63%

Respondents by Racial/Ethnic Identity (%)(Unduplicated Total)

23

Respondents by Gender Identity and Position Status (%)

25Note: Responses with n’s less than 5 are not presented in the figure

Men

Wom

Men

Wom

Gen

Men

Wom

Men

Wom

Men

Wom

Fac

SU

nd

erg

rad

Stu

d..

.G

rad

Stu

d..

.C

on

ti..

.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

38%

60%

32%

66%

1%

35%

63%

34%

64%

23%

77%

Respondents by Sexual Identity and Position Status (n)

26Note: Responses with n’s less than 5 are not presented in the figure

20% of Respondents Identify as Having a Condition that Substantially Affect Major Life

Activities

27

Disability  n  %

Mental Health/Psychological Condition 326 6.4

Mental Learning Disability 292 5.7

Chronic Diagnosis or Medical Condition 189 3.7

Physical/Mobility condition that affects walking 97 1.9

Visually Impaired or Complete Loss of Vision 95 1.9

Physical/Mobility condition that does not affect walking 63 1.2

Hearing Impaired or Complete Loss of Hearing 53 1.0

Acquired/Traumatic Brain Injury 40 0.8

Speech/Communication Condition 39 0.8

Learning Disability 24 0.5

Other 35 0.7

Respondents by Religious/Spiritual Affiliation (%)

28

Citizenship Status

30

 Citizenship

 

n % U.S. Citizen 4,766 92.9 Non-U.S. Citizen 266 5.2

Multiple Citizenships 69 1.3

Undergraduate Students by Current Year (n)

38

639680

838

648

521

First-Year

Second-Year

Third-Year

Fourth-Year

Fifth Year or More

Students’ Residence

40

Residence n %

Campus Housing 822 22.7

Non-Campus Housing 675 18.6

Independently in an apartment/house 1,048 28.9

Living with family member/guardian 1,057 29.1

Homeless 18 0.5

Note: Table includes student respondents (n = 3,628).

Findings

45

“Comfortable”/ “Very Comfortable” with:

Overall Campus Climate (83%)

Department/Work Unit Climate (77%)

Classroom Climate (Undergraduate, 82%)

Classroom Climate (Graduate, 85%)

Classroom Climate (Faculty, 85%)

46

Challenges and Opportunities

52

Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct

53

•1,050 respondents indicated that they had personally experienced exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct at KSU in the past year

21%

Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct

54

•326 of those respondents said the conduct interfered with their ability to work or learn at KSU

30%

•724 of those respondents said the conduct did not interfere with their ability to work or learn at KSU

70%

Forms of Experienced Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct

55

n %

Isolated or left out 472 45.0

Deliberately ignored or excluded 454 43.2

Intimidated/bullied 381 36.3

Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 1,050). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

Personally Experienced Based on…(%)

56

3835 35

32 32

Race (n=170)

Religious/Spiritual Views (n=158)

Ethnicity (n=176)

Age (n=193)

Gender/Gender Identity (n=163)

Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 1,050). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct Due to Race (%)

57¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who believed they had personally experienced this conduct.

White People of Color Multiracial

20 20 2629

68

4635

75

56

Overall experienced conduct¹Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, said they experienced conduct as a result of race²Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, said they experienced conduct as a result of ethnicity3

(n = 628)¹

(n = 185)²

(n = 220) 3

(n = 82)¹

(n = 38)²

(n = 46)3

(n = 303)¹

(n = 206)²

(n = 226) 3

Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct Due to Religious/Spiritual

Affiliation (%)

58¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who believed they had personally experienced this conduct.

Christian Other No Affiliation Multiple Spiritual

1924 21 20

28

41

62

44

73

40

Overall experienced conduct¹

Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, said they experienced conduct as a result of their religious/spiritual affiliation²

(n = 633)¹

(n = 258)²

(n = 47)¹

(n = 29)²

(n = 170)¹

(n = 75)²

(n = 149)¹

(n = 60)²

(n = 22)¹

(n = 16)²

Location of Experienced Conduct

61Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 1,050). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

n %

In a class/lab/clinical setting 319 30.4

While working at a KSU job 266 25.3

In a meeting with a group of people 253 24.1

In a public space at KSU 243 23.1

In a KSU administrative office 168 16.0

Source of Experienced Conduct by Position Status (%)

62

What did you do?

Personal responses: Was angry (49%) Felt embarrassed (36%) Told a friend (31%) Ignored it (29%)

Reporting responses: Didn’t report it for fear the complaint wouldn’t be taken seriously (14%) Didn’t know to whom to go (10%) Did report it but did not feel the complaint was taken seriously (9%) Reported it to a KSU employee/official (9%)

63

Qualitative Themes Experienced Exclusionary Conduct

Lack of Advocacy for Concerns

Climate of Fear

Public Displays of the Conduct

Racial Discrimination

LGBT Discrimination

Sexual Harassment Based on Gender Identity64

Unwanted Sexual Contact at Kennesaw State University

65

76 respondents (2%) experienced unwanted sexual contact at KSU

66

Unwanted Sexual Contact at KSU

Undergraduate Student

respondents (2%, n = 59)

Women respondents

(2%, n = 53)

Genderqueer respondents (23%, n = 5)

LGBQ respondents (5%, n = 20)

Respondents With

Disabilities (3%, n = 31)

Qualitative Themes Why Unwanted Sexual Contact Went

Unreported

Fearful to Report Unwanted Contact

Lack of Staff Support

Felt Responsible

Felt Embarrassed

Off Campus Location

Did Not Perceive the Incident as Sexual Assault67

Employees WhoSeriously Considered Leaving KSU

47% of Staff respondents (n = 386)

49% of Faculty respondents (n = 332)

68

Faculty & Staff Who Seriously Considered Leaving KSU

69

• 57% of Multiracial respondents• 49% of People of Color respondents• 47% of White respondents

By Racial Identity

• 53% of LGBQ respondents• 48% of Heterosexual respondents• 44% of Asexual/Other respondents

By Sexual Identity

• 58% of respondents With Disability• 46% of respondents Without Disability

By Disability Status

Reasons Faculty and Staff Respondents Considered Leaving KSU

70

Reason n %

Financial reasons 432 59.3

Limited opportunities for advancement 290 39.8

Tension in department with supervisor/manager 255 35.0

Climate was unwelcoming 214 29.4

Interested in a position at another institution 151 20.7

Qualitative ThemesWhy Considered leaving…

71

Low Salary/Lack of Pay Raise

Experienced or Observed Bullying

Limited Advancement Opportunities

Discrimination

32% (n = 1,086) of Undergraduate Students Seriously Considered Leaving

KSU

72

• 56% of Genderqueer Students• 33% of Men Student respondents• 31% of Women Student respondents

By Gender Identity

• 30% of Student respondents With Disability• 39% of Student respondents Without

Disability

By Disability Status

• 35% of LGBQ Student respondents• 31% of Heterosexual Student respondents

By Sexual Identity

Undergraduate Students Who Seriously Considered Leaving KSU

73

• 34% of Not First-Generation Student respondents

• 25% of First-Generation Student respondents

By Generational Status

• 33% of U.S. Citizen Student respondents• 21% of Non-U.S. Citizen Student

respondents

By Citizenship Status

• 34% of Not Low-Income Student respondents• 29% of Low-Income Student respondents

By Socioeconomic

Status

Reasons Student Respondents Considered Leaving KSU

74

Reason n %

Transfer/I never intended to graduate from KSU 326 29.3

Climate was unwelcoming 233 21.0

Didn’t offer my major 214 19.2

Financial reasons 195 17.5

Personal reasons 190 17.1

Coursework was not challenging enough 132 11.9

Qualitative ThemesWhy Considered leaving…

75

Desire to Transfer

Discrimination

Perceptions

76

Respondents who observed conduct or communications directed towards a person/group of people that created an

exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or hostile working or learning environment…

77

19% (n = 982)

Form of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct

78

n %

Derogatory remarks 516 52.5

Person felt isolated or left out 385 39.2

Deliberately ignored or excluded 375 38.2

Intimidated/bullied 298 30.3

Racial/ethnic profiling 181 18.4

Assumption that someone was admitted/hired/promoted based on his/her identity

163 16.6

Person singled out as the spokesperson for their identity group

156 15.9

Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 982). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct Based on…

(%)

79

23 22

19

18

17

Gender/Gender Identity (n=130)

Race (n=211)

Ethnicity (n=183)

Sexual Identity (n=181)

Religious/Spiritual Views (n=165)

Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 982). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

Qualitative Themes Observed Conduct

Overt and Covert Bullying

Lack of Response

LGBT: Religious Protesting & Transgender Issues

85

19% (n = 129) of Faculty respondents

18% (n = 142) of Staff respondents

86

Perceptions of Unfair/Unjust Hiring Practices

Perceptions of Unfair/Unjust Hiring Practices by Select Demographics

87

By Gender Identity

• 19% of Women • 16% of Men

By Racial Identity

• 28% of People of Color• 22% of Multiracial • 15% of White

Perceptions of Unfair/Unjust Hiring Practices by Select Demographics

88

By Disability Status

• 24% With Disabilities• 17% Without Disabilities

By Sexual Identity

• 30% of LGBQ • 22% of Asexual/Other• 17% of Heterosexual

10% (n = 69) of Faculty respondents

12% (n = 98) of Staff respondents

89

Perceptions of Unfair/Unjust Employment-Related Disciplinary Actions

(Up to and Including Dismissal)

Perceptions of Unfair/Unjust Employment-Related Disciplinary Actions

Practices by Select Demographics

90

By Gender Identity

• 11% of Women • 11% of Men

By Racial Identity

• 14% of People of Color• 17% of Multiracial • 10% of White

Perceptions of Unfair/Unjust Employment-Related Disciplinary Actions

Practices by Select Demographics

91

By Disability Status

• 16% With Disabilities• 10% Without Disabilities

By Sexual Identity

• 15% of LGBQ • 19% of Asexual/Other• 11% of Heterosexual

23% (n = 156) of Faculty respondents

28% (n = 223) of Staff respondents

92

Perceptions of Unfair/Unjust Practices Related to Promotion

Perceptions of Unfair/Unjust Practices Related to Promotion by Select

Demographics

93

By Disability Status

• 30% With Disabilities• 24% Without Disabilities

By Racial Identity

• 30% of People of Color• 33% of Multiracial • 24% of White

Qualitative Themes Basis for Discriminatory Employment

Practices

Personal Relationships

Outspoken Individuals

Department Specific Policies and Actions

Race/Ethnicity

Actions of Supervisor

94

Work-Life IssuesSUCCESSES & CHALLENGES

The majority of employee respondents expressed positive attitudes about work-life issues.

95

Qualitative Themes Employee’s Work-Life Attitudes

Mixed Experiences with Supervisor Advice and Guidance

Flexible Work Schedules were Discouraged

Inconsistent Opportunities for Professional Development

Lack of Administrative Support

98

Student Perceptions of Campus Climate

108

Student Perceptions of Campus Climate

109

Student Perceptions of Campus Climate

110

Institutional Actions

113

Campus Initiatives FACULTYMore than half of Faculty thought the following

positively influenced the climate: Providing flexibility

for computing

the probationary period for

tenure

Providing recognition

and rewards for including diversity issues in courses

across the curriculum

Providing diversity

training for students

and faculty

Providing mentorship

for new faculty

114

Campus Initiatives FACULTY

More than half of Faculty thought the following positively influenced the climate:

Providing diversity and

equity training to search

committees and to

appointment, promotion, and

tenure committees

Providing career span

development opportunities for faculty at

all ranks

Providing KSU’s

emphasis on environmental/ sustainability initiatives and

course offerings

115

Qualitative Themes Institutional Actions - Faculty

Mixed Views On Importance of Diversity

Lack of Quality and Time for Diversity Training

Insufficient Mentoring

116

Campus Initiatives STAFFMore than half of Staff thought the following

positively influenced the climate: Providing diversity

training for staff and faculty

Providing access to

counseling for people who have experience

d harassment

Providing mentorship

for new staff

Providing a clear and

fair process to resolve conflicts

117

Campus Initiatives STAFF

More than half of Staff thought the following positively influenced the climate:

Providing career span development

opportunities for staff

Promoting KSU’s emphasis on

environmental/ sustainability initiatives

and course offerings

118

Qualitative Themes Institutional Actions - Staff

Lack of Awareness Of, and Disappointment With, Diversity Training

Mentorship is Not Available for Staff

119

Campus Initiatives Students

The majority of Students thought the following positively affected the climate: Providing

diversity training for faculty, staff & students

Providing a person to address student

complaints of

classroom inequity

Increasing opportunities for cross-

cultural dialogue among

students

Increasing opportunities for cross-

cultural dialogue between faculty,

staff, and students

120

Campus Initiatives Students

The majority of Students thought the following positively affected the climate:

Incorporating issues of

diversity and cross-cultural competence

more effectively into the

curriculum

Providing effective faculty mentorship of

students

Providing effective academic

advisement

121

Campus Initiatives Students

The majority of Students thought the following positively affected the climate:

Providing effective career counseling

Promoting KSU’s emphasis on

environmental/sustainability initiatives and course

offerings

122

Qualitative Themes Institutional Actions - Students

Lack of Awareness of Programs

Ineffective Academic Advising

Mixed Views on Diversity Initiatives

123

Summary

Strengths and Successes

Opportunities for Improvement

124

Context Interpreting the Summary

Although colleges and universities attempt to foster

welcoming and inclusive environments, they are not

immune to negative societal attitudes and discriminatory

behaviors.

As a microcosm of the larger social

environment, college and university campuses reflect the pervasive prejudices of society.

Classism, Racism, Sexism,

Genderism, Heterosexism, etc.

125

(Eliason, 1996; Hall & Sandler, 1984; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Hart & Fellabaum, 2008; Malaney, Williams, & Gellar, 1997; Rankin, 2003; Rankin & Reason, 2008; Rankin, Weber, Blumenfeld, & Frazer, 2010; Smith, 2009; Worthington, Navarro, Loewy & Hart, 2008)

Overall Strengths & Successes

The majority of students thought

very positively about their academic

experiences at KSU

83% of respondents were comfortable with

the overall climate, and 77% with dept/work unit

climate

126

Overall Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement

21% (n = 1,050) had personally experienced exclusionary

conduct within the last year

127

Next Steps

128

Process Forward Sharing the Report with the Community

Fall 2014

Full Power Point

available on KSU website

www.kennesaw.edu/ccca 

Full Report

available on KSU

website/hard copy

in Library

129

• To review the results and solicit community input

• To offer “next steps” based on climate report results that will be used to inform actions

Purpose

Fall 2014 Community Forums

Fall 2014 Forums

Forums will be created to identify 2-3 specific actions that KSU could accomplish in 2015

Forums will include the following groups:

Disability Strategies and Resources Gender and Work Life IssuesGLBTIQ InitiativesRacial and Ethnic DialogueSustainabilityVeterans Affairs

Faculty SenateStaff SenateStudent GovernmentStudent DevelopmentAdministrators Senate

Oct/Nov 2014

Sponsor series of community forums

Projected Calendar

Questions and Discussion

134

Have questions or comments that were not answered here?

Email KSUDiverse@kennesaw.edu and we’ll be happy to address them.