Kent State - Regional Campus Narrative...Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment...

Campus Climate Research Study

Kent State University Regional Campuses

January 2017

Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project

Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... i

Introduction .................................................................................................................. i

Project Design and Campus Involvement .....................................................................ii Kent State University - Regional Campuses’ Participants ............................................ii

Key Findings – Areas of Strength ................................................................................ v Key Findings – Opportunities for Improvement ......................................................... vii

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

History of the Project ................................................................................................... 1

Review of the Literature: Campus Climate’s Influence on Academic and Professional

Success ........................................................................................................................ 2

Kent State Campus-Wide Climate Assessment Project Structure and Process .............. 5

Methodology ................................................................................................................... 6

Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................ 6 Research Design .......................................................................................................... 6

Results .......................................................................................................................... 11

Description of the Sample .......................................................................................... 12

Sample Characteristics............................................................................................... 17

Campus Climate Assessment Findings .......................................................................... 51

Comfort With the Climate at Kent State University - Regional Campuses.................. 51 Barriers at Kent State University - Regional Campuses for Respondents With

Disabilities ................................................................................................................ 67 Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

.................................................................................................................................. 70 Observations of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct ........ 87

Experiences of Unwanted Sexual Contact .................................................................. 99 Faculty and Staff Perceptions of Climate ................................................................. 105

Perceptions of Employment Practices .................................................................. 105 Faculty and Staff Respondents’ Views on Workplace Climate and Work-Life

Balance ................................................................................................................ 110 Staff Respondents’ Views on Workplace Climate and Work-Life Balance ........... 114

Faculty Respondents’ Views on Workplace Climate and Work-Life Balance ....... 124 Faculty and Staff Respondents Who Have Seriously Considered Leaving a Kent

State University - Regional Campus .................................................................... 143

Student Perceptions of Campus Climate .................................................................. 146 Student Experiences of Unwanted Sexual Contact ............................................... 146

Students’ Perceived Academic Success ................................................................ 147



Students’ Perceptions of Campus Climate at a Kent State University – Regional

Campus ............................................................................................................... 153

Students Who Have Seriously Considered Leaving a Kent State University -

Regional Campus................................................................................................. 160

Institutional Actions .................................................................................................... 166

Comment Analyses (Questions #103 and #104) ........................................................... 179

Next Steps ................................................................................................................... 181

References ................................................................................................................... 182

Appendices.................................................................................................................. 187

Appendix A – Cross Tabulations by Selected Demographics................................... 188

Appendix B – Data Tables ...................................................................................... 190

Appendix C – Survey: Kent State University Assessment of Climate for Learning,

Living, and Working ................................................................................................ 269



i

Executive Summary

Introduction

Kent State affirms that diversity and inclusion are crucial to the intellectual vitality of the

campus community. It is through freedom of exchange over different ideas and viewpoints in

supportive environments that individuals develop the critical thinking and citizenship skills that

will benefit them throughout their lives. Diversity and inclusion engender academic engagement

where teaching, working, learning, and living take place in pluralistic communities of mutual

respect.

Kent State is dedicated to fostering a caring community that provides leadership for constructive

participation in a diverse, multicultural world. As noted in Kent State University’s mission

statement, “We transform lives and communities through the power of discovery, learning and

creative expression in an inclusive environment.”1 In order to better understand the campus

climate, the senior administration at Kent State recognized the need for a comprehensive tool

that would provide campus climate metrics for Kent State students, faculty, and staff.

To that end, members of Kent State University formed the Climate Study Steering Committee

(CSSC) in 2014. The CSSC was composed of faculty, staff, students, and administrators.

Ultimately, Kent State contracted with Rankin & Associates Consulting (R&A) to conduct a

campus-wide study entitled, “Kent State University Assessment of Climate for Learning, Living,

and Working.” Data gathered via reviews of relevant Kent State literature, focus groups, and a

campus-wide survey focused on the experiences and perceptions of various constituent groups.

Based on the findings of this study, strategic action initiatives will be developed.

1http://www.kent.edu/strategicvisioning#mission



ii

Project Design and Campus Involvement

The CSSC collaborated with R&A to develop the survey instrument. In the first phase, R&A

conducted 17 focus groups, comprised of 87 participants (44 students; 43 faculty and staff). In

the second phase, the CSSC and R&A used data from the focus groups to co-construct questions

for the campus-wide survey. The final survey instrument was completed in November 2015.

Kent State’s survey contained 104 items (20 qualitative and 84 quantitative) and was available

through a secure online portal from March 8 to April 8, 2016. Confidential paper surveys were

distributed to those individuals who did not have access to an Internet-connected computer or

who preferred a paper survey.

The conceptual model used as the foundation for Kent State’s assessment of campus climate was

developed by Smith et al. (1997) and modified by Rankin (2003). A power and privilege

perspective informs the model, one grounded in critical theory, which establishes that power

differentials, both earned and unearned, are central to all human interactions (Brookfield, 2005).

Unearned power and privilege are associated with membership in dominant social groups

(Johnson, 2005) and influence systems of differentiation that reproduce unequal outcomes. The

CSSC implemented participatory and community-based processes to generate survey questions

as a means to capture the various dimensions of power and privilege that shape the campus

experience. In this way, Kent State’s assessment was the result of a comprehensive process to

identify the strengths and challenges of campus climate, with a specific focus on the distribution

of power and privilege among differing social groups. This report provides an overview of the

results of the campus-wide survey.

Kent State University - Regional Campuses’ Participants

Kent State University - Regional Campuses’ community members completed 1,587 surveys for

an overall response rate of 13%. Only surveys that were at least 50% completed were included in

the final data set for analyses.2 Response rates by constituent group varied: 9% (n = 971) for

Undergraduate Students, 80% (n = 16) for Graduate Students, 17% (n = 266) for Staff, 19% (n =

2Ten surveys were removed because at least 50% of the survey was not completed, and eight duplicate submissions

were removed. Surveys were also removed from the aggregate data file if the respondent did not provide consent (n

= 80). An additional 1 response was removed due to illogical responses.



iii

300) for Faculty, and >100% (n = 34) for Administrators with Faculty Rank.3 Table 1 provides a

summary of selected demographic characteristics of survey respondents. The percentages offered

in Table 1 are based on the numbers of respondents in the sample (n) for each demographic

characteristic.4

3Respondents were provided the opportunity to self-select their position status, as such the sample n may not reflect

the overall N of the Kent State University – Regional Campuses population. 4The total n for each demographic characteristic may differ as a result of missing data.



iv

Table 1. Kent State University – Regional Campus Sample

Demographics Population Sample Response

Rate Characteristic Subgroup N % n %

Gender Identitya Woman 7,781 62.5 1,088 68.6 13.98

Man 4,672 37.5 463 29.2 9.91

Genderqueer 10 0.6 N/A

Transgender < 5 --- N/A

Other/Missing/Unknown 24 1.5 N/A

Race/Ethnicityb Alaskan/Native American 34 0.3 < 5 --- ---

Asian/Asian American 132 1.1 21 1.3 15.91

Black/African American 680 5.5 54 3.4 7.94

Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ 291 2.3 17 1.1 5.84

Middle Eastern < 5 --- N/A

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 10 0.1 < 5 --- ---

White/European American 10,600 85.1 1,353 85.3 12.76

Two or More 284 2.3 75 4.7 26.41

Missing/Unknown/Not

Specified/Other 362 2.9 40 2.5 11.05

International 60 0.5 21 1.3 35.00

Position Statusc Undergraduate Student 11,023 88.5 971 61.2 8.81

Graduate/Professional Student 20 0.2 16 1.0 80.00

Faculty 863 6.9 300 18.9 34.76

Administrator with Faculty Rank 18 0.1 34 2.1 >100.0

Staff 529 4.2 266 16.8 50.28

Citizenshipd U.S. Citizen 12,243 98.3 1,558 98.2 12.73

Permanent Resident 83 0.7 12 0.8 14.46

Visa Holder 42 0.3 8 0.5 19.05

Other Status < 5 --- N/A

Unreported/Missing 85 0.7 8 0.5 9.41

Note: The total n for each demographic characteristic may differ as a result of missing data. a 2 (1, N = 1,551) = 38.38, p < .001 b 2 (7, N = 1,584) = 87.51, p < .001 c 2 (4, N = 1,587) = 1,775.31, p < .001 d 2 (3, N = 1,586) = 3.15, p = .369



v

Key Findings – Areas of Strength

1. High levels of comfort with the climate at a Kent State University - Regional

Campus

Climate is defined as the “current attitudes, behaviors, and standards of employees and

students concerning the access for, inclusion of, and level of respect for individual and

group needs, abilities, and potential.”5 The level of comfort experienced by faculty, staff,

and students is one indicator of campus climate.

79% (n = 1,254) of the survey respondents were “comfortable” or “very

comfortable” with the climate at a Kent State University - Regional Campus.

73% (n = 440) of Faculty and Staff respondents were “comfortable” or “very

comfortable” with the climate in their departments/work units.

86% (n = 1,123) of Student and Faculty respondents were “comfortable” or “very

comfortable” with the climate in their classes.

79% (n = 86) of People of Color respondents, 80% (n = 1,089) of White

respondents, and 82% (n = 62) of Multiracial respondents were “very

comfortable” or “comfortable” with the overall climate at a Kent State University

- Regional Campus.

2. Faculty Respondents – Positive attitudes about faculty work

68% (n = 218) of Faculty respondents felt that teaching was valued by Kent State.

81% (n = 82) of Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents indicated that they

found Kent State was supportive of the use of sabbatical/faculty professional

improvement leave.

75% (n = 136) of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents felt that their points of

view were taken into account for course assignment and scheduling.

89% (n = 284) of Faculty respondents felt valued by students in the classroom.

5Rankin & Reason, 2008, p. 264



vi

3. Staff Respondents –Positive attitudes about staff work

94% (n = 244) of Staff respondents felt that Kent State was supportive of staff

taking leave.

77% (n = 193) of Staff respondents felt they had colleagues/coworkers who

provided them with job/career advice when they needed it.

82% (n = 107) of Staff respondents felt they had adequate access to administrative

support to do their job.

78% (n = 208) of Staff respondents felt valued by coworkers in their unit.

74% (n = 194) of Staff respondents felt valued by their supervisors or managers.

4. Student Respondents – Positive attitudes about academic experiences

The way students perceive and experience their campus climate influences their

performance and success in college.6 Research also supports the pedagogical value of a

diverse student body and faculty for improving learning outcomes.7 Attitudes toward

academic pursuits are one indicator of campus climate.

77% (n = 785) of Student respondents felt valued by faculty in the classroom.

72% (n = 705) of Student respondents felt that Kent State faculty were genuinely

concerned with their welfare.

72% (n = 706) of Student respondents believed that the campus climate

encouraged free and open discussion.

5. Undergraduate Student Respondents – Perceived Academic Success

A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the scale, Perceived Academic Success,

derived from Question 12 on the survey. Analyses using these scales revealed:

Woman Undergraduate Student respondents had greater Perceived Academic

Success than Men Undergraduate Student respondents.

No Disability Undergraduate Student respondents had greater Perceived

Academic Success than Single Disability Undergraduate Student respondents and

Multiple Disabilities Undergraduate Student respondents.

6Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005 7Hale, 2004; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Harper & Quaye, 2004



vii

Key Findings – Opportunities for Improvement

1. Members of several constituent groups indicated that they experienced

exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct.

Several empirical studies reinforce the importance of the perception of non-

discriminatory environments for positive learning and developmental outcomes.8

Research also underscores the relationship between workplace discrimination and

subsequent productivity.9 The survey requested information on experiences of


16% (n = 258) of respondents indicated that they personally had experienced

exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct.10

o 29% (n = 75) noted that the conduct was based on their position status.

o 21% (n = 54) felt that it was based on their faculty status.

o 21% (n = 53) felt that it was based on their age.

Differences emerged based on various demographic characteristics, including

gender identity, ethnicity, and age. For example:

o Significantly higher percentages of Faculty respondents (28%, n = 93) and

Staff respondents (28%, n = 73) indicated that they had experienced

exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct than did

Student respondents (9%, n = 92).

o Higher percentages11 of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (39%, n =

40) than Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (31%, n = 33) indicated that

they had experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile

conduct.

o A higher percentage12 of Women respondents (17%, n = 183) than Men

respondents (14%, n = 64) indicated that they had experienced


8Aguirre & Messineo, 1997; Flowers & Pascarella, 1999; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Whitt, Edison, Pascarella,

Terenzini, & Nora, 2001 9Silverschanz, Cortina, Konik, & Magley, 2008; Waldo, 1999 10The literature on microaggressions is clear that this type of conduct has a negative influence on people who

experience the conduct, even if they feel at the time that it had no impact (Sue, 2010; Yosso, Smith, Ceja, &

Solórzano, 2009). 11These differences were not significant. 12These differences were not significant.



viii

o Significantly higher percentages of respondents ages 49 through 65 years

(27%, n = 95) and ages 35 through 48 years (20%, n = 63) indicated that

they had experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile

conduct than did all other age group respondents.

Respondents were offered the opportunity to elaborate on their experiences of exclusionary,

intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct. More than 200 respondents from all constituent

groups contributed further data regarding their personal experiences of exclusion, intimidation,

and hostility at a Kent State University - Regional Campus. Two themes emerged from

narratives provided in this data: public bullying and hostility/intimidation. The respondents

described that the public bullying and hostility/intimidation they experienced on campus made

them feel foolish, awkward, humiliated, and fearful of their positions at the institution – both

employees and students. The data suggested that at some of the regional campuses respondents

either do not trust the reporting process or are fearful of retaliation should they reveal their

concerns.

2. Several constituent groups indicated that they were less comfortable with the overall

campus climate, workplace climate, and classroom climate.

Prior research on campus climate has focused on the experiences of faculty, staff, and

students associated with historically underserved social/community/affinity groups (e.g.,

women, people of color, people with disabilities, first-generation students, veterans).13

Several groups at the Kent State University - Regional Campuses indicated that they were

less comfortable than their majority counterparts with the climates of the campus,

workplace, and classroom.

Differences by gender identity:

o 79% (n = 363) of Men respondents and 80% (n = 869) of Women

respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the overall

climate at a Kent State University - Regional Campus14.

13Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Hart & Fellabaum, 2008; Norris, 1992; Rankin, 2003; Rankin & Reason, 2005;

Worthington, Navarro, Loewy, & Hart, 2008 14These differences were not significant



ix

Differences by racial identity:

o People of Color Faculty and Staff respondents (74%, n = 23) and White

Faculty and Staff respondents (75%, n = 388) were less likely to be “very

comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their departments/work

units at a Kent State University - Regional Campus than were Multiracial

Faculty and Staff respondents (86%, n = 18).

Differences by sexual identity:

o Asexual/Other Faculty and Student respondents (81%, n = 75) and LGBQ

Faculty and Student respondents (81%, n = 91) were less likely to be

“very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their courses at a

Kent State University - Regional Campus than were Heterosexual Faculty

and Student respondents (87%, n = 924).

3. Faculty and Staff Respondents – Challenges with work-life issues

45% (n = 150) of Faculty respondents and 55% (n = 147) of Staff respondents had

seriously considered leaving a Kent State University - Regional Campus in the

past year.

o 56% (n = 166) of those Faculty and Staff respondents who seriously

considered leaving did so because of financial reasons.

Faculty and Staff respondents observed unjust hiring (18%, n = 107), unjust

disciplinary actions (10%, n = 56), or unjust promotion, tenure, and/or

reclassification practices (29%, n = 170).

54% (n = 149) of Faculty respondents thought that their departments provided

adequate resources to help them manage work-life balance.

70% (n = 164) of Staff respondents felt that their supervisors provided adequate

resources to help them manage work-life balance.

53% (n = 166) of Faculty respondents believed that they performed more work to

help students beyond those of their colleagues with similar performance

expectations.



x

4. Faculty Respondents – Challenges with faculty work

Less than one-third of Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (29%, n =

30) “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that tenure standards, promotion standards,

and/or reappointment standards were applied equally to all faculty.

Slightly more than half (55%, n = 172) of Faculty respondents felt that their

service contributions were valued.

38% (n = 119) of Faculty respondents believed that faculty voices were valued in

shared governance.

Faculty respondents were provided the opportunity to elaborate on their experiences

regarding faculty work. Leadership at the regional campuses was a major concern for

Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents. They expressed that the academic

leaders at the campuses were ill trained and were often not on the same page as what was

being espoused from the central administrative offices. Non-Tenure-Track Faculty

respondents offered that their perceived value by their full-time faculty counterparts was

what troubled them most, as they did not feel respected or valued by their tenure and

tenure-track colleagues. Overall, Faculty at the Kent State – Regional Campuses

expressed concerns regarding their teaching loads, lamenting the excessive hours and the

limited pay they received for the work they produced.

5. A small but meaningful percentage of respondents experienced unwanted sexual

contact.

In 2014, Not Alone: The First Report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students

from Sexual Assault indicated that sexual assault is a significant issue for colleges and

universities nationwide, affecting the physical health, mental health, and academic

success of students. The report highlights that one in five women is sexually assaulted

while in college. One section of the Kent State survey requested information regarding sexual

assault.

1% (n = 14) of respondents indicated that they had experienced unwanted sexual

contact while at a Kent State University - Regional Campus.



xi

10 of the respondents who experienced unwanted sexual contact were

Undergraduate Students

8 of the respondents who experienced unwanted sexual contact were Women.

Respondents were offered the opportunity to elaborate on why they did not report unwanted

sexual contact. However, owing to the small number of responses and in an effort to protect the

confidentiality of the respondents their narratives were not analyzed to create a thematic

narrative of their shared experiences.

Conclusion

Kent State University - Regional Campuses’ climate findings15 were consistent with those found

in higher education institutions across the country, based on the work of R&A Consulting.16 For

example, 70% to 80% of respondents in similar reports found the campus climate to be

“comfortable” or “very comfortable.” A similar percentage (79%) of all Kent State University -

Regional Campuses’ respondents reported that they were “comfortable” or “very comfortable”

with the climate at a Kent State University - Regional Campus. Likewise, 20% to 25% of

respondents in similar reports indicated that they personally had experienced exclusionary,

intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct. At the Kent State University - Regional

Campuses, a smaller but still meaningful percentage of respondents (16%) indicated that they

personally had experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct. The

results also paralleled the findings of other climate studies of specific constituent groups offered

in the literature.17

The Kent State University - Regional Campuses’ climate assessment report provides baseline

data on diversity and inclusion, and addresses Kent State’s mission and goals. While the findings

may guide decision-making in regard to policies and practices at the Kent State University -

Regional Campuses, it is important to note that the cultural fabric of any institution and unique

15Additional findings disaggregated by position status and other selected demographic characteristics are provided in the full report. 16Rankin & Associates Consulting, 2015 17Guiffrida, Gouveia, Wall, & Seward, 2008; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Harper & Quaye, 2004; Hurtado & Ponjuan,

2005; Rankin & Reason, 2005; Sears, 2002; Settles, Cortina, Malley, & Stewart, 2006; Silverschanz et al., 2008;

Yosso et al., 2009

http://www.rankin-consulting.com/



xii

aspects of each campus’s environment must be taken into consideration when deliberating

additional action items based on these findings. The climate assessment findings provide the

Kent State University - Regional Campuses’ communities with an opportunity to build upon

their strengths and to develop a deeper awareness of the challenges ahead. Each Kent State

University - Regional Campus, with support from senior administrators and collaborative

leadership, is in a prime position to actualize its commitment to an inclusive campus and to

institute organizational structures that respond to the needs of its dynamic campus community.



1

Introduction

History of the Project

Kent State University affirms that diversity and inclusion are crucial to the intellectual vitality of

the campus community. It is through freedom of exchange over different ideas and viewpoints in

supportive environments that individuals develop the critical thinking and citizenship skills that

will benefit them throughout their lives. Diversity and inclusion engender academic engagement

where teaching, working, learning, and living take place in pluralistic communities of mutual

respect.

Kent State University is dedicated to fostering a caring community that provides leadership for

constructive participation in a diverse, multicultural world. As noted in Kent State University’s

mission statement, “transform lives and communities through the power of discovery, learning

and creative expression in an inclusive environment.”18 To better understand the campus climate,

the senior administration at Kent State University recognized the need for a comprehensive tool

that would provide campus climate metrics for Kent State University students, faculty, and staff.

To that end, members of Kent State University formed the Climate Study Steering Committee

(CSSC) in 2014. The CSSC was composed of faculty, staff, students, and administrators.

Ultimately, Kent State University contracted with Rankin & Associates Consulting (R&A) to

conduct a campus-wide study entitled, “Kent State University Assessment of Climate for

Learning, Living, and Working.” Data gathered via reviews of relevant Kent State University

literature, focus groups, and a campus-wide survey focused on the experiences and perceptions

of various constituent groups. Based on the findings of this study, the Great Place Initiative

Committee will develop an action plan, including several action items, to be implemented by fall

2017.

18https://www.kent.edu/kent/mission



2

Review of the Literature: Campus Climate’s Influence on Academic and Professional

Success

Climate is defined for this project as the “current attitudes, behaviors, and standards of

employees and students concerning the access for, inclusion of, and level of respect for

individual and group needs, abilities, and potential.”19 This includes the perceptions and

experiences of individuals and groups on campus. For the purposes of this study, climate also

includes an analysis of the perceptions and experiences individuals and groups have of others on

campus.

More than two decades ago, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the

American Council on Education (ACE) suggested that in order to build a vital community of

learning, a college or university must provide a climate where

intellectual life is central and where faculty and students work together to strengthen

teaching and learning, where freedom of expression is uncompromisingly protected and

where civility is powerfully affirmed, where the dignity of all individuals is affirmed and

where equality of opportunity is vigorously pursued, and where the well-being of each

member is sensitively supported (Boyer, 1990).

Not long afterward, the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) (1995)

challenged higher education institutions “to affirm and enact a commitment to equality, fairness,

and inclusion” (p. xvi). AAC&U proposed that colleges and universities commit to “the task of

creating…inclusive educational environments in which all participants are equally welcome,

equally valued, and equally heard” (p. xxi). The report suggested that, in order to provide a

foundation for a vital community of learning, a primary duty of the academy is to create a

climate grounded in the principles of diversity, equity, and an ethic of justice for all groups.

In the ensuing years, many campuses instituted initiatives to address the challenges presented in

the reports. Milem, Chang, and Antonio (2005) proposed that, “Diversity must be carried out in

intentional ways in order to accrue the educational benefits for students and the institution.

19Rankin & Reason, 2008, p. 264



3

Diversity is a process toward better learning rather than an outcome” (p. iv). Milem et al. further

suggested that for “diversity initiatives to be successful they must engage the entire campus

community” (p. v). In an exhaustive review of the literature on diversity in higher education,

Smith (2009) offered that diversity, like technology, was central to institutional effectiveness,

excellence, and viability. Smith also maintained that building deep capacity for diversity requires

the commitment of senior leadership and support of all members of the academic community.

Ingle (2005) recommended that “good intentions be matched with thoughtful planning and

deliberate follow-through” for diversity initiatives to be successful (p. 13).

Campus environments are “complex social systems defined by the relationships between the

people, bureaucratic procedures, structural arrangements, institutional goals and values,

traditions, and larger socio-historical environments” (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, &

Allen, 1998, p. 296). Smith (2009) encouraged readers to examine critically their positions and

responsibilities regarding underserved populations within the campus environment. A guiding

question Smith posed was, are special-purpose groups (e.g., Black Faculty Caucus) and locations

(e.g., GLBTIQ and Multicultural Student Retention Services) perceived as “‘problems’ or are

they valued as contributing to the diversity of the institution and its educational missions” (p.

225)?

Campus climate influences students’ academic success and employees’ professional success, in

addition to the social well-being of both groups. The literature also suggests that various identity

groups may perceive the campus climate differently from each other and that their perceptions

may adversely affect working and learning outcomes (Chang, 2003; D’Augelli & Hershberger,

1993; Navarro, Worthington, Hart, & Khairallah, 2009; Nelson-Laird & Niskodé-Dossett, 2010;

Rankin & Reason, 2005; Tynes, Rose, & Markoe, 2013; Worthington, Navarro, Lowey & Hart,

2008). A summary of this literature follows.

Several scholars (Guiffrida, Gouveia, Wall, & Seward, 2008; Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005;

Johnson, Soldner, Leonard, Alvarez, Inkelas, Rowan, & Longerbeam, 2007; Solórzano, Ceja, &

Yosso, 2000; Strayhorn, 2013; Yosso, Smith, Ceja & Solórzano, 2009) found that when students

of color perceive their campus environment as hostile, outcomes such as persistence and



4

academic performance are negatively impacted. Several other empirical studies reinforce the

importance of the perception of non-discriminatory environments to positive learning and

developmental outcomes (Aguirre & Messineo, 1997; Flowers & Pascarella, 1999; Gurin, Dey,

Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Whitt et al., 2001). Finally, research

supports the value of a diverse student body and faculty on enhancing learning outcomes and

interpersonal and psychosocial gains (Chang, Denson, Sáenz, & Misa, 2006; Hale, 2004; Harper

& Hurtado, 2007; Harper & Quaye, 2004; Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005; Pike & Kuh, 2006; Sáenz,

Ngai, & Hurtado, 2007).

The personal and professional development of faculty, administrators, and staff also are

influenced by the complex nature of the campus climate. Owing to racial discrimination within

the campus environment, faculty of color often report moderate to low job satisfaction (Turner,

Myers, & Creswell, 1999), high levels of stress related to their job (Smith & Witt, 1993),

feelings of isolation (Johnsrud & Sadao, 1998; Turner et al., 1999), and negative bias in the

promotion and tenure process (Patton & Catching, 2009; Villalpando & Delgado Bernal, 2002).

For women faculty, experiences with gender discrimination in the college environment influence

their decisions to leave their institutions (Gardner, 2013). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and Trans*

(LGBT) faculty felt that their institutional climate forced them to hide their marginalized

identities if they wanted to avoid alienation and scrutiny from colleagues (Bilimoria & Stewart,

2009). Therefore, it may come as no surprise that LGB faculty members who judged their

campus climate more positively felt greater personal and professional support (Sears, 2002). The

literature that underscores the relationships between workplace encounters with prejudice and

lower health and well-being (i.e., anxiety, depression, and lower levels of life satisfaction and

physical health) and greater occupation dysfunction (i.e., organizational withdrawal; lower

satisfaction with work, coworkers, and supervisors), further substantiates the influence of

campus climate on employee satisfaction and subsequent productivity (Silverschanz et al., 2008).

Finally, in assessing campus climate and its influence on specific populations, it is important to

understand the complexities of identity and to avoid treating identities in isolation of one

another. Maramba & Museus (2011) agreed that an “overemphasis on a singular dimension of

students’ [and other campus constituents’] identities can also limit the understandings generated

by climate and sense of belonging studies” (p. 95). Using an intersectional approach to research



5

on campus climate allows individuals and institutions to explore how multiple systems of

privilege and oppression operate within the environment to influence the perceptions and

experiences of groups and individuals with intersecting identities (see Griffin, Bennett, & Harris,

2011; Maramba & Museus, 2011; Patton, 2011; Pittman, 2010; Turner, 2002).

Kent State Campus-Wide Climate Assessment Project Structure and Process

The CSSC collaborated with R&A to develop the survey instrument. In the first phase, R&A

conducted 17 focus groups, which were composed of 87 participants (44 students; 43 faculty

and staff). In the second phase, the CSSC and R&A used data from the focus groups to co-

construct questions for the campus-wide survey. The final survey instrument was completed in

November 2015. Kent State University’s survey contained 104 items (20 qualitative and 84

quantitative) and was available via a secure online portal from March 8 – April 8, 2016.

Confidential paper surveys were distributed to those individuals who did not have access to an

Internet-connected computer or who preferred a paper survey.

The conceptual model used as the foundation for Kent State University’s assessment of campus

climate was developed by Smith et al. (1997) and modified by Rankin (2003). A power and

privilege perspective informs the model, one grounded in critical theory, which establishes that

power differentials, both earned and unearned, are central to all human interactions (Brookfield,

2005). Unearned power and privilege are associated with membership in dominant social groups

(Johnson, 2005) and influence systems of differentiation that reproduce unequal outcomes. The

CSSC implemented participatory and community-based processes to generate survey questions as

a means to capture the various dimensions of power and privilege that shape the campus

experience. In this way, Kent State University’s assessment was the result of a comprehensive

process to identify the strengths and challenges of campus climate, with a specific focus on the

distribution of power and privilege among differing social groups. This report provides an

overview of the results of the survey of Kent State University – Regional Campuses.



6

Methodology

Conceptual Framework

R&A defines diversity as the “variety created in any society (and within any individual) by the

presence of different points of view and ways of making meaning, which generally flow from the

influence of different cultural, ethnic, and religious heritages, from the differences in how we

socialize women and men, and from the differences that emerge from class, age, sexual identity,

gender identity, ability, and other socially constructed characteristics.”20 The conceptual model

used as the foundation for this assessment of campus climate was developed by Smith et al.

(1997) and modified by Rankin (2003).

Research Design

Focus Groups. As noted earlier, the first phase of the climate assessment process was to conduct

a series of focus groups at Kent State University to gather information from students, staff,

faculty, and administrators about their perceptions of the campus climate. On February 23, 2015,

Kent State students, staff, faculty, and administrators participated in 17 focus groups conducted

by R&A facilitators. The groups were identified by the CSSC and invited to participate via a

letter from President Warren. The interview protocol included four questions addressing

participants’ perceptions of the campus living, learning, and working environment;

initiatives/programs that Kent State has implemented that have directly influenced participants’

success; the greatest challenges for various groups at Kent State; and suggestions to improve the

campus climate at Kent State.

R&A conducted 17 focus groups, which were composed of 87 participants (44 students; 43

faculty and staff). Participants in each group were given the opportunity to follow up with R&A

with any additional concerns. The CSSC and R&A used the results to inform questions for the

campus-wide survey.

20Rankin & Associates Consulting (2015) adapted from AAC&U (1995).



7

Survey Instrument. The survey questions were constructed based on the results of the focus

groups, the work of Rankin (2003), and with the assistance of the CSSC. The CSSC reviewed

several drafts of the initial survey proposed by R&A and vetted the questions to be contextually

more appropriate for the Kent State population. The final Kent State campus-wide survey

contained 104 questions,21 including open-ended questions for respondents to provide

commentary. The survey was designed so that respondents could provide information about their

personal campus experiences, their perceptions of the campus climate, and their perceptions of

Kent State’s institutional actions, including administrative policies and academic initiatives

regarding diversity issues and concerns. The survey was available in both online and pencil-and-

paper formats. All survey responses were input into a secure-site database, stripped of their IP

addresses (for online responses), and then tabulated for appropriate analysis.

Sampling Procedure. Kent State University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewed the

project proposal, including the survey instrument. The IRB considered the activity to be designed

to assess campus climate within the University and to inform Kent State University’s strategic

quality improvement initiatives. The IRB director acknowledged that the data collected from this

quality improvement activity also could be used for research. The IRB approved the project in

January 2016.

Prospective participants received an invitation from President Beverly Warren that contained the

URL link to the survey. Respondents were instructed that they were not required to answer all

questions and that they could withdraw from the survey at any time before submitting their

responses. The survey included information describing the purpose of the study, explaining the

survey instrument, and assuring the respondents of anonymity. Only surveys that were at least

50% completed were included in the final data set.

Completed online surveys were submitted directly to a secure server, where any computer

identification that might identify participants was deleted. Any comments provided by

21To ensure reliability, evaluators must ensure that instruments are properly structured (questions and response

choices must be worded in such a way that they elicit consistent responses) and administered in a consistent manner.

The instrument was revised numerous times, defined critical terms, underwent expert evaluation of items, and

checked for internal consistency.



8

participants also were separated from identifying information at submission so that comments

were not attributed to any individual demographic characteristic.

Limitations. Two limitations to the generalizability of the data existed. The first limitation was

that respondents “self-selected” to participate. Self-selection bias, therefore, was possible. This

type of bias can occur because an individual’s decision to participate may be correlated with

traits that affect the study, which could make the sample non-representative. For example, people

with strong opinions or substantial knowledge regarding climate issues on campus may have

been more apt to participate in the study. The second limitation was response rates that were less

than 30% (see Table 3). For groups with response rates less than 30%, caution is recommended

when generalizing the results to the entire constituent group.

Data Analysis. Survey data were analyzed to compare the responses (in raw numbers and

percentages) of various groups via SPSS (version 22.0). Missing data analyses (e.g., missing data

patterns, survey fatigue) were conducted and those analyses were provided to Kent State

University in a separate document. Descriptive statistics were calculated by salient group

memberships (e.g., by gender identity, racial identity, position status) to provide additional

information regarding participant responses. Throughout much of this report, including the

narrative and data tables within the narrative, information is presented using valid percentages.22

Actual percentages23 with missing or “no response” information may be found in the survey data

tables in Appendix B. The purpose for this discrepancy in reporting is to note the missing or “no

response” data in the appendices for institutional information while removing such data within

the report for subsequent cross tabulations.

Factor Analysis Methodology. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on one scale

embedded in Question 12 of the survey. The scale, termed “Perceived Academic Success” for the

purposes of this project, was developed using Pascarella and Terenzini’s (1980) Academic and

Intellectual Development Scale. This scale has been used in a variety of studies examining

22Valid percentages were derived using the total number of respondents to a particular item (i.e., missing data were

excluded). 23Actual percentages were derived using the total number of survey respondents.



9

student persistence. The first seven sub-questions of Question 12 of the survey reflect the

questions on this scale.

The questions in each scale were answered on a Likert metric from strongly agree to strongly

disagree (scored 1 for strongly agree and 5 for strongly disagree). For the purposes of analysis,

Undergraduate Student respondents who did not answer all scale sub-questions were not

included in the analysis. Just more than 3% (3.1%) of all potential Undergraduate Student

respondents were removed from the analysis as a result of one or more missing responses.

A factor analysis was conducted on the Perceived Academic Success scale utilizing principal axis

factoring. The factor loading of each item was examined to test whether the intended questions

combined to represent the underlying construct of the scale.24 One question from the scale

(Q12_A_2) did not hold with the construct and was removed; the scale used for analyses had six

questions rather than seven. The internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of the scale

was 0.866 (after removing the question noted above) which is high, meaning that the scale

produces consistent results. With Q12_A_2 included, Cronbach’s alpha was only 0.775.

Table 2. Survey Items Included in the Perceived Academic Success Factor Analyses

Scale Academic experience

Perceived

Academic Success

I am performing up to my full academic potential.

I am satisfied with my academic experience at Kent State.

I am satisfied with the extent of my intellectual development since enrolling at

Kent State.

I have performed academically as well as I anticipated I would.

My academic experience has had a positive influence on my intellectual growth

and interest in ideas.

My interest in ideas and intellectual matters has increased since coming to Kent

State.

Factor Scores

The factor score for Perceived Academic Success was created by taking the average of the scores

for the six sub-questions in the factor. Each respondent that answered all of the questions

24Factor analysis is a particularly useful technique for scale construction. It is used to determine how well a set of

survey questions combine to measure a latent construct by measuring how similarly respondents answer those

questions.



10

included in the given factor was given a score on a five-point scale. Lower scores on Perceived

Academic Success factor suggests a student or constituent group is more academically

successful.

Means Testing Methodology

After creating the factor scores for respondents based on the factor analysis, means were

calculated and the means for Student respondents were analyzed using a t-test for difference of

means.

Additionally, where n’s were of sufficient size, separate analyses were conducted to determine

whether the means for the Perceived Academic Success factor were different for first-level

categories in the following demographic areas:

o Gender identity (Men, Women)

o Racial identity (People of Color, White People, People of Multiple Race)

o Sexual identity (LGBQ including Pansexual, Heterosexual, Asexual)

o Disability status (Disability, No Disability, Multiple Disabilities)

o First-Generation/Low-Income status (First-Generation/Low-Income, Not-First

Generation/Low-Income)

o Age (22 and Under, 23 and Over)

o Military Service status (Military Service, No Military Service)

o Employment status (Employed, Not Employed)

When only two categories existed for the specified demographic variable (e.g., gender), a t-test

for difference of means was used. If the difference in means was significant, effect size was

calculated using Cohen’s d and any moderate to large effects are noted.

When the specific variable of interest had more than two categories (e.g., racial identity),

ANOVAs were run to determine whether any differences existed. If the ANOVA was

significant, post-hoc tests were run to determine which differences between pairs of means were

significant. Additionally, if the difference in means was significant, effect size was calculated

using eta2 and any moderate to large effects were noted.



11

Qualitative Comments

Several survey questions provided respondents the opportunity to describe their experiences at

Kent State, elaborate upon their survey responses, and append additional thoughts. Comments

were solicited to give voice to the data and to highlight areas of concern that might have been

missed in the quantitative items of the survey. These open-ended comments were reviewed25

using standard methods of thematic analysis. R&A reviewers read all comments, and a list of

common themes was generated based on their analysis. Most themes reflected the issues

addressed in the survey questions and revealed in the quantitative data. This methodology does

not reflect a comprehensive qualitative study. Comments were not used to develop grounded

hypotheses independent of the quantitative data.

Results

This section of the report provides a description of the sample demographics, measures of

internal reliability, and a discussion of validity. This section also presents the results per the

project design, which called for examining respondents’ personal campus experiences, their

perceptions of the campus climate, and their perceptions of Kent State’s institutional actions,

including administrative policies and academic initiatives regarding climate.

Several analyses were conducted to determine whether significant differences existed in the

responses between participants from various demographic categories. Where significant

differences occurred, endnotes (denoted by lowercase Roman numeral superscripts) at the end of

each section of this report provide the results of the significance testing. The narrative also

provides results from descriptive analyses that were not statistically significant, yet were

determined to be meaningful to the climate at the Kent State University - Regional Campuses.

25Any comments provided in languages other than English were translated and incorporated into the qualitative

analysis.



12

Description of the Sample26

One thousand five hundred eighty-seven (1,587) surveys were returned, for a 13% overall

response rate. The sample and population figures, chi-square analyses,27 and response rates are

presented in Table 3. All analyzed demographic categories showed statistically significant

differences between the sample data and the population data as provided by Kent State

University - Regional Campuses.

Women were significantly overrepresented in the sample; men were underrepresented.

Alaskan/Native Americans, Black/African Americans, Hispanics/Latino@s/Chicano@s,

and those who were Missing/Unknown/Race Not Listed were significantly

underrepresented in the sample. Asian/Asian Americans, White/European Americans,

and those who identified with two or more races were significantly overrepresented in the

sample. Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders were present in the population and sample in

equivalent representations. Individuals who identified as being from the Middle East

were present in the sample but not in the population.

Graduate Students, Administrators with Faculty Rank, Faculty, and Staff were

significantly overrepresented in the sample; Undergraduate Students were

underrepresented.

No statistically significant difference existed between the sample and the population for

citizenship status.

26All frequency tables are provided in Appendix B. 27Chi-square tests were conducted only on those categories that were response options in the survey and included in

demographics provided by Kent State University - Regional Campuses.



13

Table 3. Demographics of Population and Sample

Population Sample Response

Rate Characteristic Categories N % n %

Gendera Woman 7,781 62.5 1,088 68.6 13.98

Man 4,672 37.5 463 29.2 9.91

Genderqueer

Not

available

Not

available 10 0.6 N/A

Transgender

Not

available

Not

available < 5 --- N/A

Other/Missing/Unknown

Not

available

Not

available 24 1.5 N/A

Race/Ethnicityb Alaskan/Native American 34 0.3 < 5 --- ---

Asian/Asian American 132 1.1 21 1.3 15.91

Black/African American 680 5.5 54 3.4 7.94

Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ 291 2.3 17 1.1 5.84

Middle Eastern

Not

available

Not


Native Hawaiian/Pacific

Islander 10 0.1 < 5 --- ---

White/European American 10,600 85.1 1,353 85.3 12.76

Two or More 284 2.3 75 4.7 26.41

Missing/Unknown/Not

Specified/Other 362 2.9 40 2.5 11.05

International 60 0.5 21 1.3 35.00

Position statusc Undergraduate Student 11,023 88.5 971 61.2 8.81

Graduate/Professional Student 20 0.2 16 1.0 80.00

Faculty 863 6.9 300 18.9 34.76

Administrator with Faculty

Rank 18 0.1 34 2.1 >100.0

Staff 529 4.2 266 16.8 50.28

Citizenshipd U.S. Citizen 12,243 98.3 1,558 98.2 12.73

Permanent Resident 83 0.7 12 0.8 14.46

Visa Holder 42 0.3 8 0.5 19.05

Other Status

Not

available

Not


Unreported/Missing 85 0.7 8 0.5 9.41

a2 (1, N = 1,551) = 38.38, p < .001 b2 (7, N = 1,584) = 87.51, p < .001 c2 (4, N = 1,587) = 1,775.31, p < .001 d2 (3, N = 1,586) = 3.15, p = .369



14

Validity. Validity is the extent to which a measure truly reflects the phenomenon or concept

under study. The validation process for the survey instrument included both the development of

the survey items and consultation with subject matter experts. The survey items were constructed

based on the work of Hurtado et al. (1998) and Smith et al. (1997) and were further informed by

instruments used in other institutional and organizational studies by the consultant. Several

researchers working in the area of campus climate and diversity, as well as higher education

survey research methodology experts, reviewed the bank of items available for the survey, as did

the members of Kent State’s CSSC.

Content validity was ensured given that the items and response choices arose from literature

reviews, previous surveys, and input from CSSC members. Construct validity - the extent to

which scores on an instrument permit inferences about underlying traits, attitudes, and behaviors

- should be evaluated by examining the correlations of measures being evaluated with variables

known to be related to the construct. For this investigation, correlations ideally ought to exist

between item responses and known instances of exclusionary conduct, for example. However, no

reliable data to that effect were available. As such, attention was given to the manner in which

questions were asked and response choices given. Items were constructed to be non-biased, non-

leading, and non-judgmental, and to preclude individuals from providing “socially acceptable”

responses.

Reliability - Internal Consistency of Responses.28 Correlations between the responses to

questions about overall campus climate for various groups (Question 89) and to questions that

rated overall campus climate on various scales (Question 90) were moderate-strong and

statistically significant, indicating a positive relationship between answers regarding the

acceptance of various populations and the climate for those populations. The consistency of these

results suggests that the survey data were internally reliable. Pertinent correlation coefficients29

are provided in Table 4.

28Internal reliability is a measure of reliability used to evaluate the degree to which different test items that probe the

same construct produce similar results (Trochim, 2000). The correlation coefficient indicates the degree of linear

relationship between two variables (Bartz, 1988). 29Pearson correlation coefficients indicate the degree to which two variables are related. A value of 1 signifies

perfect correlation; 0 signifies no correlation.



15

All correlations in the table were significantly different from zero at the .01 level; that is, a

relationship existed between all selected pairs of responses.

A strong relationship (between .5 and .7) existed for all five pairs of variables - between Positive

for People of Color and Not Racist; between Positive for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Queer, or

Transgender People and Not Homophobic; between Positive for Women and Not Sexist;

between Positive for People of Low Socioeconomic Status and Not Classist (socioeconomic

status); and between Positive for People with Disabilities and Disability Friendly (not ableist).



16

Table 4. Pearson Correlations Between Ratings of Acceptance and Campus Climate for Selected Groups

Climate Characteristics

Not

Racist

Not

Homophobic

Not

Sexist

Not

Classist

(SES)

Disability

Friendly

Positive for People of

Color .6241

Positive for Lesbian,

Gay, Bisexual People .5511

Positive for Women .5091

Positive for People of

Low Socioeconomic

Status .6741

Positive for People

with Disabilities .5311 1p < 0.01



17

Sample Characteristics30

For the purposes of several analyses, demographic responses were collapsed into categories

established by the CSSC to make comparisons between groups and to ensure respondents’

confidentiality. Analyses do not reveal in the narrative, figures, or tables where the number of

respondents in a particular category totaled fewer than five (n < 5).

Primary status data for respondents were collapsed into Student respondents, Faculty

respondents, and Staff respondents.31 Of all respondents, 62% (n = 987) were Student

respondents, 21% (n = 334) were Faculty respondents, and 17% (n = 266) were Staff respondents

(Figure 1). Seventy percent (n = 1,114) of respondents were full-time in their primary positions.

Subsequent analyses indicated that 73% (n = 651) of Student respondents, 73% (n = 234) of

Faculty respondents, and 89% (n = 229) of Staff respondents were full-time in their primary

positions.

30All percentages presented in the “Sample Characteristics” section of the report are actual percentages. 31Collapsed position status variables were determined by the CSSC.



18

Figure 1. Respondents’ Collapsed Position Status (%)

With regard to respondents’ work-unit affiliations, Table 5 indicates that Staff respondents

represented various work units across campus. Of Staff respondents, 64% (n = 169) were

affiliated with the Regional Campuses, 13% (n = 35) were affiliated with Enrollment

Management and Student Affairs, and 5% (n = 14) were affiliated with Business and Finance.



19

Table 5. Staff Respondents’ Primary Work Unit Affiliations

Work unit n %

Athletics 0 0.0

Business and Finance 14 5.3

College of Applied Engineering, Sustainability & Technology 0 0.0

College of Architecture & Environmental Design 0 0.0

College of the Arts < 5 ---

College of Arts and Sciences < 5 ---

College of Business Administration 0 0.0

College of Communication and Information < 5 ---

College of Education, Health, & Human Services 0 0.0

College of Nursing 5 1.9

College of Podiatric Medicine 0 0.0

College of Public Health 0 0.0

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion < 5 ---

Enrollment Management and Student Affairs 35 13.2

Human Resources < 5 ---

Information Services 8 3.0

Institutional Advancement < 5 ---

Provost Office < 5 ---

Regional Campuses 169 63.5

School of Digital Sciences 0 0.0

University Counsel/Government Affairs 0 0.0

University Libraries < 5 ---

University Relations < 5 ---

Missing 12 4.5

Note: Table includes only Staff respondents (n = 266).



20

Of Faculty respondents, 46% (n = 154) were affiliated with the College of Arts and Sciences,

11% (n = 36) with the College of Nursing, and 10% (n = 32) were affiliated with the College of

Education, Health, & Human Services (Table 6).

Table 6. Faculty Respondents’ Primary Academic Division Affiliations

Academic division n %

College of Applied Engineering, Sustainability & Technology < 5 ---


College of The Arts 20 6.0

School of Art < 5 ---

School of Fashion Design & Merchandising 0 0.0

School of Music 9 56.3

School of Theatre & Dance 5 31.3

College of Arts and Sciences 154 46.1

Department of Anthropology < 5 ---

Department of Biological Sciences 15 12.8

Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry 7 6.0

Department of Computer Science < 5 ---

Department of English 27 23.1

Department of Geography < 5 ---

Department of Geology 5 4.3

Department of History 7 6.0

Department of Mathematical Sciences 18 15.4

Department of Modern & Classical Language Studies < 5 ---

Department of Pan-African Studies 0 0.0

Department of Philosophy 5 4.3

Department of Physics < 5 ---

Department of Political Science 0 0.0

Department of Psychology 9 7.7

Department of Sociology 12 10.3

School of Biomedical Sciences 0 0.0

Chemical Physics Interdisciplinary Program (Grad Program

Only) 0 0.0

Integrated Life Sciences - Bachelor of Science/Doctor of

Medicine Degree Program 0 0.0



21

Table 6 (cont.) n %


Department of Accounting < 5 ---

Department of Economics < 5 ---

Department of Finance 0 0.0

Department of Management & Information Systems 9 75.0

Department of Marketing & Entrepreneurship < 5 ---

College of Communication and Information 7 2.1

School of Communication Studies 6 85.7

School of Journalism & Mass Communication < 5 ---

School of Library & Information Science 0 0.0

School of Visual Communication Design 0 0.0


School of Health Sciences 7 26.9

School of Foundations, Leadership & Administration 6 23.1

School of Lifespan Development & Educational Sciences 7 26.9

School of Teaching, Learning & Curriculum Studies 6 23.1



College of Public Health < 5 ---


University Libraries < 5 ---

Missing32 57 17.1

Note: Table includes only Faculty respondents (n = 334).

32It was discovered after the survey was live that the response choice “Regional College” was accidentally omitted.

As such, the “Missing” category may include faculty who identify their “Primary Academic Division Affiliation” as

“Regional College.”



22

More than two-thirds of the respondents (69%, n = 1,088) were Women and 29% (n = 463) were

Men.33 One percent (n = 10) identified as Genderqueer. Less than 1% (n < 5) of the respondents

identified as Transgender.34 Nine respondents (1%) marked “a gender not listed here” and

offered identities such as “american, quit dividing people,” “Apache Attack Helicopter” “Black

man inside of a white body,” “Genderfluid,” “lesbian,” “mix of male and female,” and “screw

your labels, how I identify is my business not yours…you can never understand…and your

empathy is false.”

For the purpose of some analyses, gender identity was collapsed into two categories determined

by the CSSC. Sixty-eight percent (n = 1,088) of the respondents marked only “Woman” as their

gender identity, and 29% (n = 463) marked only “Man.” Responses that marked only

Transgender or Genderqueer were collapsed into the “Transspectrum” category (1%, n = 21).35

Figure 2 illustrates that a greater percentage of Women Student (70%, n = 693) respondents

completed the survey than did Men Student (28%, n = 273) and Transspectrum Student (2%, n =

18) respondents. Seventy-three percent (n = 192) of Staff respondents and 62% (n = 203) of

Faculty respondents were Women, while 27% (n = 70) of Staff respondents and 37% (n = 120)

of Faculty respondents were Men. The number of Transspectrum Faculty and Staff respondents

totaled less than five.

33The majority of respondents identified their birth sex as female (69%, n = 1,095), while 30% (n = 476) of

respondents identified as male, and < 1% (n < 5) as intersex. Additionally, 67% (n = 1,059) identified their gender

expression as feminine, 29% (n = 453) as masculine, 2% (n = 38) as androgynous, and 1% (n = 19) as “a gender

expression not listed here.” 34Self-identification as transgender does not preclude identification as male or female, nor do all those who might fit

the definition self-identify as transgender. Here, those who chose to self-identify as transgender have been reported separately in order to reveal the presence of a relatively new campus identity that might otherwise have been

overlooked. Because transgender respondents numbered fewer than five, no analyses were conducted or included in

the report in order to maintain the respondents’ confidentiality. 35The CSSC determined not to include Transspectrum respondents in any chi-square analyses throughout the report

because their numbers (n = 21) were too small to ensure confidentiality.



23

Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure.

Figure 2. Respondents by Gender Identity and Position Status (%)



24

The majority of respondents were Heterosexual36 (82%, n = 1,308); 8% (n = 119) were LGBQ

(lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, queer, or questioning); and 7% (n = 105) were Asexual/Other

(Figure 3).

Figure 3. Respondents by Sexual Identity and Position Status (n)

36Respondents who answered “other” in response to the question about their sexual identity and wrote “straight” or

“heterosexual” in the adjoining text box were recoded as Heterosexual. Additionally, this report uses the terms

“LGBQ” and “sexual minorities” to denote individuals who self-identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual,

queer, and questioning, and those who wrote in “other” terms such as “homoflexible” and “fluid.”



25

Of Staff respondents, 51% (n = 131) were between 49 and 65 years old, 30% (n = 77) were

between 35 and 48 years old, 17% (n = 44) were between 23 and 34 years old, and 2% (n = 5)

were 66 years old and older. Of Faculty respondents, 54% (n = 170) were between 49 and 65

years old, and 31% (n = 98) were between 35 and 48 years old, 8% (n = 26) were 66 years old

and older, and another 8% (n = 24) were between 23 and 34 years old. Of responding Students,

50% (n = 493) were 22 years old or younger, 29% (n = 289) were between 23 and 34 years old,

14% (n = 142) were between 35 and 48 years old, and 6% (n = 58) were between 49 and 65

years old (Figure 4).

24

98

170

2644

77

131

5

493

289

142

58

22 and under 23-34 35-48 49-65 66 and older

Faculty

Staff

Students


Figure 4. Employee37 Respondents by Age and Position Status (n)

37Throughout the report, the term “employee respondents” refers to all respondents who indicated that they were

staff members or faculty members.



26

With regard to racial identity, 90% (n = 1,422) of the respondents identified as White (Figure 5).

Five percent (n = 80) of respondents were Black/African American, 3% (n = 51) were American

Indian, 2% each were Asian/Asian American (n = 37) or Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ or Latin

American (n = 34), and less than 1% each were Middle Eastern (n = 5) and Pacific Islander (n =

5). Some individuals marked the response category “a racial/ethnic identity not listed here” and

wrote “American,” “American mutt,” “Arab American,” “Greek,” “Human,” “Hungarian, Irish,”

“Mulageon (white, black, American Indian),” “Moorish American,” “no genetic differences

significant for race,” and “not identifiable by terms of race.”

< 1

< 1

1

2

2

3

5

90

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Native Hawaiian

Alaska Native

Pacific Islander

Middle Eastern

Racial Identity Not Listed

Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ or Latin American

Asian/Asian American

American Indian

Black/African/African American

White

Figure 5. Respondents by Racial/Ethnic Identity (%),

Inclusive of Multiracial and/or Multiethnic



27

Respondents were given the opportunity to mark multiple boxes regarding their racial identity,38

allowing them to identify as biracial or multiracial. For the purposes of some analyses, the CSSC

created three racial identity categories. Given the opportunity to mark multiple responses, many

respondents chose only White (86%, n = 1,359) as their identity (Figure 6).39 Other respondents

identified as People of Color40 (7%, n = 109) and Multiracial41 (5%, n = 76). A number of

respondents did not indicate their racial identity and were recoded to Other/Missing/Unknown

(3%, n = 43).

3

5

7

86

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Race, Other/Missing/Unknown

Mult iracial

People of Color

White

Figure 6. Respondents by Collapsed Categories of Racial Identity (%)

38While recognizing the vastly different experiences of people of various racial identities (e.g., Chicano@ versus

African-American or Latino@ versus Asian-American), and those experiences within these identity categories

(e.g., Hmong versus Chinese), Rankin and Associates found it necessary to collapse some of these categories to

conduct the analyses as a result of the small numbers of respondents in the individual categories. 39Figure 6 illustrates the unduplicated total of responses (n = 1,587) for the question, “Although the categories listed

below may not represent your full identity or use the language you prefer, for the purpose of this survey, please

indicate which group below most accurately describes your racial/ethnic identification (If you are of a multiracial/multiethnic/multicultural identity, mark all that apply).” 40Per the CSSC, the People of Color category included respondents who identified as Alaskan Native, American

Indian, Asian/Asian American, Black/African American, Latin@/Chican@/Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Native

Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander. 41Per the CSSC, respondents who identified as more than one racial identity were recoded as Multiracial.



28

Twenty-nine percent (n = 466) of respondents reported No Affiliation (Figure 7). Sixty-two

percent (n = 989) of respondents identified as having a Christian Affiliation. Four percent (n =

56) of respondents identified with Multiple Affiliations, and 3% (n = 45) chose Other

Religious/Spiritual Affiliation.

2

3

4

29

62

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Missing/Unknown

Other Religious/Spiritual Affiliation

Multiple Affi liations

No Affiliation

Christian Affiliation

Figure 7. Respondents by Religious/Spiritual Affiliation (%)



29

Sixty-five percent (n = 1,027) of respondents had no parenting or caregiving responsibilities.

Seventy-five percent (n = 734) of Student respondents, 51% (n = 135) of Staff respondents and

49% (n = 158) of Faculty respondents had no dependent care responsibilities. Thirty-four percent

(n = 112) of Faculty respondents, 33% (n = 88) of Staff respondents, and 21% (n = 203) of

Student respondents were caring for children 18 years of age or under (Figure 8). Sixteen percent

(n = 52) of Faculty respondents, 12% (n = 32) of Staff respondents, and 5% (n = 44) of Student

respondents were caring for senior or other family members.


Figure 8. Respondents’ Caregiving Responsibilities by Position (%)



30

Additional analyses revealed that 94% (n = 1,485) of respondents had never served in the

military. Sixty-five respondents (4%) indicated they were formerly active duty military. Eleven

respondents (1%) noted that they were Reservist/National Guard and five respondents (< 1%)

indicated that they were on active duty.

Thirteen percent (n = 210) of respondents42 had conditions that substantially influenced learning,

working, or living activities. Thirty-five percent (n = 73) of these respondents had mental

health/psychological conditions, 32% (n = 68) had a learning disability, and 26% (n = 55) had a

chronic diagnosis or medical conditions (Table 7).

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% as a result of multiple responses

42Some respondents indicated that they had multiple disabilities or conditions that substantially influenced major life

activities. The unduplicated total number of respondents with disabilities is 206 (13%). The duplicated total (n =

210; 13%) is reflected in Table 7 and in Appendix B, Table B20.

Table 7. Respondents’ Conditions That Affect Learning, Working, Living Activities

Conditions

n

%

Mental Health/Psychological Condition 73 34.8

Learning Disability 68 32.4

Chronic Diagnosis or Medical Condition 55 26.2

Physical/Mobility condition that affects walking 22 10.5

Physical/Mobility condition that does not affect walking 20 9.5

Deaf/Hard of Hearing 18 8.6

Acquired/Traumatic Brain Injury 11 5.2

Asperger's/Autism Spectrum 9 4.3

Blind/Visually Impaired 5 2.4

Speech/Communication Condition < 5 ---

A disability/condition not listed here 5 2.4



31

Table 8 depicts how respondents answered the survey item, “What is your citizenship status in

the U.S.? Mark all that apply.” For the purposes of analyses, the CSSC created two citizenship

categories: 98% (n = 1,558) of respondents indicated they were U.S. Citizens and 1% (n = 23) of

respondents indicated they were Non-U.S. Citizens.

Ninety-three percent (n = 1,473) of respondents reported that only English was spoken in their

homes. One percent (n = 23) indicated that only a language other than English was spoken in

their homes, while 5% (n = 78) indicated that English and at least one other language were

spoken in their homes. Some of the languages that respondents indicated that they spoke at home

were American Sign Language, Arabic, Bad English, C++, ebonics, French & Spanish,

Gaelic/Spanish/Italian, German, Gujarati, Iris, Japanese, Mandarin, Pennsylvania Dutch,

Ukrainian, URDU, Xaald, and Yiddish.

Table 8. Respondents’ Citizenship Status (Duplicated Totals)

Citizenship

n %

U.S. citizen 1,558 98.2

Permanent resident 12 0.8

A visa holder (F-1, J-1, H1-B, A, L, G, E, and TN) 8 0.5

Other legally documented status < 5 ---

Undocumented status 0 0.0

Missing 8 0.5



32

Thirty percent (n = 79) of Staff respondents indicated that the highest level of education they had

completed was a master’s degree, 18% (n = 49) had finished a bachelor’s degree, and 13% each

had finished an associate’s degree (n = 34) or some college (n = 34).

Table 9 illustrates the level of education completed by Student respondents’ parents or legal

guardians. Subsequent analyses indicated that 60% (n = 594) of Student respondents were First-

Generation Students.43

Table 9. Student Respondents’ Parents’/Guardians’ Highest Level of Education

Parent/legal

guardian 1

Parent/legal

guardian 2

Level of education

n

%

n

%

No high school 20 2.0 32 3.2

Some high school 65 6.6 71 7.2

Completed high school/GED 345 35.0 358 36.3

Some college 171 17.3 157 15.9

Business/technical certificate/degree 58 5.9 81 8.2

Associate’s degree 89 9.0 60 6.1

Bachelor’s degree 124 12.6 99 10.0

Some graduate work 8 0.8 6 0.6

Master’s degree (M.A., M.S., MBA) 60 6.1 33 3.3

Specialist degree (Ed.S.) < 5 --- < 5 ---

Doctoral degree (Ph.D., Ed.D.) 9 0.9 < 5 ---

Professional degree (MD, MFA, JD) < 5 --- < 5 ---

Unknown 8 0.8 28 2.8

Not applicable 22 2.2 46 4.7

Missing < 5 --- 10 1.0

Note: Table reports only Student responses (n = 987).

43With the CSSC’s approval, “First-Generation Students” were identified as those with both parents/guardians

having completed no high school, some high school, high school/GED, or some college. This definition is based on

a categorization used by Kent State University.



33

Subsequent analyses indicated that of the responding Undergraduate Students, 39% (n =

381) began Kent State in 2015, 19% (n = 179) began in 2014, 15% (n = 146) began in 2013,

10% (n = 95) began in 2012, 7% (n = 63) began in 2011, 2% (n = 23) began in 2010, and 8% (n

= 81) began Kent State in 2009 or before.

Table 10 reveals that 26% (n = 248) of Undergraduate Student respondents were in the College

of Arts and Sciences, 17% (n = 165) were in the College of Nursing, and 15% (n = 144) were in

the College of Education, Health and Human Services, and 17% (n = 168) were in either the

Regional College Bachelor’s or Associate degree majors.

Table 10. Undergraduate Student Respondents’ Academic Majors

Academic major n %

College of Applied Engineering, Sustainability and Technology 31 3.2

Aeronautics < 5 ---

Applied Engineering 12 38.7

Construction Management 0 0.0

Technology 21 67.7

College of Architecture and Environmental Design < 5 ---

Architecture/Architectural Studies < 5 ---

Architecture and Environmental Design - General < 5 ---

Interior Design 0 0.0

College of the Arts 31 3.2

Art Education/Art History < 5 ---

College of the Arts - General 5 16.1

Crafts < 5 ---

Dance/Dance Studies 0 0.0

Fashion Design/Fashion Merchandising < 5 ---

Fine Arts 8 25.8

Music/Music Education/Music Technology < 5 ---

Theater Studies < 5 ---


American Sign Language < 5 ---

Anthropology < 5 ---

Applied Conflict Management < 5 ---

Applied Mathematics 0 0.0



34

Table 10 (cont.) n %

Archaeology 0 0.0

Biology/Biochemistry/Biotechnology 16 6.5

Botany < 5 ---

Chemistry < 5 ---

Classics 0 0.0

Computer Science 11 4.4

Criminology and Justice Studies 38 15.3

Earth Science < 5 ---

Economics 0 0.0

English 19 7.7

Environmental and Conservation Biology < 5 ---

French Literature, Culture and Translation 0 0.0

Geography < 5 ---

Geology < 5 ---

German Literature, Translation and Culture 0 0.0

History 12 4.8

Horticulture/Horticulture Technology 15 6.0

Integrated Life Sciences < 5 ---

Integrative Studies < 5 ---

International Relations/Comparative Politics < 5 ---

Mathematics 5 2.0

Medical Technology < 5 ---

Pan-African Studies 0 0.0

Paralegal Studies < 5 ---

Philosophy < 5 ---

Physics < 5 ---

Political Science < 5 ---

Pre-Medicine/Pre-Osteopathy/Pre-Dentistry/

Pre-Pharmacy/Pre-Veterinary Medicine 5 2.0

Psychology 88 35.5

Russian Literature, Culture and Translation < 5 ---

Sociology 9 3.6

Spanish Literature, Culture and Translation < 5 ---

Teaching English as a Second Language < 5 ---

Translation 0 0.0

Zoology 7 2.8



35



Accounting 15 14.4

Business Management 54 51.9

Business Undeclared 8 7.7

Computer Information Systems 11 10.6

Economics < 5 ---

Entrepreneurship < 5 ---

Finance 6 5.8

Marketing/Managerial Marketing 6 5.8


Advertising < 5 ---

College of Communication and Information - General 8 16.7

Communication Studies 31 64.6

Digital Media Production < 5 ---

Journalism < 5 ---

Photo Illustration < 5 ---

Public Relations 0 0.0

Visual Communication Design < 5 ---


Digital Sciences 5 83.3

College of Education, Health and Human Services 144 14.8

Athletic Training < 5 ---

Community Health Education 0 0.0

Early Childhood Education 30 20.8

Education/Health/Human Service General 11 7.6

Educational Studies 0 0.0

Exercise Science 0 0.0

Hospitality Management < 5 ---

Human Development and Family Studies 40 27.8

Integrated Health Studies 5 3.5

Integrated Language Arts < 5 ---

Integrated Mathematics < 5 ---

Integrated Science < 5 ---

Integrated Social Studies < 5 ---

Life Science 0 0.0



36


Middle Childhood Education 15 10.4

Nutrition < 5 ---

Physical Education < 5 ---

Physical Science < 5 ---

Pre-Human Development Family Studies 0 0.0

Pre-Speech Pathology Audiology < 5 ---

Recreation, Park and Tourism Management < 5 ---

School Health Education 0 0.0

Special Education 9 6.3

Speech Pathology and Audiology 5 3.5

Sport Administration < 5 ---

Trade and Industrial Education 0 0.0


Nursing 92 55.8

Pre-Nursing 78 47.3


Public Health 13 68.4

Regional College Bachelor’s Degree Majors 54 5.6

Engineering Technology 5 9.3

Exploratory < 5 ---

Insurance Studies < 5 ---

Magnetic Resonance Imaging < 5 ---

Radiologic Imaging Sciences 14 25.9

Technical and Applied Studies 28 51.9

Regional College Associate Degree Majors 114 11.7

Accounting Technology < 5 ---

Allied Health Management Technology 0 0.0

Associate of Technical Study < 5 ---

Aviation Maintenance Technology < 5 ---

Business Management Technology < 5 ---

Computer Design, Animation and Game Design < 5 ---

Computer Technology 11 9.6

Early Childhood Education Technology < 5 ---

Electrical/Electronic Engineering Technology < 5 ---

Emergency Medical Services Technology 0 0.0



37

Note: Table includes only Undergraduate Student respondents (n = 971). Sum does not total 100% owing to multiple response choices.


Engineering of Information Technology < 5 ---

Enology 0 0.0

Environment Management 0 0.0

Environmental Health and Safety 0 0.0

Human Services Technology 6 5.3

Individualized Program 0 0.0

Industrial Trades Technology 0 0.0

Information Technology for Administrative Professionals < 5 ---

Justice Studies < 5 ---

Legal Assisting < 5 ---

Manufacturing Engineering Technology 0 0.0

Mechanical Engineering Technology 0 0.0

Nursing ADN < 5 ---

Occupational Therapy Assistant Technology 14 12.3

Physical Therapist Assistant Technology 37 32.5

Radiologic Technology 14 12.3

Respiratory Therapy Technology < 5 ---

Systems/Industrial Engineering Technology 0 0.0

Veterinary Technology 10 8.8

Viticulture 0 0.0

University College (Exploratory) 46 4.7



38

Nearly all of the of Graduate Student respondents indicated that they were pursuing a master’s

degree (94%, n = 15) (Table 11).

Table 11. Graduate Student Respondents’ Academic Divisions

Academic degree program

n

%

Master’s Degrees 15 93.7

College of Applied Engineering, Sustainability and

Technology < 5 ---

Technology 0 0.0

College of Architecture and Environmental Design 0 0.0

Architecture 0 0.0

Architecture and Environmental Design 0 0.0

Health Care Design 0 0.0

Landscape Architecture 0 0.0

Urban Design 0 0.0


Art Education 0 0.0

Art History 0 0.0

Conducting 0 0.0

Crafts 0 0.0

Ethnomusicology 0 0.0

Fine Arts 0 0.0

Music Composition/Music Theory/Musicology 0 0.0

Music Education 0 0.0

Performance 0 0.0

Theatre Studies 0 0.0


Anthropology 0 0.0


Biology 0 0.0

Biomedical Sciences 0 0.0

Chemistry 0 0.0

Chemical Physics 0 0.0

Clinical Psychology 0 0.0


Creative Writing 0 0.0

Criminology and Criminal Justice 0 0.0

English 0 0.0

Experimental Psychology 0 0.0

French 0 0.0



39


Geography 0 0.0

Geology 0 0.0

German 0 0.0

History 0 0.0

Latin 0 0.0

Liberal Studies 0 0.0

Mathematics for Secondary Teachers 0 0.0

Philosophy 0 0.0

Physics 0 0.0

Political Science 0 0.0

Public Administration 0 0.0

Pure Mathematics 0 0.0

Sociology 0 0.0

Spanish 0 0.0

Teaching English as Second Language 0 0.0

Translation 0 0.0

College of Business Administration < 5 ---

Accounting 0 0.0

Business Administration < 5 ---

Economics < 5 ---

College of Communication and Information < 5 ---


Information Architecture and Knowledge Management 0 0.0

Journalism and Mass Communication 0 0.0

Library and Information Science < 5 ---

Visual Communication Design 0 0.0

School of Digital Sciences < 5 ---

Digital Sciences < 5 ---

College of Education, Health and Human Services < 5 ---

Career-Technical Teacher Education 0 0.0

Clinical Mental Health Counseling 0 0.0

Cultural Foundations 0 0.0

Curriculum and Instruction < 5 ---


Educational Administration 0 0.0

Educational Psychology 0 0.0

Evaluation and Measurement 0 0.0

Exercise Physiology 0 0.0

Health Education and Promotion 0 0.0

Higher Education and Student Personnel 0 0.0



40


Hospitality and Tourism Management 0 0.0


Instructional Technology 0 0.0

Nutrition 0 0.0

Reading Specialization 0 0.0

Rehabilitation Counseling 0 0.0

School Counseling/School Psychology 0 0.0

Secondary Education 0 0.0


Speech Language Pathology 0 0.0

Sport and Recreation Management 0 0.0


Nursing 0 0.0

College of Public Health < 5 ---

Public Health < 5 ---

Professional Degrees 0 0.0

Advanced Nursing Practice 0 0.0

Audiology 0 0.0

Podiatric Medicine 0 0.0

Educational Specialist 0 0.0

Counseling 0 0.0

Curriculum and Instruction 0 0.0


School Psychology 0 0.0


PhD Doctoral Degrees 0 0.0

Applied Geology 0 0.0


Audiology 0 0.0

Biology/Biological Sciences < 5 ---

Business Administration 0 0.0

Chemistry/Chemical Physics 0 0.0


Communication and Information 0 0.0

Computer Science < 5 ---

Counseling and Human Development Services 0 0.0







41


English 0 0.0


Exercise Physiology < 5 ---


Geography 0 0.0


History 0 0.0

Music Education/Music Theory 0 0.0

Nursing 0 0.0

Physics 0 0.0


Public Health 0 0.0



Sociology 0 0.0



Translation Studies 0 0.0

Certificate and Non-Degree Programs 0 0.0

Adult Gerontology Nursing 0 0.0

Advanced Practice Registered Nurse 0 0.0

Advanced Study in Library and Information Science 0 0.0

ASL/English Interpreting (Non-degree) 0 0.0

Autism Spectrum Disorders 0 0.0

Behavioral Intervention Specialist 0 0.0

Career-Technical Teacher Education < 5 ---

College Teaching 0 0.0

Community College Leadership 0 0.0

Deaf Education (Non-degree) 0 0.0

Deaf Education Multiple Disabilities 0 0.0

Disability Studies and Community Inclusion 0 0.0

Early Childhood Deaf Education 0 0.0

Early Childhood Intervention Specialist (Non-degree) 0 0.0

Early Intervention 0 0.0

Enterprise Architecture < 5 ---

Gerontology 0 0.0

Health Care Facilities 0 0.0

Health Informatics 0 0.0

Institutional Research and Assessment 0 0.0

Internationalization of Higher Education 0 0.0



42


Mild/Moderate Educational Needs (Non-degree) 0 0.0

Moderate/Intensive Educational Needs (Non-degree) 0 0.0

Music Composition/Music Conducting/Music Performance 0 0.0

Nursing and Health Care Management 0 0.0

Nursing Education 0 0.0

Online Learning and Teaching 0 0.0

PMH Family NP for PMH Child/Adolescent Clinical Nurse

Specialist 0 0.0

Primary Care Pediatric Clinical Nurse Specialist 0 0.0

Primary Care Pediatric Nurse Practitioner 0 0.0

Psychiatric Mental Health Family Nurse Practitioner 0 0.0

Teaching English as a Second/Foreign Language 0 0.0

Web-Enabled E-Learning Knowledge Management 0 0.0

Women's Health Nurse Practitioner 0 0.0

Missing < 5 ---

Note: Table includes only Graduate Student respondents (n = 16).

Analyses revealed that 10% (n = 100) of Student respondents were employed on campus.

Additional analyses indicated that 59% (n = 577) of Student respondents were employed off

campus. Additionally, 3% (n = 33) of Student respondents indicated they were employed both on

and off campus. Of those students who were employed on or off campus or both, 37% (n = 46)

worked an average of 1 to 10 hours per week on campus, 36% (n = 44) worked an average of 11

to 20 hours per week on campus, and 23% (n = 29) worked an average of 21 to 28 hours per

week on campus. Of those students who were employed on or off campus or both, 28% (n = 157)

worked an average of 11 to 20 hours per week off campus, 27% (n = 150) worked an average of

21 to 30 hours per week off campus, 23% (n = 127) worked an average of 31 to 40 hours per

week off campus, 13% (n = 69) worked an average of more than 40 hours per week off campus,

and 9% (n = 51) worked an average of 1 to 10 hours per week off campus.



43

Fifty-four percent (n = 529) of Student respondents experienced financial hardship while

attending a Kent State University - Regional Campus. Of these Student respondents, 56% (n =

294) had difficulty purchasing books, 48% (n = 256) had difficulty affording tuition, 47% (n =

250) had difficulty affording educational materials (e.g., computer, lab equipment, software), and

41% (n = 216) had difficulty affording food (Table 12). “Other” responses included “affording

all basic necessities,” “bills,” “at times affording gas, electric, groceries, home costs,” “furnace

died, roof leaking,” “gas and car insurance,” “general living expenses,” “health issues,” “I have

like no money,” “job loss,” “just poor,” “just paying basic bills that are due every month,” “my

primary guardian lost job,” “transportation fees,” and “pet care.”

Table 12. Experienced Financial Hardship

Experience

n

%

Difficulty purchasing my books 294 55.6

Difficulty affording tuition 256 48.4

Difficulty affording educational materials

(e.g., computer, lab equipment, software) 250 47.3

Difficulty affording food 216 40.8

Difficulty affording housing 192 36.3

Difficulty affording health care 150 28.4

Difficulty commuting to campus 145 27.4

Difficulty affording other campus fees 127 24.0

Difficulty participating in social events 79 14.9

Difficulty participating in co-curricular events or activities (e.g., alternative spring breaks, class trips) 55 10.4

Difficulty affording childcare 47 8.9

Difficulty affording professional association

fees/conferences 26 4.9

Difficulty affording study abroad 25 4.7

Difficulty traveling home during Kent State breaks 15 2.8

A financial hardship not listed above 60 11.3

Note: Table includes only Student respondents who experienced financial hardship (n = 529).



44

Sixty-one percent (n = 598) of Student respondents depended on loans to pay for their education

at a Kent State University - Regional Campus (Table 13). Further analyses revealed 70% (n =

254) of Low-Income44 Student respondents and 56% (n = 337) of Not-Low-Income Student

respondents relied on loans to help pay for college. Additionally, 64% (n = 377) of First-

Generation Student respondents and 56% (n = 220) of Not-First-Generation Student respondents

depended on loans.

Forty-two percent (n = 413) of Student respondents used grants and need-based scholarships

(e.g., Pell) to pay for college. Subsequent analyses revealed that 62% (n = 224) of Low-Income

Student respondents and 31% (n = 184) of Not-Low-Income Student respondents used grants and

need-based scholarships to pay for college. Forty-nine percent (n = 288) of First-Generation

Student respondents and 32% (n = 125) of Not-First-Generation Student respondents had used

grants and need-based scholarships to pay for college.

Table 13. How Student Respondents Were Paying for College

Source of funding

n

%

Loans 598 60.6

Grants/need based scholarships (Pell, etc.) 413 41.8

Job/personal contribution 242 24.5

Family contribution 151 15.3

Credit card 83 8.4

Merit based scholarship (e.g., athletic, honors, music,

Trustees) 82 8.3

Agency/Employer reimbursement (non-KSU) 34 3.4

Work Study 31 3.1

KSU Tuition waiver 26 2.6

GI Bill 18 1.8

44For several analyses in this report, the variables of “Low-Income” and “Not-Low-Income” are used. With the

CSSC’s approval, Low-Income respondents are respondents with incomes below $29,999 Not-Low-Income

respondents are respondents with incomes of $30,000 or greater. According to the U.S. Department of Education, a

low-income student, who is TRIO eligible, has an annual household income for a family of three of $30,240 per

year.



45

Table 13 (cont.)

Source of funding n %

International government scholarship 5 0.5

Graduate assistantship/fellowship < 5 ---

Resident assistant < 5 ---

A method of payment not listed here 86 8.7

Note: Table includes only Student respondents (n = 987).

Forty-four percent (n = 439) of Student respondents were the sole providers of their living and

educational expenses (i.e., they were financially independent). Subsequent analyses indicated

that 73% (n = 258) of Low-Income Student respondents, 30% (n = 176) of Not-Low-Income

Student respondents, 52% (n = 302) of First-Generation Student respondents, and 36% (n = 137)

of Not-First-Generation Student respondents were financially independent. Fifty-three percent (n

= 525) of Student respondents had families who were assisting with their living/educational

expenses (i.e., students were financially dependent).

Thirty-seven percent (n = 362) of Student respondents reported that they or their families had

annual incomes of less than $30,000. Twenty percent (n = 197) reported annual incomes between

$30,000 and $49,999; 15% (n = 144) between $50,000 and $69,999; 14% (n = 141) between

$70,000 and $99,999; 8% (n = 81) between $100,000 and $149,999; 2% (n = 19) between

$150,000 and $199,999; 1% (n = 13) between $200,000 and $249,999; and 1% (n = 7) between

$250,000 and $499,999 (Figure 9).45 Information is provided for those Student respondents who

indicated that they were financially independent (i.e., students were the sole providers of their

living and educational expenses) and those Student respondents who were financially dependent

on others.

45Refer to Table B26 in Appendix B for the combined Student data.



46

19

59

21

19

20

9

22

7

12

4

32

10

Dependent

Independent

Below $30K

$30K - $49,999

$50K-$69,999

$70K-$99,999

$100K-$149,999

$150K - $199,999

$200K-$249,999

$250K-$499,999

$500K or more


Figure 9. Student Respondents’ Income by Dependency Status (Dependent, Independent) (%)



47

Of the Students completing the survey, 99% (n = 972) lived in non-campus housing, < 1% (n <

5) lived in campus housing, and 1% (n = 8) were transient or housing insecure (Table 14).

Table 14. Student Respondents’ Residence

Residence

n

%

Campus housing < 5 ---

Clark Hall < 5 ---

Non-campus housing 972 98.5

Living with family member/guardian 462 59.6

Independently in an apartment/house 312 40.3

Fraternity/Sorority housing < 5 ---

Transient housing (e.g., couch surfing,

sleeping in car, shelter) 8 0.8

Missing 5 0.5

Note: Table reports only Student responses (n = 987).



48

Seventy-three percent (n = 719) of Student respondents did not participate in any student clubs or

organizations at a Kent State University - Regional Campus (Table 15). Of those respondents

who did participate in a student club or organization 9% (n = 85) were involved in an honorary,

academic, professional, or educational organization; 2% (n = 19) were involved with a sports or

recreation organization; and another 2% (n = 16) were involved with student government.

Table 15. Student Respondents’ Participation in Clubs/Organizations at a Kent State University

- Regional Campus

Club/organization

n

%

I do not participate in any clubs/organizations 719 72.8

Honorary/Academic/Professional/Educational (e.g., American

Association of Airport Executives, Financial Management Association, Rotaract, Ceramics Club, Chi Sigma Iota, May 4th

Task Force, etc.) 85 8.6

Sports & Recreation (e.g., Club Sports, Golden Reflections,

Kayak Club, CHAARG, etc.) 19 1.9

Student Government (e.g., Undergraduate Student Government,

Kent Interhall Council, Graduate Student Association, etc.) 16 1.6

Religious (e.g., Muslim Student Association, United Christian

Ministries, Hillel, Chinese and American Friends East –CAFÉ) 13 1.3

Special Interest (e.g., Magical Arts Society, Kent State Pokemon

League, Legacy Dance Team, PRIDE! Kent, Silver Eagles Drill

Team) 8 0.8

Performing Arts (e.g., Graduate Student Theatre Forum, participation in theatrical and musical productions) 6 0.6

Cultural/International (e.g., Native American Student Association,

Chinese Culture Club, Cultural Diversity Association, Kent

African Student Association, Nepalese Student Association,

Russian Club, Students for Justice in Palestine, etc.) 6 0.6

Political (e.g., Black United Students, Model United Nations,

College Republicans, Political Science Club) 5 0.5

Service (e.g., UNICEF KSU, Relay for Life Committee, Circle K

International, Students Against Sexual Assault) 5 0.5

Greek (e.g., fraternity & sorority) < 5 ---

Media (e.g., Uhuru Magazine, Daily Kent Stater, The Burr, Black Squirrel Radio, National Association of Black Journalists, etc.) < 5 ---



49


Intercollegiate Athletics < 5 ---

A type of club/organization not listed here 114 11.6

Note: Table includes only Student responses (n = 987). Percentages may not sum to 100% as a result of multiple responses.



50

Table 16 indicates that most Student respondents earned passing grades, with more than two-

thirds of all Student respondents (69%, n = 677) indicating that they had earned a 3.00 GPA or

higher.

Table 16. Student Respondents’ Cumulative G.P.A. at the End of Last Semester

G.P.A.

n

%

3.50 - 4.00 369 37.4

3.00 – 3.49 308 31.2

2.50 – 2.99 184 18.9

2.00 – 2.49 75 7.6

1.50 – 1.99 27 2.7

1.00 – 1.49 7 0.7

0.00 – 0.99 5 0.5

Missing 12 1.2

Note: Table includes only Student responses (n = 987).



51

Campus Climate Assessment Findings46

The following section reviews the major findings of this study.47 The review explores the climate

at Kent State University - Regional Campuses through an examination of respondents’ personal

experiences, their general perceptions of campus climate, and their perceptions of institutional

actions regarding climate on campus, including administrative policies and academic initiatives.

Each of these issues was examined in relation to the relevant identity and status of the

respondents.

Comfort With the Climate at Kent State University - Regional Campuses

The survey posed questions regarding respondents’ level of comfort with the climate at Kent

State University - Regional Campuses. Table 17 illustrates that 79% (n = 1,254) of the survey

respondents were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the overall climate at a Kent State

University - Regional Campus. Seventy-three percent (n = 440) of Faculty and Staff respondents

were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the climate in their departments/work units.

Eighty-six percent (n = 1,123) of Student and Faculty respondents were “comfortable” or “very

comfortable” with the climate in their classes.

Table 17. Respondents’ Comfort With the Climate at a Kent State University - Regional Campus

Comfort with overall

climate

Comfort with climate

in department/

work unit*

Comfort with

climate in class**

Level of comfort n % n % n %

Very comfortable 549 34.7 217 36.2 526 40.2

Comfortable 705 44.4 223 37.2 597 45.6

Neither comfortable

nor uncomfortable 207 13.1 83 13.8 135 10.3

Uncomfortable 97 6.1 55 9.2 46 3.5

Very uncomfortable 26 1.6 22 3.7 6 0.5

*Only Faculty and Staff respondents (n = 600).

**Only Faculty and Student respondents (n = 1,321).

46Frequency tables for all survey items are provided in Appendix B. Several pertinent tables and graphs are included

in the body of the narrative to illustrate salient points. 47The percentages presented in this section of the report are valid percentages (i.e., percentages are derived from the

total number of respondents who answered an individual item).



52

Figure 10 illustrates that Student respondents (39%, n = 385) were significantly more

comfortable (“very comfortable”) with the overall climate at a Kent State University - Regional

Campus than were Faculty respondents (29%, n = 97) and Staff respondents (25%, n = 67).i

39

29

25

46

40

44

11

14

20

3

12

9

1

4

2

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

Students (n = 986)

Faculty (n = 332)

Staff (n = 266)

Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable


Figure 10. Respondents’ Comfort With Overall Climate by Position Status (%)



53

Figure 11 illustrates that similar percentages of Staff respondents (37%, n = 97) and Faculty

(36%, n = 120) were “very comfortable” with the climate in their departments/work units at a

Kent State University - Regional Campus. No significant differences emerged between

Unclassified Staff respondents’ (41%, n = 55) and Classified Staff respondents’ (32%, n = 42)

level of comfort with the climate in their departments/work units or between Non-Tenure-Track

Faculty respondents’ (30%, n = 31) and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents’ (26%, n = 27) level

of comfort with the climate in their departments/work units.

36

37

39

35

13

15

8

11

4

3

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

Faculty (n = 334)

Staff (n = 266)


Figure 11. Faculty and Staff Respondents’ Comfort With Climate in Department/Work Unit by

Position Status (%)

When analyzed by position status, no significant differences emerged with respect to level of

comfort with classroom climate. Though dissimilar, a statistically insignificant difference existed

in the percentage of Faculty respondents (49%, n = 160) who were “very comfortable” with the

classroom climate compared with that of Student respondents (37%, n = 366).



54

Several analyses were conducted to determine whether respondents’ level of comfort with the

overall climate, the climate in their departments/work units, or the climate in their classes

differed based on various demographic characteristics.

By gender identity,48 79% (n = 363) of Men respondents and 80% (n = 869) of Women

respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the overall climate at a Kent State

University - Regional Campus (Figure 12); these differences were not significant.

35

36

45

43

12

15

6

5

2

1

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

Women (n = 1,087)

Men (n = 461)



Figure 12. Respondents’ Comfort With Overall Climate by Gender Identity (%)

48Per the CSSC, gender identity was recoded into the categories Man (n = 463), Woman (n = 1,088), and

Transspectrum (n = 21), where Transspectrum respondents included those individuals who marked “transgender” or

‘genderqueer” only. Other/Multiple Gender Identity included those respondents who marked more than one

response for the question, “What is your gender/gender identity (mark all that apply)?” For all analyses,

Transspectrum respondents were not included to maintain the confidentiality of their responses.



55

No significant differences existed between Men and Women employee respondents regarding

their level of comfort with the climate in their departments/work units (Figure 13). Forty-two

percent (n = 79) of Men Faculty and Staff respondents and 35% (n = 137) of Women Faculty and

Staff respondents were “very comfortable” with the climate in their departments/work units.

35

42

37

37

15

11

10

7

4

3

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

Women (n = 395)

Men (n = 190)


Figure 13. Faculty and Staff Respondents’ Comfort With Climate in Department/Work Unit by

Gender Identity (%)



56

Additionally, no significant differences emerged by gender for overall comfort within

classrooms. Forty-three percent (n = 167) of Men Faculty and Student respondents and 40% (n =

353) of Women Faculty and Student respondents felt “very comfortable” in their classes

(Figure 14).

40

43

46

44

10

10

4

3

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

Women (n = 887)

Men (n = 391)


Figure 14. Faculty and Student Respondents’ Comfort With Climate in Classes

by Gender Identity (%)



57

By racial identity, though no significant differences emerged, People of Color respondents (79%,

n = 86) were less likely to be “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the overall climate at a

Kent State University - Regional Campus than White respondents (80%, n = 1,089) 49 and

Multiracial respondents (82%, n = 62) (Figure 15).

35

36

30

44

45

51

16

12

12

5

6 2

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

People of Color (n = 109)

White (n = 1,356)

Multiracial (n = 76)


Figure 15. Respondents’ Comfort With Overall Climate by Racial Identity (%)

49In several places throughout the report narrative, the figure may not depict the exact total noted in the narrative as

a result of rounding the numbers in the figure to the nearest whole number. For instance, according to the analyses, 35.6% of White respondents were “very comfortable” and 44.7% were “comfortable” with the overall climate at a

Kent State – Regional Campus. In the figure, those numbers were rounded to 36% and 45%, respectively. 35.6% +

44.7% = 80.36%, which was rounded to 80% of White respondents who were “very comfortable” or “comfortable”

with the climate in their department/work units. Figure 15, however, rounds the numbers to 36% and 45%, which

totals 81%.



58

Lower percentages of People of Color Faculty and Staff respondents (74%, n = 23) and White

Faculty and Staff respondents (75%, n = 388) were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the

climate in their departments/work units compared with Multiracial Faculty and Staff respondents

(86%, n = 18) (Figure 16); these differences were also not significant.

26

37

62

48

38

24

16

13

7

9 3

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


White (n = 518)




Figure 16. Faculty and Staff Respondents’ Comfort With Climate

in Department/Work Unit by Racial Identity (%)



59

Figure 17 illustrates that 87% (n = 970) of White Faculty and Student respondents, 84% (n = 81)

of People of Color Faculty and Student respondents, and 76% (n = 51) of Multiracial Faculty and

Student respondents indicated that they “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in

their classes; these differences were not significant.

38

41

33

45

46

43

13

9

19

3

3 1

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


White (n = 1,116)




Figure 17. Faculty and Student Respondents’ Comfort With Climate in Classes

by Racial Identity (%)



60

No significant differences occurred in respondents’ level of comfort with the overall climate

based on sexual identity (Figure 18). LGBQ respondents (77%, n = 91) and Asexual/Other

respondents (78%, n = 82) were less likely to be “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the

overall climate than were Heterosexual respondents (80%, n = 1,049).

36

35

29

42

45

47

14

13

13

6

6

9

2

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

Asexual/Other (n = 105)

Heterosexual (n = 1,305)

LGBQ (n = 119)


Figure 18. Respondents’ Comfort With Overall Climate by Sexual Identity (%)



61

No significant differences in Faculty and Staff respondents’ level of comfort with the climate in

their department/work unit occurred based on sexual identity.50 Additionally, no significant

differences occurred based on Faculty and Student respondents’ level of comfort with their

classroom climate. However, Heterosexual Faculty and Student respondents (87%, n = 924) were

more comfortable (“very comfortable” or “comfortable”) with the climate in their courses than

were LGBQ Faculty and Student respondents (81%, n = 91) and Asexual/Other Faculty and

Student respondents (81%, n = 75) (Figure 19).

43

41

30

38

46

50

12

10

15

5

3

4

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

Asexual/Other (n = 93)

Heterosexual (n = 1,062)

LGBQ (n = 113)



Figure 19. Faculty and Student Respondents’ Comfort With Climate in Their Classes by Sexual Identity (%)

50A figure was not presented because LGBQ Faculty and Staff numbers are too few (n = 22) to ensure

confidentiality.



62

Additional analyses were run to identify significant differences based on religious/spiritual

affiliation. No significant differences occurred in respondents’ level of comfort with the overall

climate occurred based on religious/spiritual affiliation (Figure 20). Respondents from Christian

Affiliations (81%, n = 801) were more likely to be “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the

overall climate than were respondents with No Affiliation (78%, n = 363), respondents with

Multiple Affiliations (73%, n = 41), and respondents from Other Religious/Spiritual Affiliations

(64%, n = 28). No significant differences in responses emerged with respect to Faculty and Staff

respondents’ level of comfort with the climate in their department/program/work unit or in

Faculty and Student respondents’ level of comfort with the classroom climate based on

religious/spiritual affiliation.

35

32

35

38

47

32

43

36

12

13

14

14

5

7

11

2

1

2

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

Christian Affiliation (n = 987)

Other Religious/Spiritual Affiliation (n = 44)

No Affiliation (n = 466)

Multiple Affiliations (n = 56)



Figure 20. Respondents’ Comfort With Overall Climate by Religious/Spiritual Affiliation (%)



63

When analyzed by military status,51 the survey data revealed no significant differences. Thirty-

six percent (n = 522) of Non-Military Service respondents and 26% (n = 22) of Military Service

respondents were “very comfortable” with the overall climate at a Kent State – Regional Campus

(Figure 21). The data revealed no significant differences in the perceptions of Military Service

Faculty and Staff respondents and Non-Military Faculty and Staff respondents regarding their

level of comfort with the climate in their departments/work units, nor in Military Service Student

and Faculty respondents and Non-Military Student and Faculty respondents regarding their level

of comfort with the climate in their classes.

35

26

44

47

13

17

6

8

2

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

Non-Military Service (n = 1,482)

Military Service (n = 84)


Figure 21. Respondents’ Comfort With Overall Climate by Military Status (%)

51Per the CSSC, this report uses the categories “Military Service” to represent respondents who indicated that they

were active duty military, reservists/National Guard, ROTC, or veterans and “Non-Military Service” for respondents

who have never served in the military.



64

Additionally, no significant differences occurred based on disability status. However,

respondents with Multiple Disabilities (24%, n = 15) were less likely to indicate they were “very

comfortable” with the overall climate at a Kent State – Regional Campus than were Single

Disability respondents (33%, n = 47) and No Disability respondents (36%, n = 484) (Figure 22).

No significant differences in responses emerged with respect to Faculty and Staff respondents’

level of comfort with the climate in their department/work unit or in Faculty and Student

respondents’ level of comfort with the classroom climate based on disability status.

33

36

24

43

44

49

16

13

18

7

6 2

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

Single Disability (n = 142)

No Disability (n = 1,363)

Multiple Disabilities (n = 63)


Figure 22. Respondents’ Comfort With Overall Climate by Disability Status (%)



65

In terms of Student respondents’ income status, no significant differences emerged with regard to

Student respondents’ comfort with the overall climate. Although both groups were tremendously

comfortable with the climate in their classes, Low-Income Student respondents (81%, n = 293)

were significantly less comfortable (“very comfortable” or “comfortable”) with the climate in

their classes than were Not-Low-Income Student (86%, n = 521) (Figure 23).ii

39

35

42

51

15

9

4

4 1

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

Low-Income (n = 361)

Not-Low-Income (n = 603)


Figure 23. Student Respondents’ Comfort With Climate in Their Classes

by Socioeconomic Status (%)



66

By first-generation status, no significant differences emerged based on overall climate. Eighty-

five percent (n = 333) of Not-First-Generation Student respondents and 85% (n = 504) of First-

Generation Student respondents were comfortable with the overall climate at a Kent State –

Regional Campus (Figure 24). No significant differences for classroom climate emerged based

on first-generation status.

41

36

44

50

11

11

3

3

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

First-Generation (n = 593)

Not-First-Generation (n = 390)


Figure 24. Student Respondents’ Comfort With Overall Climate

by First-Generation Status (%)

iA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents by degree of comfort with the overall

climate by position status: 2 (8, N = 1,584) = 86.3, p < .001. iiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents by degree of comfort with the

climate in their classes by income status: 2 (4, N = 964) = 15.2, p < .01.



67

Barriers at Kent State University - Regional Campuses for Respondents With Disabilities

One survey item asked respondents with disabilities if they had experienced barriers in facilities,

technology and the online environment, and educational materials at a Kent State University -

Regional Campus within the past year. Tables 18 through 20 highlight the top 10 responses

where respondents with one or more disabilities experienced barriers at a Kent State University -

Regional Campus.52 With regard to a Kent State University - Regional Campus’ facilities, 14%

(n = 29) of respondents with disabilities experienced temporary barriers as a result of on-campus

transportation/parking and 9% (n = 18) experienced barriers with walkways, pedestrian paths,

and crosswalks within the past year.

Table 18. Facilities Barriers Experienced by Respondents With Disabilities

Yes No Not applicable

Facilities n % n % n %

On-campus transportation/parking 29 14.2 137 67.2 38 18.6

Walkways, pedestrian paths,

crosswalks 18 9.0 161 80.1 22 10.9

Classrooms, labs 17 8.3 156 76.5 31 15.2

Dining facilities 15 7.4 121 59.6 67 33.0

Restrooms 15 7.5 166 82.6 20 10.0

Computer labs 14 6.9 155 76.4 34 16.7

Classroom buildings 13 6.3 172 83.9 20 9.8

Elevators/Lifts 13 6.3 150 73.2 42 20.5

Library 13 6.4 166 82.2 23 11.4

Emergency preparedness 12 5.8 148 71.8 46 22.3

Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they had a disability (n = 210).

Table 19 illustrates that, in terms of the technological or online environment, 15% (n = 31) of

respondents with one or more disabilities had difficulty with ALEKS, 12% (n = 25) experienced

a barrier with Blackboard, and 11% (n = 22) experienced barriers with regard to a website.

52See Appendix B, Table B79 for all responses to the question, “Within the past year, have you experienced a barrier

in any of the following areas at Kent State?”



68

Table 19. Barriers in Technology/Online Environment Experienced by Respondents With Disabilities


Technology/online environment n % n % n %

ALEKS 31 15.4 100 49.8 70 34.8

Blackboard 25 12.4 151 75.1 25 12.4

Website 22 11.2 150 76.5 24 12.2

Accessible electronic format 17 8.6 147 74.6 33 16.8

E-curriculum (curriculum software) 14 7.0 123 61.5 63 31.5

Library database 14 7.1 153 77.3 31 15.7

ATM machines 12 6.0 132 66.3 55 27.6

Electronic forms 9 4.5 148 74.0 43 21.5

Electronic surveys (including this one) 9 4.5 167 83.1 25 12.4

Clickers 8 4.0 95 47.5 97 48.5


The survey also queried respondents with one or more disabilities about whether they

experienced barriers with regard to instructional or campus materials (Table 20). Twelve percent

(n = 24) of respondents with one or more disabilities had difficulty with textbooks and 11% (n =

22) experienced barriers with exams or quizzes.

Table 20. Barriers With Instructional Campus Materials Experienced by Respondents With Disabilities


Instructional/Campus

Materials n % n % n %

Textbooks 24 12.1 148 74.7 26 13.1

Exams/quizzes 22 11.2 151 76.6 24 12.2

Journal articles 16 8.0 151 75.5 33 16.5

Brochures 11 5.5 155 77.1 35 17.4

Food menus 11 5.6 120 60.9 66 33.5

Forms 11 5.6 161 81.3 26 13.1

Library books 11 5.6 160 80.8 27 13.6

Video-closed captioning and

text description 8 4.0 127 63.8 64 32.2

Events/Exhibits/Movies 7 3.5 141 70.9 51 25.6

Signage 6 3.0 156 78.4 37 18.6




69

Dissatisfaction with academic technology systems - Fifty-five respondents provided their insights

on accessibility at Kent State’s regional campuses. Most of the respondents who elaborated on

accessibility described challenges and dissatisfaction with the technology systems they interface

with at their regional campus. Regarding the University’s website itself, one respondent

explained, “The website is a total disaster and does not work for faculty, staff, administration, or

our students. Why would any new students come to KSU when the website doesn't even work?

This is a clear barrier for all.” In agreement, another respondent shared, “I believe the KSU

website is extremely difficult to navigate unless you know the exact URL. I have spent hours

looking for a policy, etc.” In addition to the website, others addressed the use of technology

within the classroom. One respondent noted, “Faculty could use more training with the

classroom technology.” Several respondents specifically noted the ALEKS system as a major

barrier, writing, “I think the Alex program is completely ridiculous and should be done away

with. When the correct answer is entered and you are told it is incorrect this shows that the

program is faulty and not coded correctly.” Others wrote, “ALEKS is not a good replacement for

instruction,” “ALEKS has been the worst thing I have ever done,” and “ALEKS is horrible, math

should be taught in person.” From the overall website to specific learning systems, respondents

expressed experiencing the most issues with accessibility because of academic technology.



70

Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct53

Sixteen percent (n = 258) of respondents indicated that they personally had experienced

exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct (bullying,

harassing) that interfered with their ability to work or learn at a Kent State University - Regional

Campus within the past year.54 Table 21 reflects the perceived bases and frequency of

exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct. Of the respondents who

experienced such conduct, 29% (n = 75) indicated that the conduct was based on their position at

a Kent State University - Regional Campus. Twenty-one percent (n = 54) noted that the conduct

was based on their faculty status, another 21% (n = 53) felt that it was based on their age, and

15% each felt that it was based on their gender/gender identity (n = 38) or philosophical views (n

= 38).

Table 21. Bases of Experienced Conduct

Basis of conduct

n %

Position (staff, faculty, student) 75 29.1

Faculty status (tenure track, non-tenure track, adjunct) 54 20.9

Age 53 20.5

Gender/Gender identity 38 14.7

Philosophical views 38 14.7

Educational credentials (e.g., MS, PhD) 35 13.6

Academic performance 21 8.1

Religious/Spiritual views 21 8.1

Major field of study 19 7.4

Political views 18 7.0

Physical characteristics 17 6.6

Racial identity 14 5.4

Participation in an organization/team 13 5.0

53This report uses the phrase “exclusionary conduct” as a shortened version of conduct that someone has “personally

experienced” including “exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile (bullying,

harassing) conduct.” 54The literature on microaggressions is clear that this type of conduct has a negative influence on people who

experience the conduct, even if they feel at the time that it had no impact (Sue, 2010; Yosso et al., 2009).



71


Ethnicity 11 4.3

Parental status (e.g., having children) 11 4.3

Learning disability/condition 10 3.9

Gender expression 9 3.5

Mental health/Psychological

disability/condition 9 3.5

Sexual identity 9 3.5

Medical disability/condition 8 3.1

Socioeconomic status 8 3.1

Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered) 7 2.7

Physical disability/condition 6 2.3

Pregnancy < 5 ---

English language proficiency/accent < 5 ---

Immigrant/Citizen status < 5 ---

Military/Veteran status < 5 ---

International status < 5 ---

Living arrangement < 5 ---

Don’t know 40 15.5

A reason not listed above 70 27.1

Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 258). Percentages do not sum to 100% as a result of multiple responses.

The following figures depict the responses by selected characteristics (position status, faculty

status, age, and gender/gender identity) of individuals who responded “yes” to the question,

“Within the past year, have you personally experienced any exclusionary (e.g., shunned,

ignored), intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile (bullied, harassing) behavior at Kent State?”

In terms of position status, Faculty respondents (28%, n = 93) and Staff respondents (28%, n =

73) were significantly more likely than Student respondents (9%, n = 92) to indicate that they

had experienced this conduct (Figure 25).iii Of those respondents who noted that they had

experienced this conduct, 41% (n = 30) of Staff respondents, 33% (n = 31) of Faculty



72

respondents, and 15% (n = 14) of Student respondents thought that the conduct was based on

their position status.iv

9

28 28

15

33

41

Student Faculty Staff

Overall experienced conduct¹

Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, said they experiencedconduct as a result of position status²

(n = 92)¹

(n = 14)²

¹ 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 .

(n = 93)¹

(n = 31)²

(n = 73)¹

(n = 30)²

Figure 25. Respondents’ Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or

Hostile Conduct as a Result of Their Position Status (%)



73

By faculty status, a significantly higher percentage of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents

(39%, n = 40) and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (31%, n = 33) than Adjunct/Part-Time

Faculty respondents (11%, n = 10) indicated that they had experienced exclusionary,

intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct (Figure 26).v Sixty percent (n = 6) of

Adjunct/Part-Time Faculty respondents, 53% (n = 21) of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty

respondents, and 27% (n = 9) of Tenure-Track Faculty respondents indicated that they had

experienced exclusionary conduct indicated that the conduct was based on their faculty status;

these differences were not significant.

31

39

11

27

53

60

Tenure-Track Non-Tenure-Track Adjunct/Part-Time


Of those who experienced exclusionaryconduct, said they experienced conduct asa result of their faculty status²

(n = 40)¹

(n = 21)²

¹ 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 .

(n = 33)¹

(n = 9)²

(n = 10)¹

(n = 6)²


Hostile Conduct as a Result of Their Faculty Status (%)



74

As depicted in Figure 27, significantly higher percentages of respondents ages 49 through 65

years (27%, n = 95) and ages 35 through 48 years (20%, n = 63) indicated that they had

experienced exclusionary conduct than did other respondents.vi However, a higher percentage of

respondents ages 23 through 34 years (29%, n = 17) than other age groups felt that the conduct

was based on their age.

6

16

20

27

24

29

16 16

22 and under 23-34 35-48 49-65 66+


Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, said they experiencedconduct as a result of their age²

(n < 5)¹

(n < 5 )²

(n = 58)¹

(n = 17)²

¹ 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.

(n = 63)¹

(n = 10)²

(n = 29)¹

(n = 7)²

(n = 95)¹

(n = 15)²


Hostile Conduct as a Result of Their Age (%)



75

By gender/gender identity, a higher percentage of Women respondents (17%, n = 183) than Men

respondents (14%, n = 64) indicated that they had experienced exclusionary, intimidating,

offensive, and/or hostile conduct; these differences were not significant (Figure 28). A

significantly greater percentage of Women respondents (18%, n = 33) than Men respondents

(5%, n < 5) who indicated that they had experienced exclusionary conduct indicated that the

conduct was based on their gender identity.vii

14

17

5

18

Men Women


Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, said they experienced conduct as aresult of their gender identity²

(n = 64)¹

(n < 5)²

¹ 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 .

(n = 183)¹

(n = 33)²


Hostile Conduct as a Result of Their Gender Identity (%)



76

Table 22 illustrates the manners in which respondents experienced exclusionary conduct. Sixty-

five percent (n = 167) indicated that they felt disrespected, 41% (n = 106) indicated they were

intimidated or bullied, 36% (n = 93) indicated they felt ignored or excluded, and 28% (n = 73)

indicated they felt isolated or left out.

Table 22. Forms of Experienced Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile

Conduct (What Happened)

Form of conduct

n

% of those

who

experienced

the conduct

I was disrespected. 167 64.7

I was intimidated/bullied. 106 41.1

I was ignored or excluded. 93 36.0

I was isolated or left out. 73 28.3

I was the target of workplace incivility. 62 24.0

I was the target of derogatory verbal remarks. 58 22.5

I was the target of retaliation. 28 10.9

I feared getting a poor grade because of a hostile classroom environment. 25 9.7

I observed others staring at me. 24 9.3

I received derogatory phone calls/text messages/email. 24 9.3

I was singled out as the spokesperson for my identity group. 20 7.8

I received a low performance evaluation. 19 7.4

I received derogatory written comments. 18 7.0

I was the target of stalking. 11 4.3

I feared for my physical safety. 11 4.3

I was the target of racial/ethnic profiling. 8 3.1

Someone implied I was admitted/hired/promoted due to my identity group. 7 2.7

Someone implied I was not admitted/hired/promoted due to my identity group. 6 2.3

I was the target of unwanted sexual contact. 5 1.9

I was the target of graffiti/vandalism. 5 1.9



77


I received derogatory/unsolicited messages through social media. < 5 ---

I feared for my family’s safety. < 5 ---

I received threats of physical violence. < 5 ---

I was the target of physical violence. < 5 ---

An experience not listed above 48 18.6


Thirty-three percent (n = 84) of respondents who indicated that they experienced exclusionary

conduct noted that it occurred while working at a Kent State job; 29% (n = 74) in a class, lab, or

clinical setting; 27% (n = 69) in a meeting with a group of people; and 23% (n = 60) in a public

space at Kent State (Table 23).

Table 23. Locations of Experienced Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

Location of conduct

n

% of respondents who

experienced conduct

While working at a Kent State job 84 32.6

In a class/lab/clinical setting 74 28.7

In a meeting with a group of people 69 26.7

In a public space at Kent State 60 23.3

In a Kent State administrative office 38 14.7

In a meeting with one other person 34 13.2

In a faculty office 26 10.1

At a Kent State event 13 5.0

Off campus 12 4.7

While walking on campus 12 4.7

In a Kent State dining facility 6 2.3

In an experiential learning environment (e.g., internships, service

learning, study abroad, student teaching) 5 1.9

In a Kent State library < 5 ---

On social networking sites/Facebook/Twitter/Yik-Yak < 5 ---



78


In a Kent State health care setting

(e.g., University Health Services, Psychological Services) < 5 ---

In athletic/recreational facilities < 5 ---

In on-campus housing < 5 ---

In off-campus housing < 5 ---

On Kent State media (e.g., Kent Stater, Kentwired.com, TV2) < 5 ---

On Kent State transportation (e.g., PARTA) < 5 ---

A location not listed above 21 8.1


Thirty-six percent (n = 94) of the respondents who indicated that they experienced exclusionary

conduct identified a faculty member; 24% (n = 61) identified students; 19% (n = 48) identified a

coworker; 15% (n = 38) identified a department chair, head, or director; and 14% (n = 36)

identified supervisors as the sources of the conduct (Table 24).

Table 24. Sources of Experienced Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

Source of conduct

n

% of respondents

who experienced

conduct

Faculty member 94 36.4

Student 61 23.6

Co-worker 48 18.6

Department chair/head/director 38 14.7

Supervisor 36 14.0

Senior administration (e.g., president, provost, dean, vice provost, vice

president) 34 13.2

Staff member 34 13.2

Stranger 7 2.7

Student employee 5 1.9

Academic adviser < 5 ---

Friend < 5 ---



79


Kent State Public Safety < 5 ---

Person whom I supervise < 5 ---

Social networking site (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Yik-Yak) < 5 ---

Off-campus community member < 5 ---

Teaching assistant/Graduate assistant/Lab assistant/Tutor < 5 ---

Donor < 5 ---

Health/Counseling services < 5 ---

Alumni 0 0.0

Athletic coach/trainer 0 0.0

Kent State media (e.g., Kent Stater, TV2, flyers, websites) 0 0.0

Don’t know source 9 3.5

A source not listed above 10 3.9




80

Figures 29 through 31 display the perceived source of experienced exclusionary conduct by

position status. Students were the greatest source of reported exclusionary conduct for Student

respondents (Figure 29).

5

3

1

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Student

Faculty

Staff

Stranger

Stu

dent

resp

onde

nts


Figure 29. Source of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

for Students (%)



81

Faculty respondents most often cited other faculty members as the source of the exclusionary

conduct (Figure 30).

58

30

21

15

50

28

28

15

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Faculty

Coworker

Sr Admin

Dept Chair/Head/Director

Faculty

Coworker


Sr Admin

Students

Sr Admin

Faculty


Te

nu

re-T

rack F

acu

lty

respo

nde

nts

No

n-T

en

ure

-Tra

ck

Fa

culty r

espo

nde

nts

Adju

nct/P

art

-T

ime F

aculty



by Faculty Status (%)



82

Classified and Unclassified Staff respondents identified faculty members, coworkers,

supervisors, and other staff as their greatest sources of exclusionary conduct (Figure 31).

52

36

19

19

29

21

21

19

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Supervisor

Coworker

Staff

Sr Admin

Faculty

Coworker

Staff

Supervisor

Cla

ssifie

d r

espo

nde

nts

Un

cla

ssifie

d r

es

po

nd

ents



by Staff Position Status (%)



83

In response to this conduct, 69% (n = 178) of respondents felt uncomfortable, 57% (n = 146) felt

angry, 41% (n = 105) felt embarrassed, and 19% (n = 48) ignored it (Table 25).

Table 25. Respondents’ Emotional Responses to Experienced Exclusionary,

Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

Emotional response to conduct

n


experienced conduct

I felt uncomfortable 178 69.0

I was angry 146 56.6

I felt embarrassed 105 40.7

I ignored it 48 18.6

I felt somehow responsible 37 14.3

I was afraid 35 13.6


In response to experiencing the conduct, 38% (n = 97) of respondents indicated that they told a

family member, 34% (n = 87) told a friend, and 33% (n = 85) avoided the harasser (Table 26).

Of the 65 respondents (25%) who sought support from an on-campus resource, 24 respondents

(37%) sought support from a faculty member, 20 respondents (31%) sought support from a

senior administrator, and 19 respondents (29%) sought support from a staff person. Of note, 29

respondents (11%) did not know to whom to go.



84

Table 26. Respondents’ Actions in Response to Experienced Exclusionary,

Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

Actions in response to conduct

n

% of

respondents

who

experienced

conduct

I told a family member 97 37.6

I told a friend 87 33.7

I avoided the harasser 85 32.9

I reported it to or sought support from an on-campus resource 65 25.2



president) 20 30.8

Staff person 19 29.2

Center for Adult and Veteran Services 7 10.8

My supervisor 6 9.2

Student Conduct < 5 ---

LGBTQ Student Center < 5 ---

Teaching assistant/graduate assistant < 5 ---

Dean of Students or Student Ombuds < 5 ---

Employee Relations < 5 ---

The Office of Global Education < 5 ---

Campus security < 5 ---

Kent State Public Safety/KSUPD < 5 ---

Office of Equal Opportunity & Affirmative Action (or a facilitator) < 5 ---

Coach or athletic trainer 0 0.0

Title IX Coordinator 0 0.0

The Office of Sexual and Relationship Violence Support Services (SRVSS) 0 0.0

On-campus counseling service 0 0.0

Student staff (e.g., residence hall staff, peer mentor) 0 0.0

My academic advisor 0 0.0

Student Accessibility Services 0 0.0

My union representative 0 0.0

Other 0 0.0

I didn’t report it for fear that my complaint would not be taken seriously 57 22.1

I did report it, but I did not feel the complaint was taken seriously 30 11.6

I didn’t know whom to go to 29 11.2

I confronted the harasser at the time 28 10.9



85


I confronted the harasser later 16 6.2

I sought information online 7 2.7

I reported it to or sought support from an off-campus resource < 5 ---

Off-campus counseling service < 5 ---

Local law enforcement (other than KSUPD) < 5 ---

A spiritual adviser (e.g., imam, pastor, rabbi, priest, layperson) < 5 ---

Hotline/advocacy services 0 0.0

I filed a complaint with an external agency (e.g., Ohio Civil Rights

Commission, EEOC, U.S. Department of Education) 0 0.0

A response not listed above 18 7.0


Public Bullying – One hundred thirty-eight respondents elaborated on their personal experiences

with exclusionary conduct at a Kent State – Regional Campus. The most salient theme that

emerged indicated that respondents felt they were subject to public displays of bullying. A

Student respondent offered an example from their classroom, writing that the professor “made

me feel like a fool in front of the class. When [the professor] was proven wrong [all] you get

[are] snide remarks.” Another Student respondent noted, “I often share my experiences with the

class as I feel they would be beneficial to the lecture. More often than not, I am stared at and

whispered about from two other students. I feel very awkward in the class but that does not deter

me from participating.” Yet another Student respondent wrote, “Small snide comments made

audible to my ears but low enough to not be heard by faculty. Usually following an aha moment

from answering openly in class.” Employee respondents also offered examples of public

bullying. One Staff respondent shared, “I received insulting emails from…faculty that appeared

to question my professionalism and ability to perform my job. The comments made about me

were untrue and other faculty/staff were copied on the message.” A Faculty respondent offered,

“There have been several humiliating comments made about me in private meetings and in

public forums. [The individual] would go into meetings and make false accusations claiming I

did things that I in fact did not do; so as to discredit me.” Several more respondents shared

examples of instances when they were publicly bullied as well.



86

Hostility and Intimidation – The second most salient theme was related to hostility and

intimidation. Several Faculty respondents referred to their campuses as “hostile.” One of them

wrote, “Our deans have made Geauga/Twinsburg a hostile place.” This faculty member

continued, noting that they were told to “get on board” or else. Staff respondents also shared that

they have experienced direct hostility. One Staff respondent reported having been “stood over

and yelled at.” Another Staff respondent offered, “On two separate occasions during my

employment, two different faculty/program directors tried to 'strong arm' me into shouldering

responsibilities that should be housed in their faculty.” These experiences were not unique to

employee respondents. A Student respondent offered, “For fear of further unprofessional

retaliation, I said nothing...as speaking up is taught as a class principle and life value...but

frowned upon and not appreciated by department head.” Another Student respondent wrote, “A

faculty member made derogatory comments toward me during a group meeting with other

students…has shouted at me in front of the class…[and] shamed an unknown person…I have not

reported it yet because I fear that this faculty member will interfere with my grades and

graduation status.” The narratives from several respondents suggest that the hostility they often

experience is met with a fear of speaking up, owing to the level of intimidation from the

aggressor. As several respondents wrote, “reporting bad behavior[s] do not happen out of fear of

retaliation.”

iiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated that they experienced

exclusionary conduct by position status: 2 (2, N = 1,584) = 93.2, p < .001. ivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated that they experienced

exclusionary conduct by position status based on their position status: 2 (2, N = 258) = 14.5, p < .01. vA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Faculty respondents who indicated that they

experienced exclusionary conduct by faculty status: 2 (2, N = 298) = 18.7, p < .001. viA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated that they experienced

exclusionary conduct by age: 2 (4, N = 1,558) = 71.2, p < .001. viiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated that they experienced

exclusionary conduct by gender identity based on their gender identity: 2 (1, N = 247) = 6.8, p < .01.



87

Observations of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

Respondents’ observations of others’ experiencing exclusionary conduct also may contribute to

their perceptions of campus climate. Sixteen percent (n = 262) of survey respondents observed

conduct or communications directed toward a person or group of people at Kent State that they

believed created an exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile

working or learning environment55 within the past year. Most of the observed exclusionary

conduct was based on position status (21%, n = 56), faculty status (18%, n = 46), gender/gender

identity (14%, n = 36), and ethnicity (10%, n = 26). Seventeen percent (n = 44) of respondents

indicated that they did not know the basis of the observed conduct (Table 27).

Table 27. Bases of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile

Conduct

Characteristic

n

% of respondents

who observed

conduct


Faculty Status (Tenure Track, Non-Tenure Track,

Adjunct) 46 17.6



Ethnicity 26 9.9

Educational credentials (M.S., Ph.D., etc.) 25 9.5



Age 21 8.0









55This report uses the phrase “exclusionary conduct” as a shortened version of “conduct or communications directed

toward a person or group of people at Kent State that they believed created an exclusionary, intimidating, offensive,

and/or hostile working or learning environment.”



88




English language proficiency/accent 7 2.7


Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered) < 5 ---

Mental health/Psychological disability/condition < 5 ---

Major field of study < 5 ---

Medical disability/condition < 5 ---

Military/Veteran status < 5 ---

Living arrangement < 5 ---

Pregnancy < 5 ---

Immigrant/Citizen status < 5 ---

International status < 5 ---


Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they observed exclusionary conduct (n = 262). Percentages do not sum to 100% as a result of multiple responses.

Figures 32 and 33 separate by demographic categories (i.e., gender identity, racial identity,

sexual identity, religious/spiritual affiliation, disability status, position status, and students’

socioeconomic status) the significant responses of those individuals who indicated on the survey

that they observed exclusionary conduct within the past year. No significant differences were

identified in the percentages of respondents who noted that they had observed exclusionary

conduct within the past year by gender identity, military status, or Student respondent’s income

status.

Significantly greater percentages of Multiracial respondents (26%, n = 20) than White

respondents (17%, n = 225) and People of Color respondents (7%, n = 8) witnessed exclusionary

conduct (Figure 32).viii Additionally, a significantly higher percentage of LGBQ respondents

(33%, n = 39) indicated on the survey that they observed such conduct than did Heterosexual

respondents (16%, n = 202).ix



89

7

17

26

16

33

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


White (n = 225)


Heterosexual (n = 202)

LGBQ (n = 39)

Figure 32. Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct by

Respondents’ Sexual Identity, Racial Identity, and Gender Identity (%)



90

Higher percentages of respondents with Multiple Disabilities (37%, n = 23) than respondents

with a Single Disability (23%, n = 33) or respondents with No Disability (15%, n = 202)

indicated that they had observed such conduct (Figure 33).x In terms of religious/spiritual

affiliation, respondents with Multiple Affiliations (36%, n = 20) were more likely to indicate that

they had witnessed such conduct than were Other religious/spiritual Affiliation respondents

(24%, n = 11), respondents with No Affiliation (18%, n = 82), or respondents with Christian

Affiliations (15%, n = 144).xi

15

24

18

36

23

15

37

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Christian Affiliation (n = 144)

Other Religious/Spiritual Affiliation (n = 11)

No Affiliation (n = 82)

Multiple Affiliations (n = 20)

Disability (n = 33)

No Disability (n = 202)

Multiple Disabilities (n = 23)

Figure 33. Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

by Respondents’ Disability Status and Religious/Spiritual Affiliation (%)



91

In terms of position status at a Kent State University - Regional Campus, results indicated that a

higher percentage of Faculty respondents (30%, n = 99) indicated that they had observed

exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct than did Staff respondents (25%, n

= 66) and Student respondents (10%, n = 97) (Figure 34).xii

10

25

30

Students (n = 97)

Staff (n = 66)

Faculty (n = 99)

Figure 34. Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

by Respondents’ Position Status (%)

Table 28 illustrates that respondents most often observed this conduct in the form of someone

being disrespected (69%, n = 180), intimidated or bullied (47%, n = 122), being ignored or

excluded (31%, n = 82), or being isolated or left out (28%, n = 72).



92

Table 28. Forms of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

Form of conduct

n

% of respondents

who observed

conduct

Person was disrespected. 180 68.7

Person was intimidated/bullied. 122 46.6

Person was ignored or excluded. 82 31.3

Person was isolated or left out. 72 27.5

The person was the target of workplace incivility. 63 24.0

The person was the target of derogatory verbal remarks. 61 23.3

I observed others staring at the person. 28 10.7

The person was the target of retaliation. 24 9.2

The person was singled out as the spokesperson for

his/her identity group. 23 8.8

The person received derogatory written comments. 20 7.6

The person received a low performance evaluation/review. 19 7.3

The person was the target of racial/ethnic profiling. 15 5.7

The person feared getting a poor grade because of a

hostile classroom environment. 14 5.3

The person received derogatory phone calls/text messages/email. 9 3.4

Someone implied the person was admitted/hired/promoted due to his/her

identity group. 8 3.1

The person feared for his/her physical safety. 8 3.1

The person received derogatory/unsolicited messages through social media. 6 2.3

The person received threats of physical violence. < 5 ---

The person was the target of graffiti/vandalism. < 5 ---

Someone implied the person was not admitted/hired/promoted due to his/her

identity group. < 5 ---

The person feared for his/her family’s safety. < 5 ---

The person was the target of stalking. < 5 ---

The person was the target of unwanted sexual contact. < 5 ---

The person was the target of physical violence. < 5 ---


Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they had observed exclusionary conduct (n = 262). Percentages do not sum to 100% as a result of multiple responses.



93

Additionally, 30% (n = 78) of the respondents who indicated that they observed exclusionary

conduct noted that it happened in public spaces at Kent State (Table 29). Some respondents

noted that the incidents occurred in a class, lab or clinical setting (28%, n = 74), in a meeting

with a group of people (23%, n = 60), or while working at a Kent State job (20%, n = 52).

Table 29. Locations of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct

Location of conduct n


observed conduct










Off campus 9 3.4

In a Kent State library 8 3.1


On social networking sites

(e.g., Facebook/Twitter/Yik-Yak) 6 2.3

In campus housing < 5 ---

In an experiential learning environment

(e.g., internships, service learning, study abroad, student teaching) < 5 ---

In athletic/recreational facilities < 5 ---

On Kent State media

(e.g., Kent Stater, Kentwired.com, TV2) < 5 ---

In a Kent State health care setting (e.g., University Health Services,

Psychological Services) 0 0.0



94


In off-campus housing 0 0.0

On Kent State transportation (e.g., PARTA) 0 0.0


Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they had observed exclusionary conduct (n = 262). Percentages do not sum to 100% as a result of multiple responses.

Forty-one percent (n = 106) of respondents who indicated that they observed exclusionary

conduct noted that the targets of the conduct were students. Other respondents identified faculty

members (33%, n = 87), coworkers (26%, n = 69), friends (14%, n = 37), and staff members

(12%, n = 31) as targets.

Of respondents who indicated that they observed exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or

hostile conduct directed at others, 38% (n = 100) noted that faculty members were the sources of

the conduct. Respondents identified additional sources as students (28%, n = 74), staff members

(13%, n = 35), and senior administrators (13%, n = 33).

In response to observing the exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct, 66%

(n = 174) of respondents felt uncomfortable, 47% (n = 122) indicated they were angry, 26% (n =

69) felt embarrassed, and 18% (n = 48) indicated they told a friend (Table 30). Of the 43

respondents (16%) who sought support from an on-campus resource, 19 respondents (44%)

sought support from a supervisor and 11 respondents each sought support from a faculty member

(26%) and from a senior administrator (26%). Once again, of note is the fact that 8% (n = 22) of

the respondents who observed exclusionary conduct did not know to whom to report such

conduct.



95

Table 30. Respondents’ Actions in Response to Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or

Hostile Conduct

Actions in response to observed conduct

n

% of respondents

who observed

conduct








My supervisor 19 44.2



president) 11 25.6

Campus security 5 11.6


Student Conduct < 5 ---

Dean of Students or Student Ombuds < 5 ---

Staff person < 5 ---

Office of Equal Opportunity & Affirmative Action (or a facilitator) < 5 ---

My academic advisor < 5 ---

My union representative < 5 ---

Title IX Coordinator < 5 ---

The Office of Sexual and Relationship Violence Support Services (SRVSS) < 5 ---

LGBTQ Student Center < 5 ---

Student staff (e.g., residence hall staff, peer mentor) < 5 ---

Teaching assistant/graduate assistant < 5 ---

Student Accessibility Services < 5 ---



96


Kent State Public Safety/KSUPD 0 0.0

Employee Relations 0 0.0

The Office of Global Education 0 0.0


I didn’t report it for fear that my complaint would not be taken seriously 28 10.7






I was afraid 12 4.6



I reported it to or sought support from an off-campus resource < 5 ---

Off-campus counseling service < 5 ---

Local law enforcement (other than KSUPD) < 5 ---


A spiritual adviser (e.g., imam pastor, rabbi, priest, layperson) 0 0.0

I filed a complaint with an external agency (e.g., Ohio Civil Rights

Commission, EEOC, US Department of Education) 0 33.3


Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they observed exclusionary conduct (n = 262). Percentages do not sum to 100% as a result of multiple responses.



97

Bullying – One hundred sixteen respondents elaborated on their observations of exclusionary

conduct while at a Kent State – Regional Campus. The most salient theme that emerged was

related to observations of bullying behaviors. Several respondents shared examples of the

observed bullying behavior. One respondent noted, “My co-worker was constantly being yelled

at and put down for things that were not only beyond her control, but also for things that were

actually not happening at all. It was very obvious that this was a personal issue…In my opinion,

she was being bullied and harassed.” Some respondents pointed to specific unit directors, writing

that they used “intimidation and bully constantly to influence people and policy on the campus.”

Some of the bullying that was observed seemed to make some respondents uncomfortable. One

such respondent wrote, “There are a number of students in one of our technical programs that

feel they own the place and have no qualms about bullying other students in the classroom. They

even lie to instructors about other students, start rumors, and generally act like ‘bitches.’ I do my

best to ignore them and have as little interaction with them as possible, but at times it is

unavoidable. We have learning disabled students in our program and these girls are always mean

to them.” Another respondent observed a similar experience and simply wrote “Making fun of

students with disabilities was observed a few times by one student and there was also another

incident.” Several respondents described people in leadership positions as “very vindictive and

intimidating” or “known across campus as a bully to [their] staff and others.” Respondents also

reported a perceived sense of fear associated with reporting these types of conduct. One

respondent shared, “Staff is afraid of retaliation and concern nothing will be done and will only

make the work environment more hostile.” The most dominant theme in the data regarding

observations of conduct was, as one respondent wrote, “typical bullying that is bound to

happen.”

Prejudicial exclusion – The second most dominant theme from respondents who elaborated on

observed experiences of exclusionary conduct was related to prejudices based on a range of

demographic identities, including body size, nationality, gender, ability status, sexuality, and

religious affiliation. Respondents reported having witnessed others “making fun of a girl in

[their] classes for her weight” and “a professor being made fun of for simply being Chinese.”

Others elaborated, “Consistent disrespect toward and objectification of (especially) younger

female faculty by students [combined with] unsatisfactory accommodations made for individuals



98

with disabilities.” One respondent even noted, “I observed a member of the grounds crew mock a

student for being homosexual.” Another respondent added, “it gets old hearing students call each

other fags and homos.” Another respondent explained, “Those who wear any religious symbol

are harassed by faculty and administrators.” Overall, those who observed prejudicial exclusion

witnessed the exclusion happening to more than one demographic group.

viiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated that they observed

exclusionary conduct by racial identity: 2 (2, N = 1,539) = 12.0, p < .01. ixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated that they observed

exclusionary conduct by sexual identity: 2 (1, N = 1,423) = 23.2, p < .001. xA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated that they observed

exclusionary conduct by disability status: 2 (2, N = 1,565) = 25.7, p < .001. xiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated that they observed

exclusionary conduct by religious affiliation: 2 (2, N = 1,551) = 20.0, p < .001. xiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of respondents who indicated that they observed

exclusionary conduct by position status: 2 (2, N = 1,581) = 86.6, p < .001.



99

Experiences of Unwanted Sexual Contact

One percent (n = 14) of respondents indicated on the survey that they had experienced unwanted

sexual contact56 while a member of the Kent State University - Regional Campus community.

Owing to the small number of respondents from a Kent State – Regional Campus, chi-square

tests did not yield significant results to report. Instead, what is offered are percentages and n’s of

various demographic groups highlighting differences, albeit not beyond the p < .05 significance

level. By gender/gender identity, the data suggested that more Women respondents (1%, n = 8),

than Men respondents (1%, n = 5) experienced unwanted sexual contact. Additionally, more

White respondents (1%, n = 10) than Multiracial respondents (4%, n < 5) and People of Color

respondents (1%, n < 5) indicated experiencing unwanted sexual contact. According to the data,

1% (n = 11) of Heterosexual respondents experienced unwanted sexual contact. Similarly, 1% (n

= 11) of No Disability respondents experienced unwanted sexual contact. Student respondents

(1%, n = 10) were more likely than Faculty respondents (1%, n < 5) and Staff respondents (1%, n

< 5) to have experienced unwanted sexual contact while a member of a Kent State University -

Regional Campuses community.

Thirty-six percent (n = 5) of those respondents who indicated on the survey that they had

experienced unwanted sexual contact noted that it happened within the past year. Another 36%

(n = 5) noted that it happened two to four years ago.

Students were asked to share what year in their college career they experienced the unwanted

sexual contact; however, owing to the low number of responses, subsequent analyses could not

be provided within this report because doing so would compromise the identity of some

respondents (Table 31).

56The survey defined unwanted sexual contact as unwanted physical sexual contact which includes forcible fondling,

sexual assault, forcible rape, use of drugs to incapacitate, forcible sodomy, gang rape, and sexual assault with an

object.



100

Table 31. Semester in Which Student Respondents Experienced Unwanted Sexual

Contact

Semester conduct occurred n %

First < 5 ---

Second < 5 ---

Third < 5 ---

Fourth < 5 ---

Fifth < 5 ---

Sixth < 5 ---

Seventh 0 0.0

Eighth 0 0.0

After eighth semester 0 0.0

While a graduate/professional student < 5 ---

Note: Only answered by Students who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual contact (n = 10).

The two most noted categories of perpetrators of unwanted sexual contact at a Kent State

University - Regional Campus were Kent State staff members and strangers. Once again, owing

to the low number of responses, percentages and sample n’s are not offered within this report.

Asked where the incidents occurred, 64% (n = 9) of these respondents indicated that they

occurred on campus, in locations such as “campus center,” “conference center at KSU at Stark,”

“dining area,” “his faculty office,” “library,” and “phone/computer (email, text).” Thirty-six

percent (n = 5) of respondents who indicated on the survey that they had experienced unwanted

sexual contact specified that the incidents occurred off campus. Several of these respondents

identified places such as “home (via text, USPS mail)” and “their house, his room, in the

basement” as locations where off campus unwanted sexual contact had occurred.

Asked how they felt in response to experiencing unwanted sexual contact, 64% (n = 9) of these

respondents indicated that they felt uncomfortable, 50% (n = 7) were afraid, and 43% (n = 6) felt

embarrassed (Table 32).



101

Table 32. Emotional Reactions to Unwanted Sexual Contact

Emotional reaction to conduct

n

%


I was afraid 7 50.0


I was angry < 5 ---

I felt somehow responsible < 5 ---

I ignored it < 5 ---

Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual contact (n = 14).

In response to experiencing unwanted sexual conduct, less than five respondents (21%)

contacted an on-campus resource (Table 33). Most respondents told a friend (57%, n = 8), told a

family member (36%, n = 5), or avoided the harasser (36%, n = 5).

Table 33. Actions in Response to Unwanted Sexual Contact

Action

n

%



I was afraid 7 50.0




I was angry < 5 ---

I left the situation immediately < 5 ---

I didn’t report it for fear that my complaint would not be

taken seriously < 5 ---

I did nothing < 5 ---

I reported it to or sought support from an on-campus

resource < 5 ---

Title IX Coordinator < 5 ---

Staff person < 5 ---

Faculty member < 5 ---


Coach or athletic training staff member 0 0.0



102



Student Conduct 0 0.0

Office of Equal Opportunity & Affirmative Action

(or a facilitator) 0 0.0

The Office of Sexual and Relationship Violence

Support Services (SRVSS) 0 0.0

LGBTQ Student Center 0 0.0

Dean of Students or Student Ombuds 0 0.0


Employee Assistance Program (IMPACT) 0 0.0

Kent State counseling center or campus counseling

staff 0 0.0


Teaching assistant/graduate assistant 0 0.0





Senior administration (e.g., president, provost,

dean, vice provost, vice president) 0 0.0

My supervisor 0 0.0


Other 0 0.0

I felt somehow responsible < 5 ---

I confronted the harasser later < 5 ---

I didn’t know whom to go to < 5 ---

I sought information online < 5 ---

I did report it, but I did not feel the complaint was taken

seriously < 5 ---

I ignored it < 5 ---

It didn’t affect me at the time < 5 ---

I confronted the harasser at the time < 5 ---

I reported it to or sought support from an off-campus

resource 0 0.0

Local law enforcement (other than KSUPD) 0 0.0

Local or national hotline 0 0.0

Local rape crisis center 0 0.0



103


A spiritual adviser (e.g., imam, pastor, rabbi, priest,

layperson) 0 0.0

Off-campus counseling service 0 0.0

I filed a complaint with an external agency (e.g.,

Ohio Civil Rights Commission, EEOC, US

Department of Education) 0 0.0

A response not listed above < 5 ---

Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual contact (n = 14).



104

Summary

Seventy-nine percent of all respondents were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the

climate at a Kent State University - Regional Campus and 73% of Faculty and Staff respondents

were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the climate in their departments/work units. The

findings from investigations at higher education institutions across the country (Rankin &

Associates Consulting, 2015), where 70% to 80% of respondents found the campus climate to be

“comfortable” or “very comfortable,” suggests that a similar percentage of Kent State University

- Regional Campuses’ respondents were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the climate at

a Kent State University - Regional Campus.

Twenty percent to 25% of individuals in similar investigations indicated that they personally had

experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct. At the Kent State

University - Regional Campuses, 16% (n = 258) of respondents believed that they personally had

experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct. Though slightly less,

these results also parallel the findings of other climate studies of specific constituent groups

offered in the literature, where generally members of historically underrepresented and

underserved groups were slightly more likely to believe that they had experienced various forms

of exclusionary conduct and discrimination than those in the majority (Guiffrida et al., 2008;

Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Harper & Quaye, 2004; Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005; Rankin & Reason,

2005; Sears, 2002; Settles et al., 2006; Silverschanz et al., 2008; Yosso et al., 2009).

A similar percentage, 16% (n = 262) of Kent State University - Regional Campus survey

respondents indicated that they had observed conduct or communications directed toward a

person or group of people at Kent State that they believed created an exclusionary, intimidating,

offensive, and/or hostile working or learning environment within the past year. In addition, 1%

(n = 14) of respondents indicated on the survey that they had experienced unwanted sexual

contact while a member of the Kent State community.



105

Faculty and Staff Perceptions of Climate

This section of the report describes Faculty and Staff responses to survey items focused on

certain employment practices at a Kent State University - Regional Campus (e.g., hiring,

promotion, and disciplinary actions), their perceptions of the workplace climate at a Kent State

University - Regional Campus, and their thoughts on work-life and various climate issues.

Perceptions of Employment Practices

The survey queried Faculty and Staff respondents about whether they had observed

discriminatory employment practices at Kent State. Sixteen percent (n = 53) of Faculty

respondents and 21% (n = 55) of Staff respondents indicated that they had observed hiring

practices at Kent State (e.g., hiring supervisor bias, search committee bias, lack of effort in

diversifying recruiting pool) within the past year/hiring cycle that they perceived to be unfair or

unjust or that would inhibit diversifying the community; these differences were not significant.

(Table 34). No significant differences existed between the percentages of Tenure-Track Faculty

respondents (23%, n = 24) and Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (13%, n = 14) or

Classified Staff respondents (23%, n = 29) and Unclassified Staff respondents (19%, n = 26) who

observed unfair or unjust hiring practices.

Table 34. Employee Respondents Who Observed Employment Practices That Were Unjust or That

Would Inhibit Diversifying the Community

Hiring practices

Employment-related

disciplinary actions

Procedures or practices

related to promotion,

tenure,

and/or reclassification

n % n % n %

No 487 81.8 535 90.5 424 71.4 Faculty 278 84.0 291 89.0 221 67.0

Staff 209 79.2 244 92.4 203 76.9

Yes 107 18.0 56 9.5 170 28.6 Faculty 53 16.0 36 11.0 109 33.0

Staff 55 20.8 20 7.6 61 23.1

Note: Table includes only Faculty and Staff responses (n = 600).

Of those Faculty and Staff respondents who indicated that they had observed

discriminatory hiring at Kent State, 23% (n = 25) noted that it was based on nepotism,



106

17% (n = 18) on educational credentials, and 16% (n = 17) on position status. When

analyzed by age, gender identity, racial identity, sexual identity, military service,

disability status, or religious affiliation, the data revealed no significant differences in

responses. Of note, by gender identity, 19% (n = 73) of Women employee respondents

indicated that they had observed discriminatory hiring practices compared with 16% (n =

29) of Men employee respondents.

Nepotism and cronyism – Sixty-four respondents elaborated on their observation of unjust hiring

practices. Of these responses, nearly half of the respondents identified nepotism and cronyism as

the form of unjust hiring practice they observed. Respondents reported, “Cronyism - Especially

friendly associates of the Provost were advanced while faculty were denied advancement without

just cause,” “Friends hiring friends,” and “KSU appears to make many decisions based on

friendship status e.g. cronyism. The number of spouse/partner hires also raises concerns re:

nepotism.” Others added, “Seen people hired simply because they knew another faculty or staff

member” and “It seems hiring decisions are sometimes made based on who they are, not their

qualifications or experience.” Respondents referenced their experiences on search committees

and noted observations like “manipulated search committees based on personal connections” and

“some people were hired based on personal preference of candidate with no regard to what

search committee suggested.” Overall, most of the unjust hiring practices Faculty and Staff

respondents observed were perceived to be nepotism and cronyism.



107

Ten percent (n = 56) of Faculty and Staff respondents indicated that they had observed unfair,

unjust, or discriminatory employment-related disciplinary actions, up to and including dismissal,

within the past year/hiring cycle at Kent State. Subsequent analyses indicated that of those

individuals, 25% (n = 14) believed that the discrimination was based on a learning position

status, 23% (n = 13) on faculty status, and 16% (n = 9) on age. No significant differences existed

in the responses of Tenure-Track Faculty respondents, Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents,

and Classified or Unclassified Staff respondents. Additionally, no significant differences in

responses emerged by age, gender identity, racial identity, sexual identity, military service,

disability status, or religious affiliation. Of note, by sexual identity, 23% (n = 5) of LGBQ

employee respondents indicated that they had witnessed discriminatory disciplinary actions

compared with 9% (n = 48) of Heterosexual employee respondents.

Lack of due process in employment related decisions – Twenty-six respondents elaborated on

their observations of unjust employment-related discipline or action, up to and including

dismissal. Many of the respondents who elaborated on their observations noted a perceived lack

of appropriate and due process. One respondent explained, “People have been terminated without

due process or without a specific cause. In some cases collective summaries of multiple ‘minor’

offenses were determined to be sufficient to warrant termination.” Another respondent shared,

“Some twenty years ago a professor was dismissed for supposedly radical/liberal views without

ever being told the real reason for his dismissal.” Other respondents agreed, sharing,

“Disciplinary actions are selective based upon who the person is, where they work, and who

supervises them. Individuals in the same department have significantly different rules.”

Similarly, another respondent noted that a coworker was let go “based more on personal feelings

about the individual(s) than the individual's ability to do their/the job.” Respondents’ comments

suggest that the unjust action or dismissal was often unrelated to actual work performance and

never subjected to an objective review.



108

Twenty-nine percent (n = 170) of Faculty and Staff respondents indicated that they had observed

unjust promotion, tenure, reappointment, renewal of appointment, or reclassification practices

within the past year at Kent State. Subsequent analyses indicated that of those individuals, 18%

(n = 31) believed that the unjust promotion, tenure, reappointment, renewal of appointment, or

reclassification practices was based on position status, 16% (n = 27) on educational credentials,

11% (n = 19) on gender/gender identity, 9% (n = 15) on nepotism, and 8% (n = 14) on ethnicity.

Additionally, Faculty respondents (33%, n = 109) were significantly more likely to indicate they

had observed unjust promotion, tenure, reappointment, renewal of appointment, or

reclassification practices within the past year at Kent State compared with Staff respondents

(23%, n = 61).xiii

Subsequent analyses57 also indicated the following:

By faculty status: 51% (n = 53) of Tenure-Track Faculty respondents and 34% (n = 35)

of Non-Tenure-Track respondents indicated that they had observed unjust promotion,

tenure, reappointment, renewal of appointment, or reclassification practices.xiv

By sexual identity: 50% (n = 11) of LGBQ employee respondents and 28% (n = 143) of

Heterosexual employee respondents indicated that they had witnessed unjust promotion,

tenure, reappointment, renewal of appointment, or reclassification practices.xv

Demographic barriers – Eighty-eight respondents elaborated on their observation of unjust

behavior, procedures, or employment practices related to promotion, tenure, reappointment, and

renewal of appointment, or reclassification. The most prominent theme was the perceived

barriers individuals from non-majority different demographic groups experienced. Several

respondents noted the same sentiment, sharing there was “unfair hiring and/or promotion due to

race, not qualifications.” Others added that they had “observed that some faculty have an easy

time with tenure and promotion while others of different race have to struggle a lot.” One

respondent even raised the concern of the “failure to promote and award tenure to [a] minority

woman in theater department” which this respondent suggested was an “outrageous situation.”

Others, who observed unjust practices against women wrote, “Women are particularly targeted.”

57Chi-square analyses were conducted by faculty status, staff status, age, gender identity, racial identity, sexual

identity, military service, disability status, and religious affiliation; only significant differences are reported.



109

xiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Faculty and Staff respondents who indicated on the

survey that they observed unjust promotion, tenure, reappointment, renewal of appointment, or reclassification

practices by position status: 2 (1, N = 594) = 7.1, p < .01 xivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Faculty and Staff respondents who indicated that they

observed unfair employment practices related to promotion, tenure, reappointment, and/or reclassification by faculty

status: 2 (1, N = 207) = 5.5, p < .05. xvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Faculty and Staff respondents who indicated that they

observed unfair employment practices related to promotion, tenure, reappointment, and/or reclassification by sexual

identity: 2 (1, N = 540) = 5.2, p < .05.



110

Faculty and Staff Respondents’ Views on Workplace Climate and Work-Life Balance

One survey item queried Faculty and Staff respondents about their opinions regarding work-life

issues at a Kent State – Regional Campus. Frequencies and significant differences based on

position status, faculty status, staff status, gender identity,58 racial identity, sexual identity,59

disability status, military status, and religious/spiritual affiliation are provided in Tables 35 and

36. Significant differences are provided within the tables.

Thirty-seven percent (n = 220) of Faculty and Staff respondents indicated that they were

reluctant to bring up issues that concerned them for fear that doing so would affect their

performance evaluation/review or tenure/merit/promotion decision (Table 35). Significant

differences emerged only by military service, such that higher percentages of Military Service

employee respondents (25%, n = 9) than Non-Military Service employee respondents (15%, n =

79) “strongly agreed” that they were reluctant to bring up issues that concerned them for fear that

doing so would affect their performance evaluation/review or tenure/merit/promotion decision.

Thirty-one percent (n = 177) of Faculty and Staff respondents indicated that they thought their

colleagues/coworkers expected them to represent “the point of view” of their identity. A

significantly higher percentage of LGBQ Faculty and Staff respondents (41%, n = 9) than

Heterosexual Faculty and Staff respondents (26%, n = 127) “agreed” that they thought their

colleagues/coworkers expected them to represent “the point of view” of their identity. By

religious/spiritual affiliation, Other Religious/Spiritual employee respondents (33%, n = 8) were

significantly more likely to “agree” that they thought their colleagues/coworkers expected them

to represent “the point of view” of their identity compared with Multiple Affiliation employee

respondents (29%, n = 7), Christian Affiliation employee respondents (27%, n = 100), and No

Affiliation employee respondents (22%, n = 29).

58Transspectrum employee respondents (n < 5) were not included in the analyses because their numbers were too

few to maintain confidentiality. 59Asexual/Other employee respondents (n = 22) were not included in the analyses because their numbers were too

few to maintain confidentiality.



111

Table 35 also illustrates that 44% (n = 257) of Faculty and Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or

“agreed” that the process for determining salaries/merit raises was clear. A significantly greater

percentage of Other Religious/Spiritual Faculty and Staff respondents (63%, n = 15) were more

likely to “agree” that the process for determining salaries/merit raises was clear compared with

Christian Affiliation Faculty and Staff respondents (39%, n = 149), No Affiliation Faculty and

Staff respondents (32%, n = 42), and Multiple Affiliations Faculty and Staff respondents (27%, n

= 7).

Seventy-four percent (n = 431) of Faculty and Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed”

that they were comfortable taking leave that they were entitled to without fear that doing so

might affect their job/career. Staff respondents (26%, n = 69) were significantly more likely than

Faculty respondents (16%, n = 52) to “strongly agree” that they were comfortable taking leave

that they were entitled to without fear that doing so might affect their job/career. Subsequent

analyses indicated that a significantly greater percentage of Tenure-Track Faculty respondents

(21%, n = 22) than Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (7%, n = 7) “strongly agreed” that

they were comfortable taking leave that they were entitled to without fear that doing so might

affect their job/career. By military service, 39% (n = 14) of Military Service Faculty and Staff

respondents and 20% (n = 107) of Non-Military Service respondents “strongly agreed” that they

were comfortable taking leave that they were entitled to without fear that doing so might affect

their job/career.

Table 35. Faculty and Staff Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate

Perception

Strongly

agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly

disagree

n %

I am reluctant to bring up

issues that concern me for

fear that doing so will affect

my performance

evaluation/review or

tenure/merit/promotion

decision. 91 15.3 129 21.7 215 36.1 160 26.9

Military servicexvi

Military Service 9 25.0 < 5 --- 10 27.8 14 38.9

Non-Military Service 79 14.5 121 22.2 200 36.7 145 26.6



112

Table 35 (cont.) n % n % n % n %

My colleagues/co-workers

expect me to represent “the

point of view” of my identity. 29 5.1 148 25.9 236 41.3 158 27.7

Sexual identityxvii

LGBQ < 5 --- 9 40.9 8 36.4 < 5 ---

Heterosexual 24 4.8 127 25.5 209 41.9 139 27.9

Religious/Spiritual

Affiliationxviii

Christian 18 4.8 100 26.9 163 43.8 91 24.5

Other Religious/Spiritual Affiliation < 5 --- 8 33.3 7 29.2 7 29.2

No Affiliation < 5 --- 29 22.3 50 38.5 48 36.9

Multiple Affiliation < 5 --- 7 29.2 7 29.2 6 25.0

The process for determining

salaries/merit raises is clear. 36 6.1 221 37.4 216 36.5 118 20.0

Religious/Spiritual

Affiliationxix Christian 25 6.5 149 38.6 145 37.6 67 17.4

Other Religious/Spiritual

Affiliation 0 0 15 62.5 5 20.8 < 5 ---

No Affiliation 6 4.5 42 31.6 52 39.1 33 24.8

Multiple Affiliation < 5 --- 7 26.9 7 26.9 9 34.6

I am comfortable taking

leave that I am entitled to

without fear that doing so

may affect my job/career. 121 20.6 310 52.9 112 19.1 43 7.3

Position statusxx

Faculty 52 16.0 171 52.8 70 21.6 31 9.6

Staff 69 26.3 139 53.1 42 16.0 12 4.6

Faculty statusxxi Tenure-Track 22 21.4 52 50.5 21 20.1 8 7.8

Non-Tenure-Track 7 7.1 54 54.5 27 27.3 11 11.1

Military servicexxii

Military Service 14 38.9 17 47.2 < 5 --- < 5 2.8

Non-Military Service 107 19.9 286 53.3 104 19.4 40 7.4




113

Table 36 illustrates that 38% (n = 220) of employee respondents indicated that they had to work

harder than they believed their colleagues/coworkers did to achieve the same recognition. A

significantly higher percentage of Unclassified Staff respondents (30%, n = 39) than Classified

Staff respondents (17%, n = 22) “agreed” that they had to work harder than they believed their

colleagues/coworkers did to achieve the same recognition.

Table 36. Faculty and Staff Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate

Perception

Strongly

agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly

disagree

n %

I have to work harder than

I believe my

colleagues/coworkers do to

achieve the same

recognition. 82 14.0 138 23.6 293 50.1 72 12.3

Staff statusxxiii

Classified 17 13.1 22 16.9 67 51.5 24 18.5

Unclassified 13 9.8 39 29.5 70 53.0 10 7.6


Merit pay and raises – One hundred twenty-three Faculty and Staff respondents elaborated on

their responses related to joint statements about work-life issues. The most salient theme that

emerged was related to merit pay and raises. One respondent explained, “There is no merit raise

for classified employees. I feel like I'm working for a socialist company; one in which no one

gets paid unless we all get paid…It stinks, actually.” Other respondents added, “For NTT faculty,

merit raises need to be discussed” and “The processes for determining salaries/merit raises is

absolutely awful.” Several respondents agreed, with one in particular noting, “There is no merit

for non-teaching employees. The raises in recent years -- 2%-- barely address cost of living

increases and yet there are significant dollars for certain units at certain campuses.” Others

shared, “The process for determining raises is unclear and varies from department to department,

particularly because some departments blanketly assign ‘exceeds expectations’ simply for

someone showing up and doing his/her job.”



114

Staff Respondents’ Views on Workplace Climate and Work-Life Balance

Question 36 in the survey queried Staff respondents about their opinions on work-life issues,

including their support from supervisors and the institution. Tables 37 through 40 illustrate Staff

responses to these items. Analyses were conducted by staff status,60 gender identity,61 racial

identity, sexual identity,62 disability status, military status, and religious/spiritual affiliation;

significant differences are presented in the tables.

Ninety-four percent (n = 244) of Staff respondents indicated that they thought Kent State was

supportive of staff taking leave (Table 37). Additionally, 92% (n = 239) of Staff respondents

indicated that their supervisors were supportive of them taking leave.

Sixty-eight percent (n = 173) of Staff respondents indicated that Kent State was supportive of

flexible work schedules. By staff status, 79% (n = 99) of Classified Staff respondents compared

with 58% (n = 74) of Unclassified Staff respondents indicated that Kent State was supportive of

flexible work schedules. Differences also emerged by gender identity, where 85% (n = 57) of

Men Staff respondents compared with 62% (n = 113) of Women Staff respondents indicated that

Kent State was supportive of flexible work schedules. Additionally, 78% (n = 194) of Staff

respondents indicated that their supervisors were supportive of flexible work schedules.

60Readers will note that Staff respondents further identified their positions as Classified Staff (n = 129) or

Unclassified Staff (n = 133). 61Transspectrum Staff respondents (n = 0) were not included in the analyses because no Staff respondents identified

as Transspectrum. 62Asexual/Other Staff respondents (n = 12) were not included in the analyses because their numbers were too few to

ensure confidentiality.



115

Table 37. Staff Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate

Perception

Strongly

agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly

disagree

n %

I find that Kent State is

supportive of staff taking

leave. 67 25.7 177 67.8 14 5.4 < 5 ---

I find that my supervisor is

supportive of my taking

leave. 92 35.2 147 56.3 19 7.3 < 5 ---


supportive of flexible work

schedules. 41 16.2 132 52.2 58 22.9 22 8.7

Staff statusxxiv

Classified Staff 28 22.2 71 56.3 19 15.1 8 6.3

Unclassified Staff 13 10.2 61 48.0 39 30.7 14 11.0

Gender identityxxv

Woman 25 13.7 88 48.4 49 26.9 20 11.0

Man 15 22.4 42 62.7 8 11.9 < 5 ---

I find that my supervisor is

supportive of flexible work

schedules. 62 24.8 132 52.8 46 18.4 10 4.0

Note: Table includes only Staff responses (n = 266).



116

Table 38 illustrates that only 15% (n = 38) of Staff respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed”

that people who do not have children were burdened with work responsibilities beyond those

who do have children. Subsequent analyses revealed that Unclassified Staff respondents (13%, n

= 17) more so than Classified Staff respondents (7%, n = 9) “agreed” that people who do not

have children were burdened with work responsibilities beyond those who do have children

compared.

Twenty-five percent (n = 54) of Staff respondents indicated that they have used Kent State

policies on taking leave for childbearing or adoption. A majority of Staff respondents (97%, n =

199) “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” that they had used Kent State policies on military active

service-modified duties.


Perception

Strongly

agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly

disagree

n %

I feel that people who do

not have children are

burdened with work

responsibilities (e.g., stay

late, off-hour work, work

week-ends) beyond those

who do have children. 12 4.7 26 10.1 152 59.1 67 26.1

Staff statusxxvi

Classified Staff < 5 --- 9 7.1 75 59.5 40 31.7

Unclassified Staff 10 7.6 17 13.0 77 58.8 27 20.6

I have used Kent State

policies on taking leave for

childbearing or adoption. 26 11.9 28 12.8 74 33.8 91 41.6


policies on military active

service-modified duties. < 5 --- 6 2.9 93 45.1 106 51.5




117

Table 39 highlights that 63% (n = 154) of Staff respondents indicated that they had supervisors

who provided them with job/career advice or guidance when they need it. Seventy-seven percent

(n = 193) of Staff respondents indicated that they had colleagues/coworkers who provided them

with job/career advice or guidance when they need it.

Sixty-five percent (n = 168) of Staff respondents indicated that they had supervisors who

provided them with resources to pursue professional development opportunities. Subsequent

analyses revealed that Unclassified Staff respondents (20%, n = 27) were significantly more

likely to “strongly agree” that they had supervisors who provided them with resources to pursue

professional development opportunities than were Classified Staff respondents (18%, n = 22).

Seventy-six percent (n = 199) of Staff respondents indicated that Kent State provided them with

resources to pursue professional development opportunities. Significant differences were

observed by gender identity, where 60% (n = 114) of Women Staff respondents compared with

42% (n = 29) of Men Staff respondents “agreed” that Kent State provided them with resources to

pursue professional development opportunities.

Lastly, 70% (n = 180) of Staff respondents indicated that their supervisors provided ongoing

feedback to help them improve their performance.


Perception

Strongly

agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly

disagree

n %

I have supervisors who

provide me job/career

advice or guidance when I

need it. 42 17.2 112 45.9 76 31.1 14 5.7

I have

colleagues/coworkers who

provide me job/career

advice or guidance when I

need it. 47 18.7 146 58.2 46 18.3 12 4.8

My supervisor provides me

with resources to pursue

professional development

opportunities. 49 19.1 119 46.3 73 28.4 16 6.2



118

Table 39 (cont.) n % n % n % n %

Staff statusxxvii

Classified Staff 22 17.7 55 44.4 33 26.6 14 11.3

Unclassified Staff 27 20.3 64 48.1 40 30.1 < 5 ---

Kent State provides me

with resources to pursue

professional development

opportunities. 53 20.2 146 55.7 50 19.1 13 5.0

Gender identityxxviii Woman 38 20.1 114 60.3 29 15.3 8 4.2

Man 15 21.7 29 42.0 20 29.0 5 7.2

My supervisor provides

ongoing feedback to help

me improve my

performance. 45 17.4 135 52.3 61 23.6 17 6.6


Table 40 shows that 82% (n = 214) of Staff respondents indicated that they had adequate access

to administrative support to do their job. Additionally, 70% (n = 164) of Staff respondents

indicated that their supervisors provided adequate resources to help them manage work-life

balance. Lastly, 73% (n = 177) of Staff respondents indicated that Kent State provided them with

adequate resources to help them manage work-life balance.


Perception

Strongly

agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly

disagree

n %

I have adequate access to

administrative support to

do my job. 46 17.7 168 64.6 34 13.1 12 4.6

My supervisor provides

adequate resources to help

me manage work-life

balance. 46 19.6 118 50.2 53 22.6 18 7.7

Kent State provides

adequate resources to help

me manage work-life

balance 37 15.2 140 57.4 49 20.1 18 7.4




119

Flexible work schedules – Fifty-eight Staff respondents elaborated on a select number of

statements related to work-life experiences. The most salient theme that emerged from the data

was related to the flexible work schedules. Respondents noted, “Allowing for flexible work

schedules or work from home opportunities would greatly enhance my ability to manage work-

life balance” and “The taking of leave or working flexible schedules seems tolerated rather than

encouraged.” Similarly, another respondent lamented, “I find Kent's ‘flexibility’ and/or the way

my supervisor leads, to be very inflexible.” Others shared, “I believe that there should be some

flexibility within the department that you work. In my role, there is a lot of work that I could do

from home.” Others suggested that, because of staffing, flexible work schedules were not always

possible. One such respondent wrote, “Some positions require a person to be at the campus. So a

flexible work schedule isn't always feasible.” Another respondent added, “I'm a department of

one. There has been no effort to find anyone to assist me when I need to be off or have heavier

workload times.” In general, many of the respondents who elaborated on their response to these

statements suggested that flexible work schedules were elusive but desired.

xviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Faculty and Staff respondents who indicated on the

survey that they were reluctant to bring up issues that concerned them for fear that doing so would affect their

performance evaluation/review or tenure/merit/promotion decision by military service: 2 (3, N = 581) = 8.1, p < .05. xviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Faculty and Staff respondents who indicated on the

survey that they thought their colleagues/coworkers expected them to represent “the point of view” of their identity

by sexual identity: 2 (3, N = 521) = 8.0, p < .05. xviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Faculty and Staff respondents who indicated on the

survey that they thought their colleagues/coworkers expected them to represent “the point of view” of their identity

by religious/spiritual affiliation: 2 (9, N = 550) = 18.5, p < .05. xixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Faculty and Staff respondents who indicated on the

survey that the process for determining salaries/merit raises was clear by religious/spiritual affiliation identity: 2 (9, N = 569) = 18.0, p < .05. xxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Faculty and Staff respondents who indicated on the

survey that they were comfortable taking leave that they were entitled to without fear that doing so may affect their

job/career by position status: 2 (3, N = 586) = 14.7, p < .01. xxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Faculty and Staff respondents who indicated on the


job/career by faculty status: 2 (3, N = 202) = 8.9, p < .05. xxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Faculty and Staff respondents who indicated on the


job/career by military service: 2 (3, N = 573) = 8.2, p < .05. xxiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Faculty and Staff respondents who indicated on the

survey that they had to work harder than their colleagues/coworkers to achieve the same recognition by staff status:

2 (3, N = 262) = 11.1, p < .05.



120

xxivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who indicated on the survey that

Kent State was supportive of flexible work schedules by staff status: 2 (3, N = 253) = 14.8, p < .01. xxvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who indicated on the survey that

Kent State was supportive of flexible work schedules by gender identity: 2 (3, N = 249) = 12.6, p < .01. xxviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who indicated on the survey that

people who do not have children were burdened with work responsibilities beyond those who do have children by

staff status: 2 (3, N = 257) = 10.3, p < .05. xxviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who indicated on the survey that

their supervisor provided them with resources to pursue professional development opportunities by staff status: 2

(3, N = 257) = 10.6, p < .05. xxviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Staff respondents who indicated on the survey that

Kent State provided them with resources to pursue professional development opportunities by gender identity: 2 (3, N = 258) = 9.0, p < .05.



121

Staff Respondents’ Feelings of Value at a Kent State – Regional Campus

Question 93 on the survey queried Staff respondents about the degree to which they felt valued at

Kent State. Frequencies and significant differences based on staff status,63 gender identity,64

racial identity, sexual identity,65 disability status, military status, and religious/spiritual affiliation

are provided in Tables 41 through 43.

Table 41 highlights that 78% (n = 208) of Staff respondents indicated that they felt valued by

coworkers in their work unit, 62% (n = 163) of Staff respondents indicated that they felt valued

by faculty, and 74% (n = 194) of Staff respondents indicated that they felt valued by their

supervisors or managers. Additionally, only 39% (n = 113) of Staff respondents indicated that

they thought that Kent State senior administration was genuinely concerned with their welfare.

Table 41. Staff Respondents’ Feelings of Value

Feelings of value

Strongly

agree

n %

Agree

n %

Neither

agree nor

disagree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly

disagree

n %

I feel valued by coworkers

in my department. 95 35.7 113 42.5 40 15.0 15 5.6 < 5 ---

I feel valued by faculty. 54 20.4 109 41.1 55 20.8 37 14.0 10 3.8

I feel valued by my

supervisor/manager. 95 36.0 99 37.5 37 14.0 22 8.3 11 4.2

I think that Kent State

senior administration is

genuinely concerned with

my welfare. 35 9.5 78 29.7 84 31.9 51 19.4 25 9.5


63Readers will note that Staff respondents further identified their positions as Classified Staff (n = 129) or

Unclassified Staff (n = 133). 64Transspectrum Staff respondents (n = 0) were not included in the analyses because no Staff respondents identified





122

Table 42 depicts Staff respondents’ attitudes about certain aspects of the climate in their work

unit at a Kent State University – Regional Campus. Subsequent analyses were conducted to

identify significant differences in responses by staff status, gender identity,66 racial identity,

sexual identity,67 disability status, military status, and religious/spiritual affiliation; only

significant differences are reported.

Sixty-two percent (n = 164) of Staff respondents indicated that they “disagreed” or “strongly

disagreed” that coworkers in their units prejudged their abilities based on perceptions of their

identity/background (e.g., age, race, disability, gender). Similarly, 68% (n = 175) of Staff

respondents indicated that they “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” that their supervisor or

manager prejudged their abilities based on perceptions of their identity/background.

Table 42. Staff Respondents’ Perception of Climate

Perceptions

Strongly

agree

n %

Agree

n %

Neither

agree nor

disagree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly

disagree

n %

I think that coworkers in

my work unit pre-judge

my abilities based on their

perception of my

identity/background. < 5 --- 25 9.4 72 27.2 95 35.8 69 26.0

I think that my

supervisor/manager pre-

judges my abilities based

on his/her perception of

my identity/background. 8 3.1 16 6.2 60 23.2 101 39.0 74 28.6


66Transspectrum Staff respondents (n = 0) were not included in the analyses because no Staff respondents identified





123

Slightly more than half (53%, n = 140) of Staff respondents felt that their work unit encouraged

free and open discussion of difficult topics (Table 43). Sixty-eight percent (n = 179) of Staff

respondents indicated that they felt that their skills were valued, while 57% (n = 151) of Staff

respondents indicated that they felt that their contributions to the university were valued. Lastly,

only 34% (n = 89) of Staff respondents indicated that staff opinions were taken seriously by

senior administrators (e.g., deans, vice presidents, provost).

Table 43. Staff Respondents’ Feelings of Value

Feelings of value

Strongly

agree

n %

Agree

n %

Neither

agree nor

disagree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly

disagree

n %

I believe that my work unit

encourages free and open

discussion of difficult

topics. 52 19.7 88 33.3 74 28.0 33 12.5 17 6.4

I feel that my skills are

valued. 57 21.7 122 46.4 39 14.8 33 12.5 12 4.6

I feel my contributions to

the university are valued. 42 15.8 109 41.0 66 24.8 34 1.8 15 5.6

Staff opinions are taken

seriously by senior

administrators. 20 7.6 69 26.3 82 31.3 58 22.1 33 12.6




124

Faculty Respondents’ Views on Workplace Climate and Work-Life Balance

Four survey items queried Faculty respondents (n = 334) about their opinions regarding various

issues specific to workplace climate and faculty work (Tables 44 through 53). Question 30

queried Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (n = 106), Question 32 addressed Non-

Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (n = 105), and Questions 34 and 38 addressed all Faculty

respondents. Chi-square analyses68 were conducted by gender identity,69 racial identity, and

sexual identity;70 only significant differences are reported.

Table 44 illustrates that 68% (n = 72) of Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “agreed”

or “strongly agreed” that the tenure/promotion process was clear. Fifty-six percent (n = 58) of

Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the

tenure/promotion process was reasonable. Additionally, 54% (n = 56) of Tenure and Tenure-

Track Faculty respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they felt that their service

contributions were important to tenure/promotion, while 47% (n = 48) of Tenure Tenure-Track

Faculty respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they felt pressured to change their

research agenda to achieve tenure/promotion.

68Analyses were not run by military status because the numbers of Military Service Faculty respondents (n = 6) were

too few to ensure the confidentiality of their responses. Additionally, analyses were not run by disability status

because the n’s for Single Disability Faculty (n = 16) and Multiple Disabilities Faculty (n = 8) respondents were too

few to ensure the confidentiality of their responses. Lastly, analyses were not run by religious/spiritual affiliation

because the n’s for Other Religious/Spiritual Affiliation respondents (n = 12) and Multiple Affiliations respondents

(n = 12) were too few to ensure the confidentiality of their responses. 69Transspectrum Faculty respondents (n < 5) were not included in the analyses because their numbers were too few

to maintain confidentiality. 70Asexual/Other Faculty respondents (n < 5) were not included in the analyses because their numbers were too few

to ensure confidentiality.



125

Table 44. Tenure-Track Faculty Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate

Perceptions

Strongly

agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly

disagree

n %

I believe the

tenure/promotion process is

clear. 16 15.1 56 52.8 28 26.4 6 5.7

The tenure/promotion

process is reasonable. 11 10.6 47 45.2 32 30.8 14 13.5

I feel that my service

contributions are important

to tenure/promotion. 16 15.4 40 38.5 35 33.7 13 12.5

I feel pressured to change

my research agenda to

achieve tenure/promotion. 11 10.8 37 36.3 38 37.3 16 15.7

Note: Table includes only Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (n = 106).

Table 45 illustrates that the 50% (n = 51) of Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents

indicated that they believed that their teaching load was equitable compared with their

colleagues. Additionally, 45% (n = 47) of Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents

indicated that they felt burdened by service responsibilities and 40% (n = 42) of Tenure and

Tenure-Track Faculty respondents indicated that they felt burdened by service responsibilities

beyond those of their colleagues with similar performance expectations.

Eighty-three percent (n = 80) of Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “disagreed” or

“strongly disagreed” that within their departments, faculty members who use family

accommodation policies were disadvantaged in promotion or tenure. Additionally, 71% (n = 72)

of Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents indicated that they believed the tenure and

promotion standards were applied equally to all faculty.



126


Perceptions

Strongly

agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly

disagree

n %

I believe that my teaching

load is equitable compared

to my colleagues. 6 5.8 45 43.7 30 29.1 22 21.4

I feel that I am burdened by

service responsibilities. 18 17.1 29 27.6 54 51.4 < 5 ---


service responsibilities

beyond those of my

colleagues with similar

performance expectations. 13 12.4 29 27.6 50 47.6 13 12.4

In my department, faculty

members who use family

accommodation (FMLA)

policies are disadvantaged in

promotion or tenure. < 5 --- 12 12.5 59 61.5 21 21.9

I believe the tenure

standards/promotion

standards are applied

equally to all faculty. 6 5.9 24 23.5 36 35.3 36 35.3


Eighty-one percent (n = 82) of Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents indicated that they

found that Kent State was supportive of the use of sabbatical/faculty professional improvement

leave (Table 46). An even greater percentage (86%, n = 85) of Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty

respondents indicated that they found that their department was supportive of them taking leave.

Additionally, 87% (n = 80) of Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “disagreed” or

“strongly disagreed” that they had used Kent State policies on taking leave for childbearing or

adoption.



127


Perceptions

Strongly

agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly

disagree

n %


supportive of the use of

sabbatical/faculty

professional improvement

leave. 21 20.8 61 60.4 12 11.9 7 6.9

I find that my department is

supportive of my taking

leave. 19 19.2 66 66.7 9 9.1 5 5.1


policies on taking leave for

childbearing or adoption. < 5 --- 8 8.7 40 43.5 40 43.5


Seventy-nine percent (n = 82) of Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents indicated that

they felt that their point of view was taken into account for course assignments and scheduling

(Table 47). Additionally, 66% (n = 66) of Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents

“disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” that they believed that Faculty Excellence Awards (merit

raises) were awarded fairly.


Perceptions

Strongly

agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly

disagree

n %

I feel that my point of views

are taken into account for

course assignments and

scheduling. 25 24.0 57 54.8 11 10.6 11 10.6

I believe that Faculty

Excellence Awards (merit

raises) are awarded fairly. < 5 --- 30 30.0 37 37.0 29 29.0




128

Concerns regarding leadership – Twenty-four Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents

elaborated on their experiences related to work-life concerns. Owing to the small amount of

responses, several items were discussed, but the only theme that was repeated among several of

these respondents was their concern regarding their campus leadership. One respondent wrote,

“Regional campus Deans are very weak, little management experience and poorly trained.”

Another respondent shared, “The RTP process is somewhat clear but with each new Provost and

President it changes.” Another respondent lamented, “Indeed, the administration could not even

verbalize the purpose of merit except to say they wanted to control it as too many people were

earning merit awards.”

Survey Question 32 queried Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents on their perceptions as

faculty with non-tenure-track appointments. Chi-square analyses71 were conducted only by

gender identity;72 only significant differences are reported. Table 48 indicates that 56% (n = 59)

of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they believed that

the renewal of appointment/promotion process was clear. Additionally, 65% (n = 66) of Non-

Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they believed that the

renewal of appointment/promotion process was reasonable.

Less than half (48%, n = 49) of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents indicated that they felt

pressured to do service and research, while 66% (n = 69) of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty

respondents indicated that they felt pressured to do work and/or service without compensation.

Sixty-one percent (n = 63) of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents indicated that they believed

that their teaching load was equitable compared with their colleagues, while 59% (n = 59) of

Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” that their workload

was equitable compared with their tenured or tenure-track colleagues.

71In addition to the previously excluded demographic categories, analyses were not run by racial identity because the

numbers of People of Color Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (n < 5) and Multiracial Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (n = 6) were too low to ensure the confidentiality of their responses. Analyses were also not run

by sexual identity because the numbers of LGBQ Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (n = 6) and Asexual/Other

Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (n < 5) were too few to ensure confidentiality. 72Transspectrum Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (n = 0) were not included in the analyses because no Non-

Tenure-Track Faculty respondents identified as Transspectrum.



129

Table 48. Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate

Perceptions

Strongly

agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly

disagree

n %

I believe that the renewal of

appointment/promotion

process is clear. 10 9.5 49 46.7 35 33.3 11 10.5

I believe that the renewal of


process is reasonable. 9 8.8 57 55.9 26 25.5 10 9.8

I feel pressured to do service

and research. 12 11.7 37 35.9 51 49.5 < 5 ---

I feel pressured to do work

and/or service without

compensation. 21 20.2 48 46.2 32 30.8 < 5 ---

I believe that my teaching load

is equitable compared to my

colleagues. 9 8.7 54 51.9 29 27.9 12 11.5

I believe that my workload is

equitable compared to my

tenured or tenure-track

colleagues. < 5 --- 39 39.0 29 29.0 30 30.0

Note: Table includes only Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (n = 105).



130

Table 49 illustrates that only 21% (n = 32) of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “agreed”

or “strongly agreed” that they felt that they were burdened by service responsibilities (e.g.,

committee memberships, departmental work assignments). Only 26% (n = 26) of Non-Tenure-

Track Faculty respondents felt that they were burdened by service responsibilities (e.g.,

committee memberships, departmental work assignments) beyond those of their colleagues with

similar expectation.


Perceptions

Strongly

agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly

disagree

n %


service responsibilities. 13 1.9 19 18.8 62 61.4 7 6.9


service responsibilities

beyond those of my

colleagues with similar

performance expectations. 10 10.0 16 16.0 69 69.0 5 5.0




131

The majority of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (88%, n = 137) “disagreed” or “strongly

disagreed” that, in their departments, faculty members who use family accommodation (FMLA)

policies were disadvantaged in promotion or tenure (Table 50). Half (50%, n = 49) of Non-

Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they believed the renewal

of appointment/promotion standards were applied equally to all faculty. Lastly, 75% (n = 76) of

Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents indicated that they felt their points of view were taken

into account for course assignment and scheduling.


Perceptions

Strongly

agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly

disagree

n %

In my department, faculty

members who use family

accommodation (FMLA)

policies are disadvantaged in

promotion or tenure. < 5 --- 15 9.7 104 67.1 33 21.3

I believe the renewal of


standards are applied


I feel that my point of views

are taken into account for

course assignments and

scheduling feel pressured to

do service and research. 17 16.7 59 57.8 16 15.7 10 9.8




132

Only 14% (n = 12) of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents indicated that they had used Kent

State policies on taking leave for childbearing or adoption (Table 51). Additionally, 67% (n =

66) of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents indicated that they believed the process for

obtaining professional development funds was fair and accessible. Sixty-two percent (n = 63) of

Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” that they felt that

their tenured and tenure-track colleagues understood the nature of their work. Similarly, 62% (n

= 63) of the Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” that

full-time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty (FTNTTs) were equitably represented at the departmental

level (e.g., representatives on committees that reflects adequately the number of FTNTTs in the

unit). Further, 76% (n = 77) of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents “disagreed” or “strongly

disagreed” that FTNTTs were equitably represented at the university level.


Perceptions

Strongly

agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly

disagree

n %

I have used Kent State policies

on taking leave for

childbearing or adoption. 6 7.2 6 7.2 32 38.6 39 47.0

I believe the process for

obtaining professional

development funds is fair and

accessible. 6 6.1 60 61.2 25 25.2 7 7.1

I feel that my tenured and

tenure-track colleagues

understand the nature of my

work < 5 --- 37 36.3 38 37.3 25 24.5

I feel that full-time non-tenure

track faculty are equitably

represented at the

departmental level. < 5 --- 35 34.7 31 30.7 32 31.7

I feel that FTNTTs are

equitably represented at the

university level. 0 0.0 25 24.5 40 39.2 37 36.3




133

Perceived lack of respect for work – Twenty-two Non-Tenure-Track (NTT) respondents

elaborated on their experiences related to work-life concerns. Similar to their Tenure and Tenure-

Track counterparts, owing to the limited number of responses, only one slight theme presented as

most prominent: a perceived lack of respect for the value of their work. One respondent noted,

“Even though my teaching load as a full-time NTT is greater than that of my tenure-track

colleagues, they make inquiries about my research agenda and make derogatory comments in

response to my statement that I have no research agenda as a NTT and that I don't have plans to

involve students in my research.” Another respondent shared, “Numerous NTT Faculty hold the

highest degree in their field from reputable schools, engage in community outreach/service, teach

full loads, and some also pursue research, yet in the current structure the NTT voice is only

second to that of the TT voice.” Another Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondent explained, “I

love teaching in two disciplines. But, because I am good at it, does not mean it is easy.” The

respondents shared a sense that “No one cares about NTT's in the regional college” and that

“Some of [their] tenured and tenure-track colleagues do not appreciate our teaching loads.”



134

Faculty respondents were asked to rate the degree to which they agreed with a series of six

statements related to faculty workplace climate (Table 52). Chi-square analyses were conducted

only by faculty status; only significant differences are reported.

Seventy-six percent (n = 241) of Faculty respondents indicated that they believed that their

colleagues included them in opportunities that would help their careers as much as their

colleagues did others in their positions. Slightly more than half (53%, n = 166) of Faculty

respondents indicated that they performed more work to help students (e.g., formal and informal

advising, sitting for qualifying exams/thesis committees, helping with student groups and

activities, providing other support) beyond those of their colleagues with similar performance

expectations.

Of those Faculty respondents who did not skip the statement “I feel that my diversity-related

research/teaching/service contributions have been/will be valued for promotion, tenure, or

performance review” as they were prompted to do in the wording if the statement was not

applicable to them, 59% (n = 93) indicated that they felt that their diversity-related research,

teaching, service contributions had been/would be valued for promotion, tenure, or performance

review.

Sixty-three percent (n = 184) of Faculty respondents indicated that they believed that campus and

college awards, stipends, grants, and development funds were awarded fairly. Seventy-two

percent (n = 224) of Faculty respondents indicated that they had peers/mentors who provided

them career advice or guidance when they needed it.

Seventy percent (n = 223) of Faculty respondents indicated that they believed that their workload

was reasonable. By faculty status, Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (71%, n = 72) were

significantly more likely to indicate that they believed that their workload was reasonable

compared with Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (50%, n = 51).



135

Table 52. Faculty Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate

Perceptions

Strongly

agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly

disagree

n %

I believe that my colleagues include me in

opportunities that will help my career as

much as they do others in my position. 46 14.4 195 61.1 56 17.6 22 6.9

I perform more work to help students

beyond those of my colleagues with

similar performance expectations. 58 18.4 108 34.3 137 43.5 12 3.8

I feel that my diversity-related

research/teaching/service contributions

have been/will be valued for promotion,

tenure, or performance review. 9 5.7 84 53.2 46 29.1 19 12.0

I believe that campus and college awards,

stipends, grants and development funds

are awarded fairly. 9 3.1 175 59.7 79 27.0 30 10.2

I have peers/mentors who provide me

career advice or guidance when I need it. 59 19.0 165 53.1 63 20.3 24 7.7

I believe that my workload is reasonable. 32 10.1 191 60.1 73 23.0 22 6.9

Faculty statusxxix

Tenure-Track 7 6.9 44 43.1 39 38.2 12 11.8

Non-Tenure-Track 8 7.8 64 62.7 22 21.6 8 7.8


Perceived unreasonable teaching loads – Fifty-three Faculty respondents chose to elaborate on a

group of statements relative to their work-life experiences. Of these respondents, the most

prominent theme that emerged was related to their perception of an unreasonable teaching load.

One respondent explained, “The workload is clearly unreasonable and inequitable. Regional

campus faculty should have higher salaries and lower teaching loads.” Another respondent

added, “I have a lot of job responsibilities that, in order to complete, require me to work more

than 40 hours a week.” Similarly, other respondents shared, “I feel overwhelmed by my

workload most of the time” and “I believe that regional campus faculty teaching loads are

excessive--and oppressive.”



136

Lastly, Table 53 offers frequencies and descriptive statistics on Faculty respondents’ ratings of

the degree to which they agreed with a series of five statements related to faculty work-life

balance. Chi-square analyses were conducted by faculty status; only significant differences are

reported.

Only 18% (n = 55) of Faculty respondents indicated that they felt that people who do not have

children were burdened with work responsibilities (e.g., stay late, off-hour work, work week-

ends) beyond those who do have children. Of those Faculty respondents who responded to the

statement “I have used Kent State policies on military service-modified duties,” the

overwhelming majority of Faculty respondents (96%, n = 214) indicated that they “disagreed” or

“strongly disagreed” that they had used Kent State policies on military active service-modified

duties. Additionally, 62% (n = 196) of Faculty respondents indicated that their department

provided them with resources to pursue professional development opportunities, and 77% (n =

247) of Faculty respondents indicated that they had adequate access to administrative support to

do their job. Lastly, 54% (n = 149) of Faculty respondents indicated that their department

provided adequate resources to help them manage work-life balance (e.g., child care, wellness

services, elder care, housing location assistance, transportation, etc.).



137

Table 53. Faculty Respondents’ Perceptions of Work-Life Balance

Perceptions

Strongly

agree

n %

Agree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly

disagree

n %

I feel that people who do not have

children are burdened with work

responsibilities beyond those who do have

children. 14 4.5 41 13.2 193 62.3 62 20.0

I have used Kent State policies on

military active service-modified duties. < 5 --- 7 3.1 115 51.6 99 44.4

My department provides me with

resources to pursue professional

development opportunities 32 10.2 164 52.2 84 26.8 34 10.8

I have adequate access to administrative

support to do my job. 55 17.2 192 60.2 50 15.7 22 6.9

My department provides adequate

resources to help me manage work-life

balance. 17 6.2 132 48.0 90 32.7 36 13.1


Thirty-four Faculty respondents elaborated on the second set of statements broad statements

related to work-life balance for all Faculty; however, more than half of the respondents noted

that the question above did not apply to them and the remainder of the data did not offer a

prominent theme that could be expanded upon.



138

Faculty Respondents’ Feelings of Value at Kent State University - Regional Campus

Question 92 on the survey queried Faculty respondents about the degree to which they felt

valued at Kent State. Frequencies and significant differences based on faculty status, gender

identity,73 racial identity, and sexual identity74 are provided in Tables 54 through 57. Only

significant differences are reported.

Seventy-one percent (n = 237) of Faculty respondents indicated that they felt valued by faculty in

their department (Table 54). A similar percentage (70%, n = 230) of Faculty respondents

indicated that they felt valued by their department head/chair. A much greater percentage (89%,

n = 284) of Faculty respondents indicated that they felt valued by students in the classroom.

However, only 40% (n = 131) of Faculty respondents indicated that they thought that Kent State

senior administration was genuinely concerned with their welfare. Subsequent analysis revealed

that Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (39%, n = 40) were significantly more likely than

Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (33%, n = 35) to indicate that they thought that Kent State

senior administration was genuinely concerned with their welfare.

73Transspectrum Faculty respondents (n < 5) were not included in the analyses because their numbers were too few

to maintain confidentiality. 74Asexual/Other Faculty respondents (n < 5) were not included in the analyses because their numbers were too few

to ensure confidentiality.



139

Table 54. Faculty Respondents’ Feelings of Value

Feelings of value

Strongly

agree

n %

Agree

n %

Neither

agree nor

disagree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly

disagree

n %

I feel valued by faculty in

my department. 82 24.6 155 46.5 54 16.2 20 6.0 22 6.6

I feel valued by my

department head/chair. 88 26.7 142 43.2 53 16.1 23 7.0 23 7.0

I feel valued by students in

the classroom. 127 39.7 157 49.1 26 8.1 8 2.5 < 5 ---


senior administration is

genuinely concerned with

my welfare. 41 12.5 90 27.4 94 28.7 56 17.1 47 14.3

Faculty statusxxx

Tenure-Track 12 11.4 23 21.9 22 21.0 22 21.0 26 24.8

Non-Tenure-Track 11 10.8 29 28.4 39 38.2 13 12.7 10 9.8


Table 55 shows that only 12% (n = 40) of Faculty respondents believed that faculty in their

departments prejudged their abilities based on perceptions of their identity/background.

However, 35% (n = 114) of Faculty respondents indicated that they thought that faculty in their

departments prejudged their abilities based on their faculty status. When asked whether they

thought that their department chair/school director prejudged their abilities based on their faculty

status, only 27% (n = 88) of Faculty respondents indicated that they thought this was the case.

Additionally, just 10% (n = 31) of Faculty respondents indicated that they thought that their

department chair/school director prejudged their abilities based on perceptions of their

identity/background (e.g., age, race, disability, gender). Lastly, more than half (53%, n = 174) of

Faculty respondents indicated that they believed that the campus climate encouraged free and

open discussion of difficult topics.



140

Table 55. Faculty Respondents’ Perception of Climate

Perceptions

Strongly

agree

n %

Agree

n %

Neither

agree nor

disagree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly

disagree

n %

I think that faculty in my

department pre-judge my

abilities based on their

perception of my

identity/background. 11 3.4 29 9.0 107 33.1 105 32.5 71 22.0

I think that faculty in my

department pre-judge my

abilities based on my

faculty status. 36 11.1 78 24.0 87 26.8 91 28.0 33 10.2

I think that my

department chair/school

director pre-judges my

abilities based on my

faculty status. 27 8.4 61 18.9 92 28.5 91 28.2 52 16.1

I think that my

department chair/school

director pre-judges my

abilities based his/her

perception of my


I believe that the campus

climate encourages free

and open discussion of

difficult topics. 43 13.0 131 39.7 88 26.7 50 15.2 18 5.5


When asked about whether they felt their research was valued, only 33% (n = 93) of Faculty

respondents indicated that they felt it was valued (Table 56). Tenure-Track Faculty respondents

(31%, n = 32) were significantly more likely to “agree” that they felt that their research was

valued than were Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (22%, n = 18). Comparatively, 68% (n

= 218) of Faculty respondents indicated that they felt their teaching was valued.



141

Additionally, 55% (n = 172) of Faculty respondents indicated that they felt that their service

contributions were valued, and 52% (n = 154) of Faculty respondents indicated that they felt that

including diversity-related information in their teaching/pedagogy/research was valued.


Feelings of value

Strongly

agree

n %

Agree

n %

Neither

agree nor

disagree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly

disagree

n %

I feel that my research is

valued. 20 7.0 73 25.6 136 47.7 31 10.9 25 8.8 Faculty statusxxxi

Tenure-Track 10 9.6 32 30.8 32 30.8 18 17.3 12 11.5

Non-Tenure-Track < 5 --- 18 22.2 45 55.6 9 11.1 6 7.4

I feel that my teaching is

valued. 66 20.6 152 47.5 46 14.4 36 11.3 20 6.3

I feel that my service

contributions are valued. 43 13.7 129 41.1 75 23.9 44 14.0 23 7.3

I feel that including

diversity-related

information in my

teaching/pedagogy/

research is valued. 47 15.9 107 36.3 111 37.6 16 5.4 14 4.7


Faculty respondents were asked to provide their input on two additional statements related to

their perceived sense of value. These questions inquired about their feelings regarding the

university’s value of academic freedom and shared governance.

Sixty-five percent (n = 210) of Faculty respondents indicated that they felt the university values

academic freedom (Table 57). Additionally, 38% (n = 119) of Faculty respondents indicated that

they felt that faculty voices were valued in shared governance.



142


Feelings of value

Strongly

agree

n %

Agree

n %

Neither

agree nor

disagree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly

disagree

n %

I feel the university values

academic freedom. 52 16.2 158 49.2 66 20.6 32 10.0 13 4.0

I feel that faculty voices

are valued in shared

governance. 24 7.6 95 30.2 88 27.9 57 18.1 51 16.2


xxixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Faculty respondents who indicated on the survey that

they believed that their workload was reasonable by faculty status: 2 (3, N = 204) = 9.3, p < .05. xxxA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Faculty respondents who indicated on the survey that

they thought that Kent State senior administration was genuinely concerned with their welfare by faculty status: 2

(8, N = 303) = 20.0, p < .05. xxxiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Faculty respondents who indicated on the survey that

they felt their research was valued by faculty status: 2 (4 N = 185) = 12.2, p < .05.



143

Faculty and Staff Respondents Who Have Seriously Considered Leaving a Kent State

University - Regional Campus

Thirty-four percent (n = 541) of all respondents (Faculty, Staff, and Students) had seriously

considered leaving a Kent State University - Regional Campus. With regard to employee

position status, 55% (n = 147) of Staff respondents and 45% (n = 150) of Faculty respondents

had seriously considered leaving a Kent State University - Regional Campus in the past year.xxxii

Subsequent analyses were run for staff status, faculty status, sexual identity, age, and religious

affiliation. No significant differences were found.

Fifty-six percent (n = 166) of those Faculty and Staff respondents who seriously considered

leaving did so for financial reasons (e.g., salary, resources) (Table 58). Forty-six percent (n =

137) of those Faculty and Staff respondents who seriously considered leaving indicated that they

did so because of limited opportunities for advancement. Other reasons included tension with

supervisor/manager (30%, n = 89), campus climate was unwelcoming (28%, n = 83), and

increased workload (28%, n = 82).

Table 58. Reasons Why Faculty and Staff Respondents Considered Leaving a Kent State University -

Regional Campus

Reason n %

Financial reasons (e.g., salary, resources) 166 55.9

Limited opportunities for advancement 137 46.1

Tension with supervisor/manager 89 30.0

Campus climate was unwelcoming 83 27.9

Increased workload 82 27.6

Interested in a position at another institution 70 23.6

Tension with co-workers 69 23.2

Recruited or offered a position at another institution 35 11.8

Family responsibilities 31 10.4

Wanted to move to a different geographical location 29 9.8

Lack of benefits 27 9.1

Local community did not meet my (my family) needs 13 4.4



144


Personal reasons (e.g., medical, mental health, family emergencies) 12 4.0

Revised retirement plans 10 3.4

Spouse or partner unable to find suitable employment 6 2.0

Offered position in government or industry 5 1.7

Spouse or partner relocated < 5 ---


Note: Table includes responses only from those Faculty and Staff respondents who indicated on the survey that they had seriously considered leaving Kent State in the past year (n = 297).

Salary and Advancement Opportunities – Three hundred seventy respondents from Kent State

University - Regional Campuses provided greater detail as to why they seriously considered

leaving. Of these respondents, 204 were employees. The most salient theme for why employee

respondents seriously considered leaving was related to salary and advancement opportunities.

Employees who seriously considered leaving specifically because of salary concerns generally

wrote, “Pay is not very good,” “The pay is not comparable to positions at non-educational

companies,” and “For the position I am in, I could be making twice the salary in the non-

academia world.” One poignant comment read, “I do not feel I am compensated (monetarily)

appropriately for the responsibility and amount of work that is required in my position.” In

addition to concerns related to salary, other employees expressed discontent with their ability to

advance at Kent State. Some of these respondents wrote, “There is a lack of opportunity to grow,

and move into a full-time position,” “Limited chances for advancement,” and “Internal

opportunities to convert from faculty to administration are very limited unless you are one of the

‘chosen.’” Overall, a sense existed that salary and advancement for many of the employee

respondents go together. As one respondent wrote, “The position I hold does not allow for

advancement in any way. I do not seek advancement for status or recognition. I would just like to

make enough money to move out. I won't be able to do that as long as I stay here.”

xxxiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Faculty and Staff respondents who indicated that

they seriously considered leaving Kent State by employee position status: 2 (1, N = 598) = 6.0, p < .05.



145

Summary

The results from this section suggest that most Faculty and Staff respondents generally hold

positive attitudes about Kent State University - Regional Campuses policies and processes. Few

Kent State University - Regional Campus employees had observed unjust hiring (18%, n = 107)

or unjust disciplinary actions (10%, n = 56). Many more Kent State – Regional Campus

employees, however, observed unjust promotion, tenure, and/or reclassification (29%, n = 170).

Position status, educational credentials (e.g., BS, MS, PhD), age, ethnicity, and nepotism were

the top perceived bases for many of the reported discriminatory employment practices.

The majority of Staff respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that Kent State and their

supervisors provided them with support and resources. A majority of Staff respondents indicated

that they had colleagues and coworkers that provided them with job/career advice or guidance

when they were needed. Additionally, a majority of Staff respondents indicated that Kent State

provided them with resources to pursue professional development opportunities. More than

three-fourths (78%, n = 208) of Staff respondents felt valued by coworkers within their

departments.

Slightly more than two-thirds (67%, n = 72) of Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents

“agreed” or “strongly agreed” that Kent State’s tenure/promotion process was clear. However,

less than one-third (29%, n = 30) of Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents felt that

tenure standards, promotion standards, and/or reappointment standards were applied equally to

all faculty. Just half (50%, n = 49) of the Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents believed that

the renewal of appointment/promotion standards were applied equally to all faculty.

Additionally, only slightly more than half (54%, n = 149) of Faculty respondents felt that their

departments provided adequate resources to help them manage work-life balance.

Analyses did not reveal many significant differences in responses among groups. Those

responses where significance did emerge were often based on staff or faculty status.



146

Student Perceptions of Campus Climate

This section of the report is dedicated to survey items that were specific to Kent State University

- Regional Campus’ students. Several survey items queried Students about their academic

experiences, their general perceptions of the campus climate, and their comfort with their classes.

Student Experiences of Unwanted Sexual Contact

As noted earlier in this report, 14 respondents (1%) experienced unwanted sexual contact while

at a Kent State University - Regional Campus.75 Subsequent analyses indicated that of the

respondents who experienced unwanted sexual contact, 10 (n = 1%) were Student respondents.

Students were asked to share what semester they were in when they experienced unwanted

sexual contact. Owing to the small number of responses, individual semester counts are not

offered. However, it should be noted higher instances of unwanted sexual contact occurred

within the first and second semester.

Subsequent analyses were not conducted as the number of Student respondents (n = 10) who

indicated that they had experienced unwanted sexual contact while a member of the Kent State –

Regional Campus community were too few to ensure their confidentiality.

75The survey defined unwanted sexual conduct as “unwanted physical sexual contact includes forcible fondling,

sexual assault, forcible rape, use of drugs to incapacitate, forcible sodomy, gang rape, and sexual assault with an

object.”



147

Students’ Perceived Academic Success

As mentioned earlier in this report, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on one scale

embedded in Question 12 of the survey. The scale, termed “Perceived Academic Success” for the

purposes of this project, was developed using Pascarella and Terenzini’s (1980) Academic and

Intellectual Development Scale. This scale has been used in a variety of studies examining

student persistence. The first seven sub-questions of Question 12 of the survey reflect the

questions on this scale.

The questions in each scale (Table 59) were answered on a Likert metric from “strongly agree”

to “strongly disagree” (scored 1 for “strongly agree” and 5 for “strongly disagree”). For the

purposes of analysis, Undergraduate Student respondents who did not answer all scale sub-

questions were not included in the analysis. More than 3% (3.1%) of all potential Undergraduate

Student respondents were removed from the analysis as a result of one or more missing

responses.

A factor analysis was conducted on the Perceived Academic Success scale utilizing principal axis

factoring. The factor loading of each item was examined to test whether the intended questions

combined to represent the underlying construct of the scale.76 One question from the scale

(Q12_A_2) did not hold with the construct and was removed; the scale used for analyses had six

questions rather than seven. The internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of the scale

was 0.866 (after removing the question noted above) which is high, meaning that the scale

produces consistent results. With Q12_A_2 included, Cronbach’s alpha was only 0.775.

76Factor analysis is a particularly useful technique for scale construction. It is used to determine how well a set of

survey questions combine to measure a latent construct by measuring how similarly respondents answer those

questions.



148

Table 59. Survey Items Included in the Perceived Academic Success Factor Analyses

Scale

Survey

item

number Academic experience

Perceived Academic Success

Q11_1 I am performing up to my full academic potential.

Q11_3 I am satisfied with my academic experience at Kent State.

Q11_4 I am satisfied with the extent of my intellectual development since enrolling at

Kent State.

Q11_5 I have performed academically as well as I anticipated I would.

Q11_6 My academic experience has had a positive influence on my intellectual growth

and interest in ideas.

Q11_7 My interest in ideas and intellectual matters has increased since coming Kent

State.

The factor score for Perceived Academic Success was created by taking the average of the scores

for the six sub-questions in the factor. Each respondent that answered all of the questions

included in the given factor was given a score on a five-point scale. Lower scores on Perceived

Academic Success factor suggest a student or constituent group is more academically successful.

Means Testing Methodology

After creating the factor scores for respondents based on the factor analysis, means were

calculated and the means for Student respondents were analyzed using a t-test for difference of

means. Additionally, where n’s were of sufficient size, separate analyses were conducted to

determine whether the means for the Perceived Academic Success factor were different for first-

level categories in the following demographic areas:

o Gender identity (Men, Women)

o Racial identity (People of Color, White People, People of Multiple Race)

o Sexual identity (LGBQ including Pansexual, Heterosexual, Asexual)

o Disability status (Disability, No Disability, Multiple Disabilities)

o First-Generation/Low-Income status (First-Generation/Low-Income, Not-First-

Generation/Low-Income)

o Age (22 and Under, 23 and Over)

o Military Service status (Military Service, No Military Service)

o Employment status (Employed, Not Employed)



149

When only two categories existed for the specified demographic variable (e.g., gender), a t-

test for difference of means was used. If the difference in means was significant, effect size

was calculated using Cohen’s d and any moderate-to-large effects are noted.

When the specific variable of interest had more than two categories (e.g., racial identity),

ANOVAs were run to determine whether any differences existed. If the ANOVA was

significant, post-hoc tests were run to determine which differences between pairs of means

were significant. Additionally, if the difference in means was significant, effect size was

calculated using eta2 and any moderate to large effects were noted.

Means Testing Results

The following sections offer analyses to determine differences for the demographic

characteristics mentioned above for Undergraduate Student respondents (where possible).

Gender Identity

A significant difference (p < .001) existed in the overall test for means for Undergraduate

Student respondents by gender identity on Perceived Academic Success. Woman Student

respondents had greater Perceived Academic Success.

Table 60. Undergraduate Student Respondents’ Perceived Academic Success by Gender Identity

Sexual identity n Mean Std. Dev.

Woman 661 1.833 0.663

Man 260 2.019 0.658

Mean difference -0.186***

***p < .001



150

Racial Identity

No significant difference existed (p = .191) in the overall test for means for Undergraduate

Student respondents by racial identity on Perceived Academic Success.

Table 61. Undergraduate Students Respondents’ Perceived Academic Success by Racial Identity

Racial identity n Mean Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum

People of Color 75 1.978 0.768 1.00 4.00

White Only 801 1.873 0.662 1.00 4.50

Multiple Race 53 2.003 0.672 1.00 3.67

Because the overall test was not significant, no subsequent analyses on Perceived Academic

Success for Undergraduate Student respondents were run.

Sexual Identity

No significant difference existed (p = .909) in the overall test for means for Undergraduate

Students by sexual identity on Perceived Academic Success.

Table 62. Undergraduate Students Respondents’ Perceived Academic Success by Sexual Identity

Sexual identity n Mean Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum

LGBQ including pansexual 95 1.884 0.683 1.00 4.00

Heterosexual 745 1.881 0.657 1.00 4.50

Asexual 79 1.916 0.722 1.00 3.83

Because the overall test was not significant, no subsequent analyses on Perceived Academic

Success for Undergraduate Students were run.



151

Disability Status

A significant difference existed (p < .001) in the overall test for means for Undergraduate

Student respondents by disability status on Perceived Academic Success.

Table 63. Undergraduate Students Respondents’ Perceived Academic Success by Disability Status

Disability status n Mean Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum

Disability 96 2.115 0.735 1.00 4.00

No Disability 791 1.846 0.650 1.00 4.50

Multiple Disabilities 51 2.121 0.765 1.00 4.33

Subsequent analyses on Perceived Academic Success for Undergraduate Student respondents

were significant for two comparisons— Student respondents with No Disability versus Student

respondents with a Single Disability and Student respondents with Multiple Disabilities. These

findings suggest that Undergraduate Student respondents with No Disabilities have greater

Perceived Academic Success than Students respondents with Single or Multiple Disabilities.

Table 64. Difference Between Means for Undergraduate Students for Perceived Academic Success by

Disability Status

Groups compared Mean Difference

Disability vs. No Disability 0.269***

Disability vs. Multiple Disabilities -0.006

No Disability vs. Multiple Disabilities -0.275*

*p < .05; ***p < .001

Parent Education/Low-Income Status

No significant difference (p = .936) existed in the overall test for means for Undergraduate

Student respondents by parent education and low income status on Perceived Academic Success.

Table 65. Undergraduate Student Respondents’ Perceived Academic Success by Parent Education/Income

Status

Parent education/Income status n Mean Std. Dev.

Not-First-Generation/Low-Income 698 1.891 0.673

First-Generation/Low-Income 243 1.887 0.671

Mean difference 0.004



152

Age


Student respondents by age on Perceived Academic Success.

Table 66. Undergraduate Student Respondents’ Perceived Academic Success by Age

Undergraduate Students

Age n Mean Std. Dev.

22 and Under 478 1.930 0.669

23 and Over 461 1.847 0.674


Military Status


Student respondents by military status on Perceived Academic Success.

Table 67. Undergraduate Student Respondents’ Perceived Academic Success by Military Status

Military status n Mean Std. Dev.

Military Service 44 1.970 0.810

No Military Service 894 1.886 0.666


Employment Status


Student respondents by employment status on Perceived Academic Success.

Table 68. Undergraduate Student Respondents’ Perceived Academic Success by Employment Status

Employment status n Mean Std. Dev.

Not Employed 260 1.850 0.654

Employed 678 1.905 0.680

Mean difference -0.055



153

Students’ Perceptions of Campus Climate at a Kent State University – Regional Campus

One of the survey items asked Student respondents the degree to which they agreed with 11

statements about their interactions with faculty, students, staff members, and senior

administrators at Kent State (Table 69). Seventy-seven percent (n = 785) of Student respondents

felt valued by faculty in the classroom; 64% (n = 628) felt valued by other students; 72% (n =

705) felt that Kent State faculty were genuinely concerned with their welfare; and 62% (n = 602)

felt that Kent State staff were genuinely concerned with their welfare. Frequencies and

significant differences based on undergraduate student status, gender identity,77 racial identity,

sexual identity, disability status, military service, income status, first-generation status, and first-

generation low-income status are provided in Tables 69 through 72.

Thirty-nine percent (n = 32) of Asexual Student respondents “strongly agreed” that they felt

valued by students in the classroom, compared with 24% (n = 188) of Heterosexual Student

respondents and 24% (n = 23) of LGBQ Student respondents.

Table 69. Student Respondents’ Feelings of Value

Strongly

agree

n %

Agree

n %

Neither

agree nor

disagree

n %

Disagree

n %

Strongly

disagree

n %

I feel valued by faculty in

the classroom. 370 34.6 415 42.1 147 14.9 42 4.3 11 1.1

I feel valued by other

students in the classroom. 249 25.4 379 38.7 267 27.3 70 7.2 14 1.4

Sexual identityxxxiii

LGBQ 23 23.7 33 34.0 27 27.8 9 9.3 5 5.2

Heterosexual 188 24.2 312 40.2 219 28.2 52 6.7 5 0.6

Asexual 32 38.6 28 33.7 17 20.5 < 5 --- < 5 ---


faculty are genuinely

concerned with my

welfare. 335 34.1 370 37.7 186 19.0 67 6.8 23 2.3

77Transspectrum Student respondents (n = 18) were not included in the analyses because their numbers were too few

to ensure confidentiality of their responses.



154

Table 69 (cont.)

n % n % n % n %

n %


staff are genuinely

concerned with my

welfare (e.g., residence

hall staff). 281 28.9 321 33.0 294 30.2 58 6.0 18 1.9


Thirty percent (n = 299) of Student respondents indicated that they felt that faculty prejudged

their abilities based on perceptions of the Student respondents’ identities and backgrounds (Table

70). Significantly, more Asexual Student respondents (50%, n = 41) “strongly agreed” or

“agreed” that they felt that faculty prejudged their abilities based on perceptions of the Student

respondents’ identities and backgrounds compared with Heterosexual Student respondents (29%,

n = 226) and LGBQ Student respondents (25%, n = 24). A greater percentage of No Disability

Student respondents (31%, n = 259) than Single Disability Student respondents (27%, n = 27)

and Multiple Disabilities Student respondents78 “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they felt that

faculty prejudged their abilities based on perceptions of the Student respondents’ identities and

backgrounds. Lastly, slight but significant differences emerged by first-generation status, such

that Not-First-Generation Student respondents (31%, n = 122), more so than First-Generation

Student respondents (30%, n = 177), “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they felt that faculty

prejudged their abilities based on perceptions of the Student respondents’ identities and

backgrounds.

Nearly three-fourths (72%, n = 706) of Student respondents believed that the campus climate

encouraged free and open discussion of difficult topics. Seventy-three percent (n = 715) of

Student respondents indicated that they had faculty whom they perceived as role models. By

gender identity, significantly more Woman Student respondents (75%, n = 516) than Men

Student respondents (68%, n = 186) “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they had faculty whom

they perceived as role models. Significance also emerged by first-generation low-income status.

Seventy-six percent (n = 190) of First-Generation Low-Income Student respondents and 72% (n

78Percentage and overall number for Student respondents with Multiple Disabilities was not offered because one cell

has an n that is less than five.



155

= 525) of Not-First-Generation Not-Low-Income Student respondents “strongly agreed” or

“agreed” that they had faculty whom they perceived as role models.

A smaller percentage 56% (n = 542) of Student respondents indicated that they had staff whom

they perceived as role models. By sexual identity, Asexual Student respondents (71%, n = 59)

were significantly more likely to “strongly agree” or “agree” that they had staff whom they

perceived as role models than were LGBQ Student respondents (55%, n = 53) and Heterosexual

Student respondents (54%, n = 418). Additionally, significance was again observed by first-

generation low-income status, with 63% (n = 156) of First-Generation Low-Income Student

respondents “strongly agreeing” or “agreeing” that they had staff whom they perceived as role

models compared with 53% (n = 386) of Not-First-Generation Not-Low-Income Student

respondents.

Table 70. Student Respondents’ Perceptions of Campus Climate

Strongly

agree Agree

Neither

agree nor

disagree Disagree

Strongly

disagree

Perception n % n % n % n % n %

I think that faculty pre-judge

my abilities based on their

perception of my


Sexual identityxxxiv LGBQ 10 10.4 14 14.6 24 25.0 30 31.3 18 18.8

Heterosexual 88 11.3 138 17.7 232 29.7 193 24.7 129 16.5

Asexual 24 29.3 17 20.7 24 29.3 9 11.0 8 9.8

Disability statusxxxv

Disability 5 5.0 22 21.8 39 38.6 25 24.8 10 9.9

No Disability 117 14.2 142 17.2 226 27.4 200 24.2 141 17.1

Multiple Disabilities < 5 --- 8 15.7 19 37.3 12 23.5 8 15.7

First-generation statusxxxvi

First-Generation 74 12.6 103 17.5 171 29.0 125 21.2 116 19.7

Not-First-Generation 52 13.4 70 18.0 113 29.0 110 28.3 44 11.3

I believe that the campus

climate encourages free and

open discussion of difficult

topics. 322 32.9 384 39.2 201 20.5 53 5.4 20 2.0



156

Table 70 (cont.) n % n % n % n % n %

I have faculty whom I perceive as

role models. 398 40.6 317 32.3 185 18.9 59 6.0 22 2.2

Gender identityxxxvii

Woman 295 42.9 221 32.1 114 16.6 40 5.8 18 2.6

Man 95 34.9 91 33.5 67 24.6 17 6.3 < 5 ---

First-generation low-income

statusxxxviii

Not-First-Generation Not-Low-

Income 277 37.9 248 33.9 147 20.1 43 5.9 16 2.2

First-Generation Low-Income 121 48.4 69 27.6 38 15.2 16 6.4 6 2.4

I have staff whom I perceive as role

models. 292 30.0 250 25.7 332 34.1 73 7.5 27 2.8 Sexual identityxxxix

LGBQ 34 35.4 19 19.8 26 27.1 14 14.6 < 5 ---

Heterosexual 216 28.0 202 26.2 283 36.7 52 6.7 19 2.5

Asexual 35 42.2 24 28.9 18 21.7 < 5 --- < 5 ---

First-generation low-income statusxl

Not-First-Generation Not-Low-

Income 200 27.6 186 25.7 265 36.6 54 7.4 20 2.8



Student respondents were asked about their perception of specific interactions with their

advisers. Sixty-seven percent (n = 655) of Student respondents indicated that they had advisers

who provided them with career advice (Table 71). Significant differences emerged by income

status, first-generation status, and low-income first-generation status. By income status, Low-

Income Student respondents (38%, n = 136) were more likely than Not-Low-Income Student

respondents (33%, n = 200) to “strongly agree” that they had advisers who provided them with

career advice. Similarly, First-Generation Student respondents (38%, n = 226) were more likely

than Not-First-Generation Student respondents (30%, n = 114) to “strongly agree” that they had

advisers who provided them with career advice. Lastly, by first-generation low-income status,

44% (n = 110) of First-Generation Low-Income Student respondents compared with 32% (n =

231) of Not-First-Generation Not-Low-Income Student respondents “strongly agreed” that they

had advisers who provided them with career advice.

Seventy-five percent (n = 738) of Student respondents indicated that they had advisers who

provided them with advice on core class selection. Significant differences emerged by gender

identity, with 41% (n = 281) of Women Student respondents and 38% (n = 103) of Men Student



157

respondents “strongly agreeing” that they had advisers who provided them with advice on core

class selection. Significance again emerged by first-generation low-income status, with 46% (n =

115) of First-Generation Low-Income Student respondents compared with 38% (n = 277) Not-

First-Generation Not-Low-Income Student respondents “strongly agreeing” that they had

advisers who provided them with advice on core class selection.

Table 71. Student Respondents’ Perceptions of Advisers

Strongly

agree Agree

Neither

agree nor

disagree Disagree

Strongly

disagree


I have advisers who provide me with

career advice. 341 34.8 314 32.1 189 19.3 70 7.2 65 6.6

Income statusxli

Low-Income 136 38.0 104 29.1 58 16.2 36 10.1 24 6.7

Not-Low-Income 200 33.3 200 33.3 127 21.2 34 5.7 39 6.5

First-generation statusxlii

First-Generation 226 38.4 182 30.9 107 18.2 35 5.9 39 6.6

Not-First-Generation 114 29.5 130 33.6 82 21.2 35 9.0 26 6.7

First-generation low-income statusxliii

Not-First-Generation Not-Low-Income 231 31.6 245 33.6 156 21.4 47 6.4 51 7.0


I have advisers who provide me with

advice on core class selection. 392 40.0 346 35.3 134 13.7 59 6.0 48 4.9

Gender identityxliv

Woman 281 40.9 247 36.0 84 12.2 37 5.4 38 5.5

Man 103 38.0 92 33.9 47 17.3 22 8.1 7 2.6

First-generation low-income statusxlv






158

Table 72 highlights Student respondents’ perceptions of the value of their voice in campus

dialogues. Slightly more than half (55%, n = 539) of Student respondents indicated that their

voice was valued in campus dialogues. Significance emerged by sexual identity, with 63% (n =

52) of Asexual Student respondents indicating they “strongly agree” or “agree” that their voice

was valued in campus dialogues compared with 55% (n = 433) of Heterosexual Student

respondents and 49% (n = 46) of LGBQ Student respondents. Significance again emerged by

first-generation low-income student status. Fifty-nine percent (n = 147) of First-Generation Low-

Income Student respondents compared with 54% (n = 392) of Not-First-Generation Not-Low-

Income Student respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that their voice was valued in campus

dialogues.

Table 72. Student Respondents’ Perceptions of Value of Their Voice in Campus Dialogues

Strongly

agree Agree

Neither

agree nor

disagree Disagree

Strongly

disagree


My voice is valued in campus

dialogues. 231 23.5 308 31.3 339 34.5 61 6.2 44 4.5

Sexual identityxlvi

LGBQ 24 25.3 22 23.2 35 36.8 9 9.5 5 5.3

Heterosexual 173 22.1 260 33.2 273 34.9 48 6.1 28 3.6

Asexual 31 37.3 21 25.3 23 27.7 < 5 --- 6 7.2

First-generation low-income statusxlvii



Note: Table includes Student respondents (n = 987) only.

xxxiiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who felt valued by other

students in the classroom by sexual identity: 2 (8, N = 956) = 27.8, p < .01. xxxivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who thought that faculty

prejudged their abilities based on perceptions of their identity/background by sexual identity: 2 (8, N = 958) = 31.4, p < .001. xxxvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who thought that faculty

prejudged their abilities based on perceptions of their identity/background by disability status: 2 (8, N = 978) = 16.2, p < .05. xxxviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who thought that faculty

prejudged their abilities based on perceptions of their identity/background by first-generation status: 2 (4, N = 978) = 15.1, p < .01.



159

xxxviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who believed that they had

faculty they perceived as role models by gender identity: 2 (4, N = 960) = 13.2, p < .05. xxxviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who believed that they had

faculty they perceived as role models by first-generation low-income status: 2 (4, N = 981) = 9.9, p < .05 xxxixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who believed that they had staff

they perceived as role models by sexual identity: 2 (8, N = 951) = 23.7, p < .01. xlA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who believed that they had staff

they perceived as role models by first-generation low-income status: 2 (4, N = 974) = 10.5, p < .05. xliA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who indicated on the survey that

they had advisers who provided them with career advice by income status: 2 (4, N = 958) = 11.5, p < .05. xliiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who indicated on the survey that

they had advisers who provided them with career advice by first-generation status: 2 (4, N = 976) = 10.1, p < .05. xliiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who indicated on the survey that

they had advisers who provided them with career advice by first-generation low-income status: 2 (4, N = 979) = 19.2, p < .01. xlivA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who indicated on the survey that

they had advisers who provided them with advice on core class selection by gender identity: 2 (4, N = 658) = 10.3, p < .05. xlvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who indicated on the survey that

they had advisers who provided them with advice on core class selection by first-generation low-income status: 2

(4, N = 979) = 10.6, p < .05. xlviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who indicated on the survey that

their voice was valued in campus dialogues by sexual identity: 2 (8, N = 960) = 19.0, p < .05. xlviiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who indicated on the survey that

their voice was valued in campus dialogues by first-generation low-income status: 2 (4, N = 983) = 9.9, p < .05.



160

Students Who Have Seriously Considered Leaving a Kent State University - Regional

Campus

Thirty-four percent (n = 541) of all respondents (Faculty, Staff, and Students) had seriously

considered leaving a Kent State University - Regional Campus. With regard to student status,

25% (n = 244) of Student respondents had seriously considered leaving a Kent State University -

Regional Campus. Of the Student respondents who considered leaving, 50% (n = 123)

considered leaving in their first year as a student, 33% (n = 81) in their second year, 23% (n =

56) in their third year, 9% (n = 23) in their fourth year, 4% (n = 10) in their fifth year, and 4% (n

= 9) after their fifth year.

Subsequent analyses were run for Undergraduate Student respondents who had considered

leaving a Kent State – Regional Campus by undergraduate student status, gender identity,79

racial identity, sexual identity, disability status, military service, income status, first-generation

status, first-generation low-income status, and religious affiliation. Significant results for

Undergraduate Student respondents indicated that:

By undergraduate student status, 27% (n = 133) of Undergraduate Student respondents

who started their first year at Kent State and 20% (n = 46) of Undergraduate Student

respondents who transferred into Kent State seriously considered leaving the

institution.xlviii

By gender identity, 31% (n = 85) of Men Student respondents and 22% (n = 149) of

Women Student respondents seriously considered leaving the institution.xlix

By racial identity, 41% (n = 22) of Multiracial Student respondents, 26% (n = 20) of

People of Color Student respondents, and 24% (n = 198) of White Student respondents

seriously considered leaving the institution.l

By military status, 40% (n = 19) of Military Service Student respondents and 24% (n =

225) of Non-Military Service Student respondents seriously considered leaving the

institution.li





161

By disability status, 33% (n = 17) of Student respondents with Multiple Disabilities, 33%

(n = 33) of Student respondents with a Single Disability, and 23% (n = 192) of Student

respondents with No Disability seriously considered leaving the institution.lii

Twenty-six percent (n = 63) of Student respondents who seriously considered leaving suggested

that it was related to financial reasons (Table 73). Others considered leaving because of personal

reasons (e.g., medical, mental health, family emergencies) (20%, n = 48), they lacked a sense of

belonging (19%, n = 46), and/or because they didn’t like their major (18%, n = 44).

Table 73. Reasons Why Student Respondents Considered Leaving a Kent State University -

Regional Campus

Reason n %

Financial reasons 63 25.8


Lack of a sense of belonging 46 18.9

Didn’t like major 44 18.0

Campus climate was not welcoming 41 16.8

Coursework was too difficult 28 11.5

Never intended to graduate from Kent State 24 9.8

Lack of support group 21 8.6

Didn’t meet the selection criteria for a major 18 7.4

My marital/relationship status 9 3.7

Homesick < 5 ---

Immigration compliance issues (e.g., VISA status) < 5 ---


Note: Table includes only those Student respondents who indicated that they considered leaving in Question 7 (n = 244).

Sense of Belonging – Of the 370 respondents who responded to the open-ended question

regarding their consideration of leaving the institution, 166 were students. The most salient

theme for why students seriously considered leaving one of the Kent State – Regional Campuses

was related to a sense of belonging. Students wrote “I feel as though I am not really a part of the

campus community” and “I don’t feel welcome, or comfortable.” Another student added “I felt



162

like the instructors did not care, the advisors were not approachable & I lacked assertiveness

needed to survive on the main campus. It was a cold environment.” One student even wrote, “In

my opinion, KSU is not a ‘student friendly’ university.” One night student expressed the feeling

of being disregarded. This student wrote, “all activities stop hours before my classes start.

Library, learning center and cafeteria all close too early for me to utilize.” Generally, students

suggested that “the climate from the student sector” at their campuses was “very unwelcoming.”

Eighty-seven percent (n = 852) of Student respondents indicated that they intended to graduate

from Kent State. Subsequent analyses were run for Student respondents who thought that it was

likely that they would graduate from Kent State by undergraduate student status, gender

identity,80 racial identity, sexual identity, disability status, military service, income status, first-

generation status, and first-generation low-income status. Only gender identityliii yielded

significant results (Figure 35).





163

89

82

0 20 40 60 80 100

Woman (n = 612)

Man (n = 222)

Figure 35. Student Respondents “Strongly Agreed” or “Agreed” That

They Intend to Graduate From Kent State (%)

Figure 36 illustrates that 15% (n = 144) of Student respondents were considering transferring to

another institution for academic reasons. Subsequent analyses were also run for Student

respondents who were considering transferring to another institution for academic reasons by

undergraduate student status, gender identity,81 racial identity, sexual identity, disability status,

military service, income status, first-generation status, and first-generation low-income status;

only gender identity,liv racial identity,lv and sexual identitylvi yielded significant results.





164

13

18

21

13

26

11

13

27

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Woman (n = 91)

Man (n = 48)


White (n = 110)


LGBQ (n = 11)

Heterosexual (n = 105)

Asexual (n = 22)

Figure 37. Student Respondents “Strongly Agreed” or “Agreed” That They Were Considering

Transferring to Another Institution For Academic Reasons (%)

xlviiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Undergraduate Student respondents who had

seriously considered leaving a Kent State University - Regional Campus by undergraduate student status: 2 (1, N = 720) = 5.0, p < .05. xlixA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Undergraduate Student respondents who had seriously

considered leaving a Kent State University - Regional Campus by gender identity: 2 (1, N = 964) = 10.0, p < .01. lA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Undergraduate Student respondents who had seriously

considered leaving a Kent State University - Regional Campus by racial identity: 2 (2, N = 973) = 8.1, p < .05. liA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Undergraduate Student respondents who had seriously

considered leaving a Kent State University - Regional Campus by military service: 2 (1, N = 982) = 5.9, p < .05. liiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Undergraduate Student respondents who had seriously

considered leaving a Kent State University - Regional Campus by disability status: 2 (2, N = 982) = 6.6, p < .05. liiiA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who intended to graduate from

Kent State by gender identity: 2 (4, N = 960) = 14.5, p < .01. livA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who were considering transferring

to another institution for academic reasons by gender identity: 2 (4, N = 965) = 20.5, p < .001. lvA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who were considering transferring

to another institution for academic reasons by racial identity: 2 (8, N = 973) = 16.1, p < .05. lviA chi-square test was conducted to compare percentages of Student respondents who were considering transferring

to another institution for academic reasons by sexual identity: 2 (8, N = 963) = 18.1, p < .05.



165

Summary

For the most part, Students’ responses to a variety of items indicated that they held their

academic and intellectual experiences and their interactions with faculty and other students at the

Kent State University - Regional Campuses in a very positive light. The majority of Student

respondents felt valued by faculty and other students in the classroom. Many Student

respondents also thought that Kent State University - Regional Campus faculty and staff were

genuinely concerned with their welfare. One-fourth (25%, n = 244) of Student respondents had

seriously considered leaving a Kent State University - Regional Campus.

Ten Student respondents indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual contact

while members of a Kent State University - Regional Campus community. Higher instances of

unwanted sexual contact occurred during their first year at a Kent State – Regional Campus.

However, owing to the small number of responses, individual semester counts were not offered.

The majority of Student respondents (87%, n = 852) indicated that they intended to graduate

from Kent State. Additionally, only 15% (n = 144) of Student respondents were considering

transferring to another institution for academic reasons.



166

Institutional Actions

In addition to campus constituents’ personal experiences and perceptions of the campus climate,

diversity-related actions taken by the institution, or not taken, may be perceived either as

promoting a positive campus climate or impeding it. As the following data suggest, respondents

hold divergent opinions about the degree to which some Kent State University - Regional

Campuses do, and should, promote diversity to shape campus climate.

The survey asked Faculty respondents to indicate how they thought that various initiatives

influenced the climate at their Kent State University - Regional Campus if they were currently

available and how those initiatives would influence the climate if they were not currently

available (Table 74). Respondents were asked to decide whether certain institutional actions

positively or negatively influenced the climate, or if they had no influence on the climate.

Forty-four percent (n = 99) of the Faculty respondents thought that providing flexibility for

computing the probationary period for tenure (e.g., tolling) was available felt that it positively

influenced climate, while 17% (n = 38) thought that it would positively influence the climate if it

were available.

Thirty-four percent (n = 81) of the Faculty respondents thought that providing recognition and

rewards for including diversity issues in courses across the curriculum were available felt that

they positively influenced climate, while 27% (n = 63) thought that they would positively

influence the climate if they were available.

Fifty-four percent (n = 135) of the Faculty respondents thought that diversity and equity training

for faculty was available felt that it positively influenced climate, while 14% (n = 34) thought

that it would positively influence the climate if it were available.

Sixty-seven percent (n = 176) of the Faculty respondents thought that providing access to

counseling for people who have experienced harassment was available felt that such access

positively influenced climate, while 20% (n = 52) thought that such access would positively

influence the climate if it were available.



167

Seventy percent (n = 191) of the Faculty respondents thought that providing mentorship for new

faculty was available felt that it positively influenced climate, while 19% (n = 51) thought that it

would positively influence the climate if mentorship were available.

Sixty-three percent (n = 163) of the Faculty respondents thought that providing a clear process to

resolve conflicts was available felt that it positively influenced climate, while 24% (n = 61)

thought that it would positively influence the climate if it were available.

Sixty-six percent (n = 167) of the Faculty respondents thought that providing a fair process to

resolve conflicts was available felt that it positively influenced climate, while 22% (n = 56)


Thirty-two percent (n = 79) of the Faculty respondents thought that including diversity-related

professional experiences as one of the criteria for hiring of staff/faculty was available felt that it

positively influenced climate, while 18% (n = 44) thought that it would positively influence the

climate if it were available.

Forty-seven percent (n = 114) of the Faculty respondents thought that equity and diversity

training for search, promotion, and tenure committees was available felt that it positively


were available.

Fifty percent (n = 127) of the Faculty respondents thought that career-span development

opportunities for faculty at all ranks was available felt that they positively influenced climate,

while 38% (n = 96) thought that they would positively influence the climate if these

opportunities were available.

Thirty-two percent (n = 81) of the Faculty respondents thought that providing adequate child care

was available felt that it positively influenced climate, while 49% (n = 125) thought that it would

positively influence the climate if it were available.



168

Table 74. Faculty Respondents’ Perceptions of Institutional Initiatives

Initiative IS Available Kent State Initiative IS NOT available at Kent State

Positively

influences

climate

Has no

influence on

climate

Negatively

influences climate

Would positively

influence climate

Would have

no influence

on climate

Would

negatively

influence

climate

Institutional initiative n % n % n % n % n % n %

Providing flexibility for computing the probationary period for tenure

(e.g., tolling) 99 43.8 52 23.0 17 7.5 38 16.8 13 5.8 7 3.1

Providing recognition and rewards for including diversity issues in courses

across the curriculum 81 34.0 50 21.0 17 7.1 63 26.5 18 7.6 9 3.8

Providing diversity and equity

training for faculty 135 54.0 59 23.6 5 2.0 34 13.6 14 5.6 < 5 ---

Providing access to counseling for

people who have experienced

harassment 176 67.4 26 10.0 0 0.0 52 19.9 < 5 --- < 5 ---

Providing mentorship for new faculty 191 70.0 21 7.7 < 5 --- 51 18.7 < 5 --- 5 1.8

Providing a clear process to resolve

conflicts 163 63.4 23 8.9 < 5 --- 61 23.7 7 2.7 < 5 ---

Providing a fair process to resolve

conflicts 167 65.5 23 9.0 < 5 --- 56 22.0 5 2.0 < 5 ---

Including diversity-related professional experiences as one of the

criteria for hiring of staff/faculty 79 32.2 57 23.3 24 9.8 44 18.0 32 13.1 9 3.7

Providing equity and diversity training to search, promotion and

tenure committees 114 46.9 53 21.8 11 4.5 49 20.2 13 5.3 < 5 ---



169

Table 74 (cont.) Initiative IS Available Kent State Initiative IS NOT Available Kent State

Positively

influences

climate

Has no

influence on

climate

Negatively

influences climate

Would positively

influence climate

Would have

no influence

on climate

Would

negatively

influence

climate


Providing career span development

opportunities for faculty at all ranks 127 49.8 22 8.6 0 0.0 96 37.6 10 3.9 0 0.0

Providing adequate childcare 81 31.6 30 11.7 < 5 --- 125 48.8 16 6.3 < 5 ---

Note: Table includes only Faculty responses (n = 334).

Diversity – Forty-two Faculty respondents elaborated on their opinions of institutional actions relative to their experiences at a Kent

State – Regional Campus. The initiatives that most respondents drew attention toward included items related to diversity. Respondents

expressed varied sentiments regarding diversity training. Some respondents expressed that diversity training was not worth their time.

One such respondent wrote, “I am in a science field--diversity issues?? Race is not a biological construct--so sure we talk diversity--

that’s life--telling me I need specific content addressing diversity indicates a lack of understanding of my discipline and what I do.

And I have enough to do without being required to attend diversity training--whatever that may mean--If I get a spare second--I want

to spend my time reading the scientific literature and writing--there are only so many hours in a day.” Others shared that the process in

which diversity training is presented to faculty needs to be reconsidered, “Forcing academic minded adults (faculty/staff) to ‘learn’

about diversity does not achieve much in my opinion. Inclusiveness cannot be forced. It is a state of mind. Offering opportunities is

the best route. Not requiring.” Still others shared that diversity training and items related to diversity are not clearly defined, “The

problem, in my view, is the definition of ‘diversity.’ Lately, it appears that ‘diversity’ is defined exclusively in terms of color or

gender. Surely there are other measures of diversity (e.g., cosmopolitanism, appreciation of other cultures, or nuanced knowledge of

regional differences).” In general respondents were most prone to respond to diversity as a concept, rather than a specific initiative

offered within the preceding list.



170

The survey asked Staff respondents (n = 266) to respond regarding similar initiatives, which are

listed in Table 75. Fifty-nine percent (n = 143) of the Staff respondents who thought that

diversity and equity training for staff was available felt that it positively influenced climate,

while 10% (n = 25) thought that it would positively influence the climate if it were available.

Sixty-seven percent (n = 159) of the Staff respondents thought that providing access to

counseling for people who had experienced harassment was available felt that it positively


were available.

Forty percent (n = 96) of the Staff respondents thought that mentorship for new staff was

available felt that it positively influenced climate, while 49% (n = 120) thought that mentorship

would positively influence the climate if it were available.

Fifty-one percent (n = 119) of the Staff respondents thought that a clear process to resolve

conflicts was available felt that it positively influenced climate, while 35% (n = 81) thought that

it would positively influence the climate if it were available.

Fifty-two percent (n = 120) of the Staff respondents thought that a fair process to resolve

conflicts was available felt that it positively influenced climate, while 34% (n = 78) thought that


Thirty-one percent (n = 70) of the Staff respondents thought that considering diversity-related

professional experiences as one of the criteria for hiring of staff/faculty was available felt that it

positively influenced climate, while 17% (n = 39) thought that it would positively influence the

climate if it were available.

Fifty-seven percent (n = 136) of the Staff respondents thought that career development

opportunities for staff were available felt that they positively influenced climate, while 29% (n =

70) thought that it would positively influence the climate if they were available.



171

Twenty-three percent (n = 54) of the Staff respondents thought that adequate child care was

available felt that it positively influenced climate, while 52% (n = 122) thought that it would

positively influence the climate if it were available.



172

Table 75. Staff Respondents’ Perceptions of Institutional Initiatives

Initiative IS Available Kent State Initiative IS NOT available at Kent State

Positively

influences

climate

Has no

influence on

climate

Negatively

influences

climate

Would

positively

influence

climate

Would have no

influence on

climate

Would negatively

influence climate


Providing diversity and equity training for staff 143 58.8 57 23.5 < 5 --- 25 10.3 12 4.9 < 5 ---

Providing access to counseling for

people who have experienced

harassment 159 67.1 26 11.0 < 5 --- 38 16.0 7 3.0 < 5 ---

Providing mentorship for new staff 96 39.5 16 6.6 0 0.0 120 49.4 10 4.1 < 5 ---

Providing a clear process to resolve

conflicts 119 50.6 24 10.2 < 5 --- 81 34.5 < 5 --- < 5 ---

Providing a fair process to resolve

conflicts 120 51.7 24 10.3 < 5 --- 78 33.6 6 2.6 < 5 ---

Considering diversity-related

professional experiences as one of the

criteria for hiring of staff/faculty 70 31.0 57 25.2 16 7.1 39 17.3 35 15.5 9 4.0

Providing career development

opportunities for staff 136 56.7 28 11.7 0 0.0 70 29.2 5 2.1 < 5 ---

Providing adequate childcare 54 22.9 31 13.1 < 5 --- 122 51.7 23 9.7 < 5 ---




173

Lack of value and voice in decision making – Fifty Staff respondents elaborated on their opinions

of institutional actions as they related to their Kent State – Regional Campus. The most prevalent

theme that emerged within the narratives concerned respondents’ dissatisfaction with the

perceived lack of value they possess and regard that is given to them as constituents in the

decision-making processes of Kent State’s leadership. One respondent noted, “I think staff and

administrators are often overlooked as being a valuable asset to the institution. While faculty

[are] critical, administration and staff keep the institution running on a day-to-day basis.”

Another respondent offered a rhetorical question asking, “In light of faculty appreciation week,

and administrative professionals day where does unclassified staff fit in? When do we get

‘appreciated.’” Another layer of the perceived lack of value was the notion that respondents felt

that regional campuses were less important than the Kent campus. One respondent described this

sentiment in their narrative which read more as a plea, “Please include the regional campus

perspectives and diversities of climates in institutional actions. Part of the climate for those who

work at regionals is feeling ‘less than’ and/or ignored within the Kent State community.”



174

Student respondents (n = 987) also were asked in the survey to respond regarding a similar list of

initiatives, provided in Table 76. Fifty-nine percent (n = 533) of the Student respondents who

thought that diversity and equity training for students was available felt that it positively

influenced climate, while 19% (n = 170) thought that it would positively influence the climate if

it were available.

Sixty-three percent (n = 563) of the Student respondents thought that diversity and equity

training for staff was available felt that it positively influenced climate, while 17% (n = 155)


Sixty-four percent (n = 567) of the Student respondents thought that diversity and equity training

for faculty was available felt that it positively influenced climate, while 17% (n = 151) thought


Sixty-one percent (n = 540) of the Student respondents thought that a person to address student

complaints of bias by faculty/staff in learning environments was available felt that it positively


it were available.

Fifty-six percent (n = 499) of the Student respondents thought that increasing opportunities for

cross-cultural dialogue among students was available felt that it positively influenced climate,

while 21% (n = 190) thought that it would positively influence the climate if it were available.

Fifty-six percent (n = 501) of the Student respondents thought that increasing opportunities for

cross-cultural dialogue among faculty, staff, and students was available felt that it positively


it were available.

Fifty-eight percent (n = 512) of the Student respondents thought that incorporating issues of

diversity and cross-cultural competence more effectively into the curriculum was available felt



175

that it positively influenced climate, while 18% (n = 159) thought that it would positively

influence the climate if it were available.

Sixty-seven percent (n = 600) of the Student respondents thought that effective faculty

mentorship of students was available felt that it positively influenced climate, while 16% (n =

144) thought that it would positively influence the climate if it were available.

Seventy-six percent (n = 679) of the Student respondents thought that effective academic

advising was available felt that it positively influenced climate, while 12% (n = 111) thought that


Fifty-eight percent (n = 518) of the Student respondents thought that diversity training for

student staff was available felt that it positively influenced climate, while 20% (n = 180) thought


Forty-six percent (n = 402) of the Student respondents thought that adequate child care resources

were available felt that the resources positively influenced climate, while 32% (n = 279) thought

that they would positively influence the climate if it were available.



176

Table 76. Student Respondents’ Perceptions of Institutional Initiatives

Initiative IS Available at Kent State Initiative IS NOT available at Kent State

Positively

influences

climate

Has no

influence on

climate

Negatively

influences

climate

Would

positively

influence

climate

Would have no

influence on

climate

Would

negatively

influence

climate


Providing diversity and equity training

for students 533 59.0 112 12.4 9 1.0 170 18.8 70 7.8 9 1.0


for staff 563 62.6 111 12.3 9 1.0 155 17.2 52 5.8 9 1.0


for faculty 567 63.7 103 11.6 12 1.3 151 17.0 48 5.4 9 1.0

Providing a person to address student

complaints of classroom inequity 540 60.5 115 12.9 5 0.6 173 19.4 46 5.2 13 1.5

Increasing opportunities for cross-

cultural dialogue among students 499 56.2 121 13.6 9 1.0 190 21.4 59 6.6 10 1.1

Increasing opportunities for cross-

cultural dialogue between faculty,

staff and students 501 56.0 121 13.5 6 0.7 205 22.9 51 5.7 10 1.1

Incorporating issues of diversity and cross-cultural competence more

effectively into the curriculum 512 57.5 135 15.2 12 1.3 159 17.9 56 6.3 16 1.8

Providing effective faculty mentorship

of students 600 67.4 104 11.7 7 0.8 144 16.2 27 3.0 8 0.9



177

Table 76 (cont.) Initiative IS Available at Kent State Initiative IS NOT available at Kent State

Positively

influences

climate

Has no

influence on

climate

Negatively

influences

climate

Would

positively

influence

climate

Would have no

influence on

climate

Would

negatively

influence

climate


Providing effective academic advising 679 75.9 69 7.7 5 0.6 111 12.4 22 2.5 9 1.0

Providing diversity training for

student staff 518 58.3 118 13.3 12 1.3 180 20.2 50 5.6 11 1.2

Providing adequate childcare 402 45.7 119 13.5 12 1.4 279 31.7 52 5.9 16 1.8

Note: Table includes only Student responses (n = 987).

Child care on campus – One hundred thirty-one Student respondents elaborated on their perceptions of institutional actions as they

related to a Kent State – Regional Campus. Owing to the varied nature of responses, only one theme emerged among the Student

respondents: child care. Respondents who elaborated on this question noted their desire for child care on campus. One respondent

explained, “As a 5th year student I have seen many instances in which a parent either misses class, or must bring their child to class

due to lack of childcare at home for whatever reason. I believe that an on campus daycare (at the regional campuses) would be

beneficial to the overall climate of the university.” Another Student respondent shared, “I believe that childcare would be

EXTREMELY helpful at the East Liverpool campus of Kent State.” Similarly, another respondent noted, “As a working mom, I

believe that child care would be helpful to the learning experience. That way I would not have to constantly request family members

to watch my son.”



178

Summary

Perceptions of actions taken by Kent State help to shape the way individuals think and feel about

the climate in which they work and learn. The findings in this section suggest that respondents

generally agree that the actions cited in the survey have, or would have, a positive influence on

the campus climate. Notably, substantial numbers of Faculty, Staff, and Student respondents

indicated that several of the initiatives were not available at the Kent State University - Regional

Campuses. If, in fact, these initiatives are available, Kent State would benefit from better

publicizing all that the institution offers to positively influence the campus climate.



179

Comment Analyses (Questions #103 and #104)

Among the 1,587 surveys submitted for the Kent State – Regional Campuses’ climate

assessment, 1,722 qualitative narratives were written.82 The follow-up questions that allowed

respondents to provide more detail about their answers to a previous survey question were

included in the body of the report. This section summarizes the comments submitted for the final

two survey questions and provides examples of those remarks that were echoed by multiple

respondents. Comments related to previous open-ended questions were added to the relevant

section of the report narrative and, therefore, are not reflected in this section.

Question #103 – Are your experiences on campus different from those you experience in the

community surrounding campus? If so, how are these experiences different?

Preference for on-campus communities – One hundred sixty-four respondents chose to answer

the question regarding the different experiences they have between the on-campus and off-

campus communities. Of these respondents, the data reflected by more than one-third of

respondents established a strong preference for the campus community in contrast to the local

community. Respondents noted, “I feel safer on campus than in the surrounding community” and

“I feel safe on campus.” One respondent wrote, “I hear marginally fewer racist comments on

campus compared to the places around the surrounding community that I hear racist comments.

As it is, the community outside of campus can be very racist.” Another respondent agreed on

more general note adding, “I feel that people on campus are more accepting of differences than

the general population in this area.” Respondents shared that on-campus environments were

more welcoming, with one respondent noting, “I think the campus is friendlier than the

community.” Simply put, many respondents felt that on campus the “climate is better.”

82Number includes instances wherein an individual respondent wrote a qualitative narrative for more than one question.



180

Question #104 – This survey has asked you to reflect upon a large number of issues related to the

climate and your experiences in this climate, using a multiple-choice format. If you wish to

elaborate upon any of your survey responses, further describe your experiences, or offer additional

thoughts about these issues and ways that Kent State might improve the climate, you are

encouraged to do so in the space provided below.

Differences by position status – Three hundred forty respondents chose to elaborate further on

their experiences or offer additional thoughts about issues and ways Kent State could improve.

The most salient theme was related to respondents’ acknowledgement of differences by position

status. Respondents discussed the perceived hierarchy between position statuses. For example,

one respondent elaborated, “There is a large divide between tenured and non-tenured faculty in

so far as many tenured faculty members act as if they are better than those who are non-tenured.”

Similarly, another respondent reported, “There is also a divide between TT and NT faculty, with

favored status for TT. Staff are often perceived even lower.” Another respondent added, “The

TT/NTT divide is toxic.” Low sense of belonging was also noted related to the perception of

being left out of the ‘one university’ concept. One respondent seemed to want to reach out to

those with power at another campus and wrote, “Pay more attention to what is going on at the

Regional Campuses.”

Positive reflections – The second most salient theme was simply positive reflections of Kent

State. One respondent shared, “I love my job, and I love my students...and I love the

environment.” Another respondent noted, “I love Kent State. I am lucky enough to have worked

on both the Kent Campus and a regional campus.” Yet another noted, “I think that Kent State

University does an excellent job at many things. It is a world-class university.” Others shared,

“Everyone at Kent that I have talked with has went out of their way to make sure I have want I

need to be successful during my time at the university! Couldn't be happier” and “I think Kent is

a wonderful place that I feel very happy and comfortable attending.”



181

Next Steps

Embarking on this campus-wide assessment is further evidence of Kent State’s commitment to

ensuring that all members of the community live in an environment that nurtures a culture of

inclusiveness and respect. The primary purpose of this report was to assess the climate within

Kent State – Regional Campuses, including how members of those communities felt about issues

related to inclusion and work-life issues. At a minimum, the results add empirical data to the

current knowledge base and provide more information on the experiences and perceptions for

several sub-populations within the Kent State – Regional Campus community. However,

assessments and reports are not enough. A projected plan to develop strategic actions and a

subsequent implementation plan are critical. Failure to use the assessment data to build on the

successes and address the challenges uncovered in the report will undermine the commitment

offered to the Kent State – Regional Campuses’ community members when the project was

initiated. Also, as recommended by Kent State’s senior leadership, the assessment process should

be repeated regularly to respond to an ever-changing climate and to assess the influence of the

actions initiated as a result of the current assessment.



182

References

Aguirre, A., & Messineo, M. (1997). Racially motivated incidents in higher education: What do

they say about the campus climate for minority students? Equity & Excellence in

Education, 30(2), 26–30.

Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). (1995). The drama of diversity

and democracy. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Bartz, A. E. (1988). Basic statistical concepts. New York: Macmillan.

Bilimoria, D., & Stewart, A.J. (2009). "Don't ask, don't tell": The academic climate for lesbian,

gay, bisexual, and transgender faculty in science and engineering. National Women’s

Studies Association Journal, 21(2), 85-103.

Boyer, E. (1990). Campus life: In search of community. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation

for the Advancement of Teaching.

Brookfield, S. D. (2005). The Power of Critical Theory: Liberating Adult Learning and

Teaching. San Diego, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Chang, M.J. (2003). Racial differences in viewpoints about contemporary issues among entering

college students: Fact or fiction? NASPA Journal, 40(5), 55-71.

Chang, M. J., Denson, N., Sáenz, V., & Misa, K. (2006). The educational benefits of sustaining

cross-racial interaction among undergraduates. Journal of Higher Education, 77(3), 430–

455.

D’Augelli, A. R., & Hershberger, S. L. (1993). African American undergraduates on a

predominantly White campus: Academic factors, social networks, and campus climate.

Journal of Negro Education, 62(1), 67–81

Flowers, L., & Pascarella, E. (1999). Cognitive effects of college racial composition on African

American students after 3 years of college. Journal of College Student Development, 40,

669–677.

Gardner, S. K. (2013). Women and faculty departures from a striving institution: Between a rock

and a hard place. The Review of Higher Education, 36(3), 349-370.

Griffin, K.A., Bennett, J.C., & Harris, J. (2011). Analyzing gender differences in Black faculty

marginalization through a sequential mixed methods design. In S. Museus & K. Griffin,



183

(Eds.), New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 151, (pp. 45-61). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Guiffrida, D., Gouveia, A., Wall, A., & Seward, D. (2008). Development and validation of the

Need for Relatedness at College Questionnaire (nRC-Q). Journal of Diversity in Higher

Education, 1(4), 251–261. doi: 10.1037/a0014051

Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory

and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 330–365.

Hale, F. W. (2004). What makes racial diversity work in higher education: Academic leaders

present successful policies and strategies: Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Harper, S., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for

institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, 2007(120), 7–24.

Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (2004). Taking seriously the evidence regarding the effects of

diversity on student learning in the college classroom: A call for faculty accountability.

UrbanEd, 2(2), 43–47.

Hart, J., & Fellabaum, J. (2008). Analyzing campus climate studies: Seeking to define and

understand. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(4), 222–234.

Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1998). Enacting diverse

learning environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher

educations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, vol. 26, no. 8. Washington, DC:

Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Hurtado, S., & Ponjuan, L. (2005). Latino educational outcomes and the campus climate. Journal

of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 235–251. doi: 10.1177/1538192705276548

Ingle, G. (2005). Will your campus diversity initiative work? Academe, 91(5), 6–10.

Johnson, A. (2005). Privilege, power, and difference (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Johnson, D. R., Soldner, M., Leonard, J., Alvarez, P., Inkelas, K. K., Rowan, K. H., &

Longerbeam, S. (2007). Examining sense of belonging among first-year undergraduates

from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 525–

542.

Johnsrud, L. K., & Sadao, K. C. (1998). The common experience of "otherness": Ethnic and

racial minority faculty. The Review of Higher Education, 21(4), 315-342.



184

Maramba, D.C. & Museus, S.D. (2011). The utility of using mixed-methods and

intersectionality approaches in conducting research on Filipino American students’

experiences with the campus climate and on sense of belonging. In S. Museus & K.

Griffin, (Eds.), New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 151, (pp. 93-101). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Milem, J., Chang, M., & Antonio, A. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A research

based perspective. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Navarro, R.L., Worthington, R.L., Hart, J., & Khairallah, T. (2009). Liberal and conservative

ideology, experiences with harassment, and perceptions of campus climate. Journal of

Diversity in Higher Education, 2(2), 78-90.

Nelson Laird, T. & Niskodé-Dossett, A.S. (2010). How gender and race moderate the effect of

interaction across difference on student perceptions of the campus environment. The

Review of Higher Education, 33(3), 333-356.

Norris, W. P. (1992). Liberal attitudes and homophobic acts: the paradoxes of homosexual

experience in a liberal institution. Journal of Homosexuality, 22(3), 81–120.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Predicting freshman persistence and voluntary

dropout decisions from a theoretical model. The Journal of Higher Education, 51(1), 60–

75.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of

research (Vol. 2). San Diego: Jossey-Bass.

Patton, L. D., & Catching, C. (2009). Teaching while Black: Narratives of African American

student affairs faculty. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(6),

713-728.

Patton, L.D. (2011). Perspectives on identity, disclosure, and the campus environment among

African American gay and bisexual men at one historically Black college. Journal of

College Student Development, 52(1), 77-100.

Pittman, C.T. (2010). Race and gender oppression in the classroom. The experiences of women

faculty of color with White male students. Teaching Sociology, 38(3), 183-196.

Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2006). Relationships among structural diversity, informal peer

interactions, and perceptions of the campus environment.” Review of Higher Education,

29(4), 425–450.



185

Rankin & Associates Consulting. (2015, January 5). Recent Clients. Retrieved from

http://www.rankin-consulting.com/clients

Rankin, S. (2003). Campus climate for LGBT people: A national perspective. New York:

NGLTF Policy Institute.

Rankin, S., & Reason, R. (2005). Differing perceptions: How students of color and white

students perceive campus climate for underrepresented groups. Journal of Student

College Development, 46(1), 43–61.

Rankin, S., & Reason, R. (2008). Transformational tapestry model: A comprehensive approach

to transforming campus climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(4), 262–

274. doi: 10.1037/a0014018

Sáenz, V. B., Nagi, H. N., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Factors influencing positive interactions across

race for African American, Asian American, Latino, and White college students.”

Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 1–38.

Sears, J. T. (2002). The institutional climate for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual education faculty.

Journal of Homosexuality, 43(1), 11–37. doi: 10.1300/J082v43n01_02

Settles, I. H., Cortina, L. M., Malley, J., & Stewart, A. J. (2006). The climate for women in

academic science: The good, the bad, and the changeable. Psychology of Women

Quarterly, 30(1), 47–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00261.x

Silverschanz, P., Cortina, L., Konik, J., & Magley, V. (2008). Slurs, snubs, and queer jokes:

Incidence and impact of heterosexist harassment in academia. Sex Roles, 58(3–4), 179–

191. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9329-7

Smith, D. (2009). Diversity’s promise for higher education: Making it work. Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins Press.

Smith, D. G., Gerbick, G. L., Figueroa, M. A., Watkins, G. H., Levitan, T., Moore, L. C.,

Figueroa, B. (1997). Diversity works: The emerging picture of how students benefit.

Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Smith, E., & Witt, S. L. (1993). A comparative study of occupational stress among African

American and White faculty: A research note. Research in Higher Education, 34(2),

229–241.



186

Solórzano, D. G., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. J. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions,

and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students.

Journal of Negro Education, 69(1), 60-73.

Strayhorn, T.L. (2013). Measuring race and gender difference in undergraduate perceptions of

campus climate and intentions to leave college: An analysis in Black and White. Journal

of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 50(2), 115-132.

Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation.

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Trochim, W. (2000). The research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic

Dog.

Tynes, B.M., Rose, C.A., & Markoe, S.L. (2013). Extending campus life to the internet: Social

media, discrimination, and perceptions of racial climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher

Education, 6(2), 102-114.

Turner, C. S. V., Myers, S. L., & Creswell, J. W. (1999). Exploring underrepresentation: The

case of faculty of color in the Midwest. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(1), 27–59.

Villalpando, O., & Delgado Bernal, D. (2002). A critical race theory analysis of barriers that

impede the success of faculty of color. In W. A. Smith, P. G. Altbach, & K. Lomotey

(Eds.), The racial crisis in American higher education: Continuing challenges for the

twenty-first century. (pp. 243–270). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Waldo, C. (1999). Out on campus: Sexual orientation and academic climate in a university

context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 745–774. doi:

10.1023/A:1022110031745

Whitt, E. J., Edison, M. I., Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Nora, A. (2001). Influences on

students’ openness to diversity and challenge in the second and third years of college.

The Journal of Higher Education, 72(2), 172–204.

Worthington, R. L., Navarro, R. L., Loewy, M., & Hart, J. L. (2008). Color-blind racial attitudes,

social dominance orientation, racial-ethnic group membership and college students’

perceptions of campus climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 1(1), 8–19.

Yosso, T. J., Smith, W. A., Ceja, M., & Solórzano, D. G. (2009). Critical race theory, racial

microaggressions, and campus racial climate for Latina/o undergraduates. Harvard

Educational Review, 79(4), 659–690, 781, 785–786.



187

Appendices

Appendix A – Cross Tabulations by Selected Demographics

Appendix B – Data Tables

Appendix C – Survey: Kent State University Assessment of Climate for Learning, Living, and

Working



188

Appendix A

Cross Tabulations by Selected Demographics

Student Faculty Staff Total

n % n % n % n %

Gender identity

Unknown/Missing 3 0.30% 8 2.40% 4 1.50% 15 0.95%

Woman 693 70.21% 203 60.78% 192 72.18% 1,088 68.56%

Man 273 27.66% 120 35.93% 70 26.32% 463 29.17%

Transspectrum (including “Other”) 18 1.82% 3 0.90% 0 0.00% 21 1.32%

Racial identity

Unknown/Missing/Other 13 1.32% 17 5.09% 13 4.89% 43 2.71%

People of Color 78 7.90% 20 5.99% 11 4.14% 109 6.87%

White People 841 85.21% 285 85.33% 233 87.59% 1,359 85.63%

Multiple Race 55 5.57% 12 3.59% 9 3.38% 76 4.79%

Sexual identity


LGBQ including Pansexual 97 9.83% 17 5.09% 5 1.88% 119 7.50%

Heterosexual 784 79.43% 288 86.23% 236 88.72% 1,308 82.42%

Asexual 83 8.41% 10 2.99% 12 4.51% 105 6.62%



189

Student Faculty Staff Total

n % n % n % n %

Citizenship status

Unknown/Missing 4 0.41% 3 0.90% 1 0.38% 8 0.50%

U.S. Citizen 970 98.28% 324 97.01% 264 99.25% 1,558 98.17%

Non-U.S. Citizen 13 1.32% 7 2.10% 1 0.38% 21 1.32%

Disability status


Disability 101 10.23% 27 8.08% 15 5.64% 143 9.01%

No Disability 832 84.30% 291 87.13% 242 90.98% 1,365 86.01%

Multiple Disabilities 51 5.17% 10 2.99% 2 0.75% 63 3.97%

Religious/

Spiritual identity

Unknown/Missing 7 0.71% 14 4.19% 10 3.76% 31 1.95%

Christian Affiliation 596 60.39% 198 59.28% 195 73.31% 989 62.32%

Other Religious/Spiritual Affiliation 21 2.13% 19 5.69% 5 1.88% 45 2.84%

No Affiliation 333 33.74% 87 26.05% 46 17.29% 466 29.36%

Multiple Affiliations 30 3.04% 16 4.79% 10 3.76% 56 3.53%

Note: % is the percent of each column for that demographic category (e.g., percent of faculty who are male).



190

Appendix B – Data Tables

PART I: Demographics

The demographic information tables contain actual percentages except where noted.

Table B1. What is your primary position at Kent State? (Question 1)

Position n %

Undergraduate student 971 61.2

Started at Kent State as a first-year student 487 61.9

Transferred from another institution 234 29.7

Post-secondary 61 7.8

ESL 5 0.6

Graduate student 16 1.0

Non-degree 5 38.5

Certificate 0 0.0

Master’s degree candidate 7 53.8

Doctoral degree candidate 0 0.0

Professional student (College of Podiatric Medicine) 1 6.3

Faculty 300 18.9

Tenure-Track (full-time) 106 35.3

Assistant professor 37

Associate professor 43

Professor 8

Non-Tenure Track 105 35.0

Assistant professor 24

Associate professor 12

Professor 2

Lecturer 23

Associate Lecturer 10

Senior Lecturer 11

Visiting Professor 0



191

Table B1 (cont.)

Position

n

%

Adjunct/Part-Time 89 29.7

Administrator with faculty rank

(Dean, Chair, Director) 34 2.1

Staff 266 16.8

Classified 131 49.2

Non-represented 126

Clerical/Secretarial Worker 64

Service/Maintenance Worker 22

Skilled Crafts Worker 1

Technical or Paraprofessional 17

Represented (in the AFSCME bargaining unit) 5

Clerical/Secretarial Worker 4

Service/Maintenance Worker 0

Skilled Crafts Worker 0

Technical or Paraprofessional 0

Unclassified 135 50.8

Professional (Non-Faculty Supervisory) 63

Professional (Non-Faculty Non-Supervisory) 72

Note: No missing data exists for the primary categories in this question; all respondents were required to select an answer. Missing data exists for the sub-categories, as indicated.

Table B2. Are you full-time or part-time in that primary status? (Question 2)

Status

n

%

Full-time 1,114 70.2

Part-time 353 22.2

Missing 120 7.6



192

Table B3. What is your birth sex (assigned)? (Question 40)

Birth sex

n

%

Female 1,095 69.0

Male 476 30.0

Intersex 1 0.1

Missing 15 0.9

Table B4. What is your gender/gender identity? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 41)

Gender identity

n

%

Woman 1,088 68.6

Man 463 29.2

Genderqueer 10 0.6

A gender not listed here 9 0.6

Transgender 2 0.1

Missing 15 0.9

Table B5. What is your current gender expression? (Question 42)

Gender expression

n

%

Feminine 1,059 66.7

Masculine 453 28.5

Androgynous 38 2.4

A gender expression not listed here 19 1.2

Missing 18 1.1



193

Table B6. What is your citizenship status in the U.S.? (Question 43)

Citizenship status

n

%

U.S. citizen 1,558 98.2

Permanent resident 12 0.8

A visa holder (F-1, J-1, H1-B, A, L, G, E, and TN) 8 0.5

Other legally documented status 1 0.1

Undocumented status 0 0.0

Missing 8 0.5

Table B7. What is your racial/ethnic identity? (If you are of a multi-racial/multi-ethnic/multi-cultural

identity, mark all that apply.). (Question 44)

Racial/ethnic identity

n

%

White 1,422 89.6

Black or African American 80 5.0

American Indian 51 3.2

Asian or Asian American 37 2.3

Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ or Latin American 34 2.1

Middle Eastern 5 0.3

Pacific Islander 5 0.3

Native Hawaiian 4 0.3

Alaskan Native 3 0.2

A racial/ethnic identity not listed here 16 1.0



194

Table B8. Which term best describes your sexual identity? (Question 45)

Sexual identity

n

%

Heterosexual 1,308 82.4

Asexual 105 6.6

Bisexual 68 4.3

Lesbian 17 1.1

A sexual identity not

listed here 17 1.1

Gay 14 0.9

Queer 7 0.4

Questioning 7 0.4

Missing 6 0.4

Table B9. What is your age? (Question 46)

Age

n

%

22 and under 494 31.1

23-34 357 22.5

35-48 317 20.0

49-65 359 22.6

66 and over 33 2.1

Missing 27 1.7



195

Table B10. Do you have substantial parenting or caregiving responsibility? (Question 47)

Caregiving responsibility

n

%

No 1,027 64.7

Yes (Mark all that apply) 547 34.5

Children 18 years of age or under 403 73.7

Senior or other family member 128 23.4

Children over 18 years of age, but still legally

dependent (e.g., in college, disabled) 123 22.5

Independent adult children over 18 years of age 62 11.3

Sick or disabled partner 30 5.5

A parenting or caregiving responsibility not listed here 13 2.4

Missing 13 0.8

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to multiple responses.

Table B11. Are/were you a member of the U.S. Armed Forces? (Question 48)

Military status

n

%

I have not been in the military 1,485 93.6

Veteran 65 4.1

Reservist/National Guard 11 0.7

Active military 5 0.3

ROTC 3 0.2

Missing 18 1.1



196

Table B12. Students only: What is the highest level of education achieved by your primary

parent(s)/guardian(s)? (Question 49)

Parent/legal guardian 1 Parent/legal guardian 2

Level of education n % n %

No high school 20 2.0 32 3.2

Some high school 65 6.6 71 7.2

Completed high school/GED 345 35.0 358 36.3

Some college 171 17.3 157 15.9

Business/technical certificate/degree 58 5.9 81 8.2

Associate’s degree 89 9.0 60 6.1

Bachelor’s degree 124 12.6 99 10.0

Some graduate work 8 0.8 6 0.6

Master’s degree (M.A., M.S., MBA) 60 6.1 33 3.3

Specialist degree (Ed.S.) 1 0.1 2 0.2

Doctoral degree (Ph.D., Ed.D.) 9 0.9 2 0.2

Professional degree (MD, MFA, JD) 4 0.4 2 0.2

Unknown 8 0.8 28 2.8

Not applicable 22 2.2 46 4.7

Missing 3 0.3 10 1.0

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Students in Question 1 (n = 987).



197

Table B13. Staff only: What is your highest level of education? (Question 50)

Level of education

n

%

No high school 0 0.0

Some high school 0 0.0

Completed high school/GED 26 9.8

Some college 34 12.8

Business/Technical certificate/degree 7 2.6

Associate’s degree 34 12.8

Bachelor’s degree 49 18.4

Some graduate work 24 9.0

Master’s degree (MA, MS, MBA) 79 29.7

Specialist degree (Ed.S.) 1 0.4

Doctoral degree (Ph.D., Ed.D.) 5 1.9

Professional degree (MD, MFA, JD) 1 0.4

Missing 6 2.3

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Staff in Question 1 (n = 266).



198

Table B14. Undergraduate Students only: What year did you begin at Kent State? (Question 51)

Year begun

n

%

2009 or before 81 8.3

2010 23 2.4

2011 63 6.5

2012 95 9.8

2013 146 15.0

2014 179 18.4

2015 381 39.2

Missing 3 0.3

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Undergraduate Students in Question 1 (n = 971).

Table B15. Graduate Students Only: Where are you in your graduate career? (Question 52)

Year in graduate career

n

%

Master’s student 15 93.8

First year 7 58.3

Second year 3 25.0

Third (or more) year 2 16.7

Doctoral student/Professional/Ed.S. 0 0.0

First year 0 0.0

Second year 0 0.0

Third (or more) year 0 0.0

All but dissertation (ABD) 0 0.0

Missing 1 6.3

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Graduate Students in Question 1 (n = 16).



199

Table B16. Faculty only: With which academic unit/department are you primarily affiliated at this time?

(Question 53)

Academic unit/department n %




School of Art 2 12.5

School of Fashion Design & Merchandising 0 0.0

School of Music 9 56.3

School of Theatre & Dance 5 31.3


Department of Anthropology 1 0.9

Department of Biological Sciences 15 12.8

Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry 7 6.0

Department of Computer Science 1 0.9

Department of English 27 23.1

Department of Geography 2 1.7

Department of Geology 5 4.3

Department of History 7 6.0

Department of Mathematical Sciences 18 15.4

Department of Modern & Classical Language Studies 4 3.4

Department of Pan-African Studies 0 0.0

Department of Philosophy 5 4.3

Department of Physics 4 3.4

Department of Political Science 0 0.0

Department of Psychology 9 7.7

Department of Sociology 12 10.3

School of Biomedical Sciences 0 0.0

Chemical Physics Interdisciplinary Program (Grad Program

Only) 0 0.0

Integrated Life Sciences - Bachelor of Science/Doctor of

Medicine Degree Program 0 0.0


Department of Accounting 1 8.3

Department of Economics 1 8.3

Department of Finance 0 0.0

Department of Management & Information Systems 9 75.0



200

Table B16 (cont.)

Academic unit/department n %

Department of Marketing & Entrepreneurship 1 8.3


School of Communication Studies 6 85.7

School of Journalism & Mass Communication 1 14.3

School of Library & Information Science 0 0.0

School of Visual Communication Design 0 0.0


School of Health Sciences 7 26.9

School of Foundations, Leadership & Administration 6 23.1

School of Lifespan Development & Educational Sciences 7 26.9

School of Teaching, Learning & Curriculum Studies 6 23.1





University Libraries 4 1.2

Missing 57 17.1

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Faculty in Question 1 (n = 334).



201

Table B17. Staff only: With which work unit are you primarily affiliated at this time? (Question 54)

Work unit n %

Athletics 0 0.0

Business and Finance 14 5.3











Diversity, Equity and Inclusion 1 0.4

Enrollment Management and Student Affairs 35 13.2

Human Resources 3 1.1

Information Services 8 3.0

Institutional Advancement 4 1.5

Provost Office 1 0.4

Regional Campuses 169 63.5


University Counsel/Government Affairs 0 0.0

University Libraries 3 1.1

University Relations 4 1.5

Missing 12 4.5




202

Table B18. Undergraduate Students only: What is your academic major? First choose your college, then

choose your major. (You may choose up to 2 choices in each college and in each department) (Question 55)

Academic major

n

%


Aeronautics 1 3.2

Applied Engineering 12 38.7

Construction Management 0 0.0

Technology 21 67.7


Architecture/Architectural Studies 1 25.0

Architecture and Environmental Design - General 1 25.0

Interior Design 0 0.0


Art Education/Art History 3 9.7

College of the Arts - General 5 16.1

Crafts 1 3.2

Dance/Dance Studies 0 0.0

Fashion Design/Fashion Merchandising 2 6.5

Fine Arts 8 25.8

Music/Music Education/Music Technology 4 12.9

Theater Studies 3 9.7


American Sign Language 3 1.2

Anthropology 1 0.4

Applied Conflict Management 1 0.4


Archaeology 0 0.0

Biology/Biochemistry/Biotechnology 16 6.5

Botany 2 0.8

Chemistry 1 0.4

Classics 0 0.0


Criminology and Justice Studies 38 15.3

Earth Science 1 0.4

Economics 0 0.0

English 19 7.7

Environmental and Conservation Biology 4 1.6

French Literature, Culture and Translation 0 0.0

Geography 1 0.4

Geology 4 1.6



203

Table B18 (cont.)

Academic major

n

%

German Literature, Translation and Culture 0 0.0

History 12 4.8

Horticulture/Horticulture Technology 15 6.0

Integrated Life Sciences 1 0.4

Integrative Studies 1 0.4

International Relations/Comparative Politics 1 0.4

Mathematics 5 2.0

Medical Technology 3 1.2

Pan-African Studies 0 0.0

Paralegal Studies 2 0.8

Philosophy 3 1.2

Physics 1 0.4


Pre-Medicine/Pre-Osteopathy/Pre-Dentistry/

Pre-Pharmacy/Pre-Veterinary Medicine 5 2.0

Psychology 88 35.5

Russian Literature, Culture and Translation 1 0.4

Sociology 9 3.6

Spanish Literature, Culture and Translation 1 0.4

Teaching English as a Second Language 1 0.4

Translation 0 0.0

Zoology 7 2.8


Accounting 15 14.4

Business Management 54 51.9

Business Undeclared 8 7.7

Computer Information Systems 11 10.6

Economics 2 1.9

Entrepreneurship 4 3.8

Finance 6 5.8

Marketing/Managerial Marketing 6 5.8


Advertising 2 4.2

College of Communication and Information - General 8 16.7


Digital Media Production 3 6.3

Journalism 4 8.3

Photo Illustration 1 2.1

Public Relations 0 0.0



204

Table B18 (cont.)

Academic major

n

%





Athletic Training 2 1.4

Community Health Education 0 0.0


Education/Health/Human Service General 11 7.6

Educational Studies 0 0.0

Exercise Science 0 0.0

Hospitality Management 4 2.8


Integrated Health Studies 5 3.5

Integrated Language Arts 4 2.8

Integrated Mathematics 1 0.7

Integrated Science 2 1.4

Integrated Social Studies 3 2.1

Life Science 0 0.0

Middle Childhood Education 15 10.4

Nutrition 3 2.1

Physical Education 3 2.1

Physical Science 1 0.7

Pre-Human Development Family Studies 0 0.0

Pre-Speech Pathology Audiology 1 0.7

Recreation, Park and Tourism Management 1 0.7

School Health Education 0 0.0


Speech Pathology and Audiology 5 3.5

Sport Administration 2 1.4

Trade and Industrial Education 0 0.0


Nursing 92 55.8

Pre-Nursing 78 47.3



Regional College Bachelor’s Degree Majors 54 5.6

Engineering Technology 5 9.3

Exploratory 3 5.6

Insurance Studies 1 1.9



205

Table B18 (cont.)

Academic major

n

%

Magnetic Resonance Imaging 1 1.9

Radiologic Imaging Sciences 14 25.9

Technical and Applied Studies 28 51.9

Regional College Associate Degree Major 114 11.7

Accounting Technology 1 0.9

Allied Health Management Technology 0 0.0

Associate of Technical Study 1 0.9

Aviation Maintenance Technology 1 0.9

Business Management Technology 3 2.6

Computer Design, Animation and Game Design 1 0.9

Computer Technology 11 9.6

Early Childhood Education Technology 1 0.9

Electrical/Electronic Engineering Technology 1 0.9

Emergency Medical Services Technology 0 0.0

Engineering of Information Technology 1 0.9

Enology 0 0.0

Environment Management 0 0.0

Environmental Health and Safety 0 0.0

Human Services Technology 6 5.3

Individualized Program 0 0.0

Industrial Trades Technology 0 0.0

Information Technology for Administrative Professionals 3 2.6

Justice Studies 3 2.6

Legal Assisting 1 0.9

Manufacturing Engineering Technology 0 0.0

Mechanical Engineering Technology 0 0.0

Nursing ADN 2 1.8

Occupational Therapy Assistant Technology 14 12.3

Physical Therapist Assistant Technology 37 32.5

Radiologic Technology 14 12.3

Respiratory Therapy Technology 4 3.5

Systems/Industrial Engineering Technology 0 0.0

Veterinary Technology 10 8.8

Viticulture 0 0.0

University College (Exploratory) 46 4.7

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Undergraduate Students in Question 1 (n = 971).



206

Table B19. Graduate Students only: What is your academic degree program? First choose your degree, then

choose your college, then choose your major. (Question 56)

Academic degree program

n

%

Master’s Degrees 15 93.7


Technology 0 0.0


Architecture 0 0.0

Architecture and Environmental Design 0 0.0

Health Care Design 0 0.0

Landscape Architecture 0 0.0

Urban Design 0 0.0


Art Education 0 0.0

Art History 0 0.0

Conducting 0 0.0

Crafts 0 0.0

Ethnomusicology 0 0.0

Fine Arts 0 0.0

Music Composition/Music Theory/Musicology 0 0.0

Music Education 0 0.0

Performance 0 0.0

Theatre Studies 0 0.0


Anthropology 0 0.0


Biology 0 0.0

Biomedical Sciences 0 0.0

Chemistry 0 0.0

Chemical Physics 0 0.0



Creative Writing 0 0.0

Criminology and Criminal Justice 0 0.0

English 0 0.0


French 0 0.0

Geography 0 0.0

Geology 0 0.0

German 0 0.0



207

Table B19 (cont.)

Academic major

n

%

History 0 0.0

Latin 0 0.0

Liberal Studies 0 0.0

Mathematics for Secondary Teachers 0 0.0

Philosophy 0 0.0

Physics 0 0.0


Public Administration 0 0.0


Sociology 0 0.0

Spanish 0 0.0

Teaching English as Second Language 0 0.0

Translation 0 0.0


Accounting 0 0.0


Economics 1 25.0



Information Architecture and Knowledge Management 0 0.0

Journalism and Mass Communication 0 0.0

Library and Information Science 1 100.0






Clinical Mental Health Counseling 0 0.0









Higher Education and Student Personnel 0 0.0

Hospitality and Tourism Management 0 0.0




208

Table B19 (cont.)

Academic major

n

%

Instructional Technology 0 0.0

Nutrition 0 0.0

Reading Specialization 0 0.0

Rehabilitation Counseling 0 0.0

School Counseling/School Psychology 0 0.0

Secondary Education 0 0.0



Sport and Recreation Management 0 0.0


Nursing 0 0.0



Professional Degrees 0 0.0

Advanced Nursing Practice 0 0.0

Audiology 0 0.0

Podiatric Medicine 0 0.0

Educational Specialist 0 0.0

Counseling 0 0.0





PhD Doctoral Degrees 0 0.0

Applied Geology 0 0.0


Audiology 0 0.0

Biology/Biological Sciences 1 6.7


Chemistry/Chemical Physics 0 0.0


Communication and Information 0 0.0


Counseling and Human Development Services 0 0.0







209

Table B19 (cont.)

Academic major

n

%

English 0 0.0




Geography 0 0.0


History 0 0.0

Music Education/Music Theory 0 0.0

Nursing 0 0.0

Physics 0 0.0


Public Health 0 0.0



Sociology 0 0.0



Translation Studies 0 0.0

Certificate and Non-Degree Programs 0 0.0

Adult Gerontology Nursing 0 0.0

Advanced Practice Registered Nurse 0 0.0

Advanced Study in Library and Information Science 0 0.0

ASL/English Interpreting (Non-degree) 0 0.0

Autism Spectrum Disorders 0 0.0

Behavioral Intervention Specialist 0 0.0


College Teaching 0 0.0

Community College Leadership 0 0.0

Deaf Education (Non-degree) 0 0.0

Deaf Education Multiple Disabilities 0 0.0

Disability Studies and Community Inclusion 0 0.0

Early Childhood Deaf Education 0 0.0

Early Childhood Intervention Specialist (Non-degree) 0 0.0

Early Intervention 0 0.0

Enterprise Architecture 1 6.7

Gerontology 0 0.0

Health Care Facilities 0 0.0

Health Informatics 0 0.0

Institutional Research and Assessment 0 0.0



210

Table B19 (cont.)

Academic major

n

%

Internationalization of Higher Education 0 0.0

Mild/Moderate Educational Needs (Non-degree) 0 0.0

Moderate/Intensive Educational Needs (Non-degree) 0 0.0

Music Composition/Music Conducting/Music Performance 0 0.0

Nursing and Health Care Management 0 0.0

Nursing Education 0 0.0

Online Learning and Teaching 0 0.0

PMH Family NP for PMH Child/Adolescent Clinical Nurse

Specialist 0 0.0

Primary Care Pediatric Clinical Nurse Specialist 0 0.0

Primary Care Pediatric Nurse Practitioner 0 0.0

Psychiatric Mental Health Family Nurse Practitioner 0 0.0

Teaching English as a Second/Foreign Language 0 0.0

Web-Enabled E-Learning Knowledge Management 0 0.0

Women's Health Nurse Practitioner 0 0.0

Missing 1 6.3

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Graduate Students in Question 1 (n =

16).



211

Table B20. Do you have a condition/disability that influences your learning or working activities?

(Question 57)

Condition/Disability

n

%

No 1,365 86.0

Yes 210 13.2

Missing 12 0.8

Table B21. Which of the following condition(s)/disability(s) do you have that impact your learning, working

or living activities? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 58)

Condition

n

%

Mental Health/Psychological Condition 73 34.8

Learning Disability 68 32.4

Chronic Diagnosis or Medical Condition 55 26.2

Physical/Mobility condition that affects walking 22 10.5

Physical/Mobility condition that does not affect walking 20 9.5

Deaf/Hard of Hearing 18 8.6

Acquired/Traumatic Brain Injury 11 5.2

Asperger's/Autism Spectrum 9 4.3

Blind/Visually Impaired 5 2.4

Speech/Communication Condition 2 1.0

A disability/condition not listed here 5 2.4

Note: Table includes answers from only those respondents who indicated that they have a disability in Question 57 (n = 210). Percentages may not sum to 100% due to multiple responses.



212

Table B22. Is English your native language? (Question 59)

n

%

Yes 1,513 95.3

No 60 3.8

Missing 14 0.9

Table B23. What is (are) the language(s) spoken in your home? (Question 60)

n

%

English only 1,473 92.8

Other than English 23 1.4

English and other language 78 4.9

Missing 13 0.8



213

Table B24. What is your religious or spiritual identity? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 61)

Spiritual identity n %

Agnostic 132 8.3

Atheist 95 6.0

Baha’i 0 0.0

Buddhist 15 0.9

Christian 1,029 64.8

African Methodist Episcopal

(AME) 6 0.6

AME Zion 0 0.0

Assembly of God 16 1.6

Baptist 71 6.9

Catholic/Roman Catholic 288 28.0

Christian Orthodox 5 0.5

Christian Methodist Episcopal 7 0.7

Christian Reformed Church 3 0.3

Church of Christ 32 3.1

Church of God in Christ 11 1.1

Disciples of Christ 5 0.5

Episcopalian 10 1.0

Evangelical 18 1.7

Greek Orthodox 5 0.5

Lutheran 48 4.7

Mennonite 7 0.7

Moravian 3 0.3

Nondenominational Christian 132 12.8

Pentecostal 31 3.0

Presbyterian 41 4.0

Protestant 49 4.8

Protestant Reformed Church 0 0.0

Quaker 7 0.7

Reformed Church of America 1 0.1

Russian Orthodox 5 0.5

Seventh Day Adventist 2 0.2

The Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter-day Saints 6 0.6

United Methodist 88 8.6

n %

United Church of Christ 2 0.2

A Christian affiliation not

listed above 43 4.2

Confucianist 2 0.1

Druid 0 0.0

Hindu 5 0.3

Jain 0 0.0

Jehovah’s Witness 5 0.3

Jewish 13 0.8

Conservative 2 15.4

Orthodox 1 7.7

Reformed 10 76.9

Muslim 7 0.4

Ahmadi 2 28.6

Shi’ite 0 0.0

Sufi 0 0.0

Sunni 2 28.6

Native American Traditional

Practitioner or Ceremonial 2 0.1

Pagan 6 0.4

Rastafarian 0 0.0

Scientologist 0 0.0

Secular Humanist 4 0.3

Shinto 0 0.0

Sikh 2 0.1

Taoist 4 0.3

Tenrikyo 0 0.0

Unitarian Universalist 4 0.3

Wiccan 7 0.4

Spiritual, but no religious

affiliation 119 7.5

No affiliation 166 10.5

A religious affiliation or spiritual

identity not listed above 27 1.7

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to multiple responses.



214

Table B25. Students only: Are you currently financially dependent (family/guardian assisting with your

living/educational expenses) or independent (you are the sole provider for your living/educational expenses)?

(Question 62)

Dependency status

n

%

Dependent 525 53.2

Independent 439 44.5

Missing 23 2.3


Table B26. Students only: What is your best estimate of your family’s yearly income (if dependent student,

partnered, or married) or your yearly income (if single and independent student)? (Question 63)

Income

n

%

Below $29,999 362 36.7

$30,000 - $49,999 197 20.0

$50,000 - $69,999 144 14.6

$70,000 - $99,999 141 14.3

$100,000 - $149,999 81 8.2

$150,000 - $199,999 19 1.9

$200,000 - $249,999 13 1.3

$250,000 - $499,999 7 0.7

$500,000 or more 2 0.2

Missing 21 2.1




215

Table B27. Students only: Where do you live? (Question 64)

Residence

n

%

Campus housing 2 0.2

Clark Hall 2 100.0

Non-campus housing 972 98.5

Living with family member/guardian 462 59.6

Independently in an apartment/house 312 40.3

Fraternity/Sorority housing 1 0.1

Transient housing (e.g., couch surfing, sleeping in car, shelter) 8 0.8

Missing 5 0.5

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Students in Question 1 (n = 987). Percentages for sub-categories are valid percentages and do not include missing responses.



216

Table B28. Students only: Do you participate in any of the following at Kent State? (Mark all that apply.)

(Question 65)

Clubs/organizations

n

%

I do not participate in any clubs/organizations 719 72.8

Honorary/Academic/Professional/Educational (e.g., American Association of

Airport Executives, Financial Management Association, Rotaract, Ceramics

Club, Chi Sigma Iota, May 4th Task Force, etc.) 85 8.6

Sports & Recreation (e.g., Club Sports, Golden Reflections, Kayak Club, CHAARG, etc.) 19 1.9

Student Government (e.g., Undergraduate Student Government, Kent Interhall

Council, Graduate Student Association, etc.) 16 1.6

Religious (e.g., Muslim Student Association, United Christian Ministries,

Hillel, Chinese and American Friends East –CAFÉ) 13 1.3

Special Interest (e.g., Magical Arts Society, Kent State Pokemon League,

Legacy Dance Team, PRIDE! Kent, Silver Eagles Drill Team) 8 0.8

Performing Arts (e.g., Graduate Student Theatre Forum, participation in

theatrical and musical productions) 6 0.6

Cultural/International (e.g., Native American Student Association, Chinese

Culture Club, Cultural Diversity Association, Kent African Student

Association, Nepalese Student Association, Russian Club, Students for Justice in Palestine, etc.) 6 0.6

Political (e.g., Black United Students, Model United Nations, College

Republicans, Political Science Club) 5 0.5

Service (e.g., UNICEF KSU, Relay for Life Committee, Circle K

International, Students Against Sexual Assault) 5 0.5

Greek (e.g., fraternity & sorority) 4 0.4

Media (e.g., Uhuru Magazine, Daily Kent Stater, The Burr, Black Squirrel

Radio, National Association of Black Journalists, etc.) 3 0.3

Intercollegiate Athletics 1 0.1

A type of club/organization not listed here 114 11.6

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Students in Question 1 (n = 987). Percentages may not sum to 100% due to multiple responses.



217

Table B29. Students only: At the end of your last semester, what was your cumulative grade point average?

(Question 66)

GPA

n

%

3.50 - 4.00 369 37.4

3.00 – 3.49 308 31.2

2.50 – 2.99 184 18.9

2.00 – 2.49 75 7.6

1.50 – 1.99 27 2.7

1.00 – 1.49 7 0.7

0.00 – 0.99 5 0.5

Missing 12 1.2


Table B30. Students only: Have you experienced financial hardship while attending Kent State?

(Question 67)

Financial hardship

n

%

No 444 45.0

Yes 529 53.6

Missing 14 1.4




218

Table B31. Students only: How have you experienced the financial hardship? (Mark all that apply.)

(Question 68)

Experience

n

%

Difficulty purchasing my books 294 55.6

Difficulty affording tuition 256 48.4

Difficulty affording educational materials

(e.g., computer, lab equipment, software) 250 47.3

Difficulty affording food 216 40.8

Difficulty affording housing 192 36.3

Difficulty affording health care 150 28.4

Difficulty commuting to campus 145 27.4

Difficulty affording other campus fees 127 24.0

Difficulty participating in social events 79 14.9

Difficulty participating in co-curricular events or

activities (e.g., alternative spring breaks, class trips) 55 10.4

Difficulty affording childcare 47 8.9

Difficulty affording professional association

fees/conferences 26 4.9

Difficulty affording study abroad 25 4.7

Difficulty traveling home during Kent State breaks 15 2.8

A financial hardship not listed above 60 11.3

Note: Table includes answers only from those Students who indicated that they experienced financial hardship in Question 72 (n = 529).



219

Table B32. Students only: How are you currently paying for your education at Kent State? (Mark all that

apply.) (Question 69)


Table B33. Graduate Students only: Do you receive a graduate student stipend for a graduate assistantship

with the university? (Question 70)

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Graduate Students in Question 1 (n = 16).

Source of funding

n

%

Loans 598 60.6

Grants/need based scholarships (Pell, etc.) 413 41.8

Job/personal contribution 242 24.5

Family contribution 151 15.3

Credit card 83 8.4

Merit based scholarship (e.g., athletic, honors,

music, Trustees) 82 8.3

Agency/Employer reimbursement (non-KSU) 34 3.4

Work Study 31 3.1

KSU Tuition waiver 26 2.6

GI Bill 18 1.8

International government scholarship 5 0.5

Graduate assistantship/fellowship 4 0.4

Resident assistant 1 0.1

A method of payment not listed here 86 8.7

Receive a graduate stipend

n

%

No 13 81.3

Yes 2 12.5

Missing 1 6.3



220

Table B34. Students only: Are you employed either on campus or off-campus during the academic year?

(Question 71)

Employed

n

%

No 273 27.7

Yes, I work on-campus 133 13.5

1-10 hours/week 46 37.1

11-20 hours/week 44 35.5

21-30 hours/week 29 23.4

31-40 hours/week 3 2.4

More than 40 hours/week 2 1.6

Yes, I work off-campus 610 61.8

1-10 hours/week 51 9.2

11-20 hours/week 157 28.3

21-30 hours/week 150 27.1

31-40 hours/week 127 22.9

More than 40 hours/week 69 12.5




221

PART II: Findings

The tables in this section contain valid percentages except where noted.

Table B35. Overall, how comfortable are you with the climate in at Kent State? (Question 4)

Comfort n %

Very comfortable 549 34.7

Comfortable 705 44.4

Neither comfortable

nor uncomfortable 207 13.1

Uncomfortable 97 6.1

Very uncomfortable 26 1.6

Table B36. Faculty/Staff only: Overall, how comfortable are you with the climate in your department/work

unit? (Question 5)

Comfort n %



Neither comfortable




Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Faculty or Staff in Question 1 (n = 600).



222

Table B37. Students/Faculty only: Overall, how comfortable are you with the climate in your classes?

(Question 6)

Comfort n %



Neither comfortable




Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Students or Faculty in Question 1 (n = 1,321).

Table B38. Have you ever seriously considered leaving Kent State? (Question 7)

Considered leaving n %

No 1,042 65.7

Yes 541 34.1

Missing 4 0.3

Table B39. Students only: When did you seriously consider leaving Kent State?

(Mark all that apply.) (Question 8)

Note: Table includes answers only from those students who indicated that they considered leaving in Question 7 (n = 244).

Year n %

During my first year as a student 123 50.4

During my second year as a student 81 33.2

During my third year as a student 56 23.0

During my fourth year as a student 23 9.4

During my fifth year as a student 10 4.1

After my fifth year as a student 9 3.7



223

Table B40. Students only: Why did you seriously consider leaving Kent State?


Reasons n %

Financial reasons 63 25.8

Personal reasons (e.g., medical, mental health, family

emergencies) 48 19.7

Lack of a sense of belonging 46 18.9

Didn’t like major 44 18.0

Campus climate was not welcoming 41 16.8

Coursework was too difficult 28 11.5

Never intended to graduate from Kent State 24 9.8

Lack of support group 21 8.6

Didn’t meet the selection criteria for a major 18 7.4

My marital/relationship status 9 3.7

Homesick 4 1.6

Immigration compliance issues (e.g., VISA status) 1 0.4


Note: Table includes answers only from those Students who indicated that they considered leaving in Question 7 (n = 244).



224

Table B41. Faculty/Staff only: Why did you seriously consider leaving Kent State?


Reasons n %

Financial reasons (e.g., salary, resources) 166 55.9

Limited opportunities for advancement 137 46.1

Tension with supervisor/manager 89 30.0

Campus climate was unwelcoming 83 27.9

Increased workload 82 27.6

Interested in a position at another institution 70 23.6

Tension with co-workers 69 23.2

Recruited or offered a position at another institution 35 11.8

Family responsibilities 31 10.4

Wanted to move to a different geographical location 29 9.8

Lack of benefits 27 9.1

Local community did not meet my (my family) needs 13 4.4


Revised retirement plans 10 3.4

Spouse or partner unable to find suitable employment 6 2.0

Offered position in government or industry 5 1.7

Spouse or partner relocated 4 1.3


Note: Table includes answers only from those Faculty/Staff who indicated that they considered leaving in Question 7 (n = 297).



225

Table B42. Students only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements regarding your academic experience at Kent

State. (Question 12)

Strongly agree Agree

Neither agree nor

disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

n % n % n % n % n %

I am performing up to my full academic potential. 352 35.8 456 46.4 110 11.2 56 5.7 9 0.9

Few of my courses this year have been intellectually

stimulating. 189 19.3 324 33.1 150 15.3 235 24.0 81 8.3

I am satisfied with my academic experience at Kent

State. 322 33.0 490 50.2 114 11.7 41 4.2 10 1.0

I am satisfied with the extent of my intellectual

development since enrolling in Kent State. 343 34.9 490 49.8 112 11.4 27 2.7 12 1.2

I have performed academically as well as I anticipated I

would. 303 30.8 432 43.9 148 15.0 90 9.1 12 1.2

My academic experience has had a positive influence on

my intellectual growth and interest in ideas. 404 41.1 435 44.3 101 10.3 33 3.4 9 0.9

My interest in ideas and intellectual matters has

increased since coming to Kent State. 388 39.6 401 40.9 139 14.2 45 4.6 7 0.7

I intend to graduate from Kent State. 610 62.2 242 24.7 87 8.9 25 2.5 17 1.7

I am considering transferring to another institution for

academic reasons. 66 6.7 78 7.9 119 12.1 253 25.7 470 47.7




226

Table B43. Within the past year, have you personally experienced any exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored)

intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct (e.g., bullied, harassed) that has interfered with your ability to

work or learn at Kent State? (Question 13)

Experienced conduct n %

No 1326 83.7

Yes 258 16.3



227

Table B44. What do you believe was the basis of the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 14)

Basis

n

%


Faculty status (tenure track, non-tenure track,

adjunct) 54 20.9

Age 53 20.5



Educational credentials (e.g., MS, PhD) 35 13.6








Ethnicity 11 4.3




Mental health/Psychological disability/condition 9 3.5






Pregnancy 4 1.6


Immigrant/Citizen status 3 1.2

Military/Veteran status 3 1.2

International status 2 0.8

Living arrangement 1 0.4



Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they experienced conduct (n = 258). Percentages may not sum to 100% due to multiple responses.



228

Table B45. How would you describe what happened? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 15)

Form

n

%

I was disrespected. 167 64.7

I was intimidated/bullied. 106 41.1

I was ignored or excluded. 93 36.0

I was isolated or left out. 73 28.3

I was the target of workplace incivility. 62 24.0

I was the target of derogatory verbal remarks. 58 22.5

I was the target of retaliation. 28 10.9

I feared getting a poor grade because of a hostile classroom

environment. 25 9.7

I observed others staring at me. 24 9.3

I received derogatory phone calls/text messages/email. 24 9.3

I was singled out as the spokesperson for my identity group. 20 7.8

I received a low performance evaluation. 19 7.4

I received derogatory written comments. 18 7.0

I was the target of stalking. 11 4.3

I feared for my physical safety. 11 4.3

I was the target of racial/ethnic profiling. 8 3.1

Someone implied I was admitted/hired/promoted due to my identity group. 7 2.7

Someone implied I was not admitted/hired/promoted due to

my identity group. 6 2.3

I was the target of unwanted sexual contact. 5 1.9

I was the target of graffiti/vandalism. 5 1.9

I received derogatory/unsolicited messages through social

media. 4 1.6

I feared for my family’s safety. 4 1.6

I received threats of physical violence. 2 0.8

I was the target of physical violence. 1 0.4


Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they experienced conduct (n = 258). Percentages may not sum to 100% due to multiple responses.



229

Table B46. Where did the conduct occur? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 16)

Location

n

%









Off campus 12 4.7



In an experiential learning environment (e.g., internships,

service learning, study abroad, student teaching) 5 1.9


On social networking sites/Facebook/Twitter/Yik-Yak 4 1.6

In a Kent State health care setting

(e.g., University Health Services, Psychological Services) 2 0.8

In athletic/recreational facilities 2 0.8

In on-campus housing 1 0.4


On Kent State media (e.g., Kent Stater, Kentwired.com, TV2) 1 0.4



Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they experienced conduct (n = 258). Percentages may not sum to 100% as a result of multiple responses.



230

Table B47. Who/what was the source of this conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 17)

Source

n

%


Student 61 23.6

Co-worker 48 18.6


Supervisor 36 14.0




Stranger 7 2.7

Student employee 5 1.9

Academic adviser 4 1.6

Friend 4 1.6

Kent State Public Safety 4 1.6

Person whom I supervise 4 1.6

Social networking site (e.g., Facebook, Twitter,

Yik-Yak) 4 1.6

Off-campus community member 3 1.2

Teaching assistant/Graduate assistant/Lab

assistant/Tutor 2 0.8

Donor 1 0.4

Health/Counseling services 1 0.4

Alumni 0 0.0


Kent State media (e.g., Kent Stater, TV2,

flyers, websites) 0 0.0






231

Table B48. What was your response to experiencing the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 18)

Response

n

%








resource 65 25.2




Staff person 19 29.2


My supervisor 6 9.2











Coach or athletic trainer 0 0.0









Other 0 0.0


taken seriously 57 22.1



232

Table B48 (cont.)

Response

n

%



I was afraid 35 13.6

I did report it, but I did not feel the complaint was taken

seriously 30 11.6






resource 4 1.6




layperson) 1 25.0



Ohio Civil Rights Commission, EEOC, U.S.




Table B49. While a member of Kent State community, have you experienced unwanted sexual contact

(including interpersonal violence, stalking, sexual assault, sexual assault with an object, forcible fondling,

forcible rape, use of drugs to incapacitate, forcible sodomy or gang rape)? (Question 20)

Experienced unwanted sexual contact n %

No 1,572 99.1

Yes 14 0.9

Missing 1 0.1



233

Table B50. When did the unwanted sexual contact occur? (Question 21)

When experienced unwanted

sexual contact n %

Within the last year 5 35.7

2-4 years ago 5 35.7

5-10 years ago 1 7.1

11-20 years 2 14.3

More than 20 years ago 0 0.0

Missing 1 7.1

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they experienced unwanted sexual contact (n = 14). Percentages may not sum to 100% as a result of multiple responses.

Table B51. Students only: What semester were you in when you experienced the unwanted sexual contact? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 22)

Semester n %

First 2 20.0

Second 3 30.0

Third 1 10.0

Fourth 2 20.0

Fifth 2 20.0

Sixth 1 10.0

Seventh 0 0.0

Eighth 0 0.0

After eighth semester 0 0.0

While a graduate/professional student 1 10.0

Note: Table includes answers only from student respondents who indicated that they experienced unwanted sexual contact (n = 10). Percentages may not sum to 100% as a result of multiple responses.



234

Table B52. Who did this to you? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 23)

Source n %

Kent State staff member 4 28.6

Stranger 4 28.6

Kent State faculty member 3 21.4

Kent State student 3 21.4

Current or former dating/intimate partner 3 21.4

Acquaintance/friend 2 14.3

Family member 2 14.3

Other role/relationship not listed above 0 0.0


Table B53. Where did the incident(s) occur? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 24)

Location n %

Off campus 5 35.7

On campus 9 64.3




235

Table B54. What was your response to experiencing the incident(s)?


Response

n

%



I was afraid 7 50.0




I was angry 4 28.6

I left the situation immediately 4 28.6


taken seriously 4 28.6

I did nothing 3 21.4


resource 3 21.4


Staff person 1 33.3



Coach or athletic training staff member 0 0.0










Employee Assistance Program (IMPACT) 0 0.0

Kent State counseling center or campus counseling

staff 0 0.0








236

Table B54 (cont.)

Response

n

%




My supervisor 0 0.0


Other 0 0.0






I ignored it 1 7.1

It didn’t affect me at the time 1 7.1



resource 0 0.0


Local or national hotline 0 0.0

Local rape crisis center 0 0.0


layperson) 0 0.0



Ohio Civil Rights Commission, EEOC, US






237

Table B55. Staff/Faculty only: Please respond to the following statements. (Question 28)

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

n % n % n % n %

I am reluctant to bring up issues that concern me for fear that doing so will

affect my performance evaluation/review or tenure/merit/promotion

decision. 91 15.3 129 21.7 215 36.1 160 26.9

My colleagues/co-workers expect me to represent “the point of view” of

my identity (e.g., ability, ethnicity, gender, race, religion, sexual identity). 29 5.1 148 25.9 236 41.3 158 27.7

The process for determining salaries/merit raises is clear. 36 6.1 221 37.4 216 36.5 118 20.0

I am comfortable taking leave that I am entitled to without fear that doing

so may affect my job/career. 121 20.6 310 52.9 112 19.1 43 7.3

I have to work harder than I believe my colleagues/co-workers do to

achieve the same recognition. 82 14.0 138 23.6 293 50.1 72 12.3

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Staff or Faculty in Question 1 (n = 600).



238

Table B56. Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty only: As a faculty member… (Question 30)


n % n % n % n %

I believe that the tenure/promotion process is clear. 16 15.1 56 52.8 28 26.4 6 5.7

I believe that the tenure/promotion process is reasonable. 11 10.6 47 45.2 32 30.8 14 13.5

I feel that my service contributions are important to tenure/promotion. 16 15.4 40 38.5 35 33.7 13 12.5

I feel pressured to change my research agenda to achieve tenure/promotion. 11 10.8 37 36.3 38 37.3 16 15.7

I believe that my teaching load is equitable compared to my colleagues. 6 5.8 45 43.7 30 29.1 22 21.4

I feel that I am burdened by service responsibilities (e.g., committee

memberships, departmental work assignments). 18 17.1 29 27.6 54 51.4 4 3.8


memberships, departmental work assignments) beyond those of my colleagues

with similar performance expectations. 13 12.4 29 27.6 50 47.6 13 12.4

In my department, faculty members who use family accommodation (FMLA)

policies are disadvantaged in promotion or tenure. 4 4.2 12 12.5 59 61.5 21 21.9

I believe the tenure standards/promotion standards are applied equally to all

faculty. 6 5.9 24 23.5 36 35.3 36 35.3

I find that Kent State is supportive of the use of sabbatical/faculty professional

improvement leave. 21 20.8 61 60.4 12 11.9 7 6.9

I find that my department is supportive of my taking leave. 19 19.2 66 66.7 9 9.1 5 5.1

I feel that my point of views are taken into account for course assignments and

scheduling. 25 24.0 57 54.8 11 10.6 11 10.6

I have used Kent State policies on taking leave for childbearing or adoption. 4 4.3 8 8.7 40 43.5 40 43.5

I believe that Faculty Excellence Awards (merit raises) are awarded fairly. 4 4.0 30 30.0 37 37.0 29 29.0

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Tenured or Tenure-Track Faculty in Question 1 (n = 106).



239

Table B57. Non-Tenure Track Faculty only: As a faculty member… (Question 32)


n % n % n % n %

I believe that the renewal of appointment/promotion process is clear. 10 9.5 49 46.7 35 33.3 11 10.5

I believe that the renewal of appointment/promotion process is reasonable. 9 8.8 57 55.9 26 25.5 10 9.8

I feel pressured to do service and research. 12 11.7 37 35.9 51 49.5 3 2.9

I feel pressured to do work and/or service without compensation. 21 20.2 48 46.2 32 30.8 3 2.9

I believe that my teaching load is equitable compared to my colleagues. 9 8.7 54 51.9 29 27.9 12 11.5


memberships, departmental work assignments). 13 1.9 19 18.8 62 61.4 7 6.9


memberships, departmental work assignments) beyond those of my

colleagues with similar performance expectations. 10 10.0 16 16.0 69 69.0 5 5.0

In my department, faculty members who use family accommodation

(FMLA) policies are disadvantaged in promotion or tenure. 2 2.2 3 3.3 67 74.4 18 20.0

I believe the renewal of appointment/promotion standards are applied


I feel that my point of views are taken into account for course assignments

and scheduling. 17 16.7 59 57.8 16 15.7 10 9.8



240


Table B57 (cont.) n % n % n % n %


I believe the process for obtaining professional development funds is fair and

accessible. 6 6.1 60 61.2 25 25.2 7 7.1

I feel that my tenured and tenure-track colleagues understand the nature of

my work. 2 2.0 37 36.3 38 37.3 25 24.5

I feel that full-time non-tenure track faculty (FTNTTs) are equitably

represented at the departmental level (e.g. representatives on committees that

reflect adequately the number of FTNTTs in the unit). 3 3.0 35 34.7 31 30.7 32 31.7

I feel that FTNTTs are equitably represented at the university level. 0 0.0 25 24.5 40 39.2 37 36.3

I believe that my workload is equitable compared to my tenured or tenure-

track colleagues. 2 2.0 39 39.0 29 29.0 30 30.0

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Non-Tenure-Track Faculty in Question 1 (n = 105).



241

Table B58. Faculty only: As a faculty member... (Question 34)


n % n % n % n %

I believe that my colleagues include me in opportunities that will help my

career as much as they do others in my position. 46 14.4 195 61.1 56 17.6 22 6.9

I perform more work to help students (e.g., formal and informal advising,

sitting for qualifying exams/thesis committees, helping with student groups

and activities, providing other support) beyond those of my colleagues with

similar performance expectations. 58 18.4 108 34.3 137 43.5 12 3.8

I feel that my diversity-related research/teaching/service contributions have

been/will be valued for promotion/tenure, or performance review (if not

applicable, please skip). 9 5.7 84 53.2 46 29.1 19 12.0

I believe that campus and college awards, stipends, grants and development funds are awarded fairly. 9 3.1 175 59.7 79 27.0 30 10.2

I have peers/mentors who provide me career advice or guidance when I

need it. 59 19.0 165 53.1 63 20.3 24 7.7

I believe that my workload is reasonable. 32 10.1 191 60.1 73 23.0 22 6.9




242

Table B59. Staff only: Please respond to the following statements. (Question 36)


n % n % n % n %

I find that Kent State is supportive of staff taking leave. 67 25.7 177 67.8 14 5.4 3 1.1

I find that my supervisor is supportive of my taking leave. 92 35.2 147 56.3 19 7.3 3 1.1

I find that Kent State is supportive of flexible work schedules. 41 16.2 132 52.2 58 22.9 22 8.7

I find that my supervisor is supportive of flexible work schedules. 62 24.8 132 52.8 46 18.4 10 4.0

I feel that people who do not have children are burdened with work

responsibilities (e.g., stay late, off-hour work, work week-ends) beyond those who

do have children. 12 4.7 26 10.1 152 59.1 67 26.1


I have used Kent State policies on military active service-modified duties. 1 0.5 6 2.9 93 45.1 106 51.5

I have supervisors who provide me job/career advice or guidance when I need it. 42 17.2 112 45.9 76 31.1 14 5.7

I have colleagues/co-workers who provide me job/career advice or guidance when

I need it. 47 18.7 146 58.2 46 18.3 12 4.8

My supervisor provides me with resources to pursue professional development

opportunities. 49 19.1 119 46.3 73 28.4 16 6.2

Kent State provides me with resources to pursue professional development

opportunities. 53 20.2 146 55.7 50 19.1 13 5.0

My supervisor provides ongoing feedback to help me improve my performance. 45 17.4 135 52.3 61 23.6 17 6.6

I have adequate access to administrative support to do my job. 46 17.7 168 64.6 34 13.1 12 4.6

My supervisor provides adequate resources to help me manage work-life balance. 46 19.6 118 50.2 53 22.6 18 7.7

Kent State provides adequate resources to help me manage work-life balance. 37 15.2 140 57.4 49 20.1 18 7.4




243

Table B60. Faculty only: Please respond to the following statements. (Question 38)


n % n % n % n %

I feel that people who do not have children are burdened with work

responsibilities (e.g., stay late, off-hour work, work week-ends) beyond

those who do have children. 14 4.5 41 13.2 193 62.3 62 20.0

I have used Kent State policies on military active service-modified duties. 2 0.9 7 3.1 115 51.6 99 44.4

My department provides me with resources to pursue professional

development opportunities. 32 10.2 164 52.2 84 26.8 34 10.8

I have adequate access to administrative support to do my job. 55 17.2 192 60.2 50 15.7 22 6.9

My department provides adequate resources to help me manage work-life

balance (e.g., childcare, wellness services, eldercare, housing location

assistance, transportation, etc.). 17 6.2 132 48.0 90 32.7 36 13.1




244

Table B61. Within the past year, have you OBSERVED any conduct, directed toward a person or group of

people at Kent State that you believe created an exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive

and/or hostile (bullying, harassing) working or learning environment? (Question 72)

Observed conduct n %

No 1,319 83.4

Yes 262 16.6



245

Table B62. Who or what was the target of this conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 73)

Note: Table includes answers from only those respondents who indicated that they observed conduct (n = 262).

Percentages may not sum to 100% as a result of multiple responses.

Target

n

%

Student 106 40.5


Coworker 69 26.3

Friend 37 14.1


Student employee (e.g., peer mentor) 14 5.3


Senior administration 11 4.2

Stranger 11 4.2


Don’t know target 7 2.7

Supervisor 5 1.9

Alumni 3 1.1



Teaching assistant/Graduate assistant/Lab assistant/Tutor 3 1.1

Social networking site 2 0.8

Donor 1 0.4



Kent State media 0 0.0


A target not listed above 12 4.6



246

Table B63. Who/what was the source of this conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 74)

Source

n

%


Student 74 28.2


Senior administration 33 12.6

Co-worker 31 11.8

Supervisor 26 9.9


Stranger 12 4.6


Student employee (e.g., peer mentor) 7 2.7


Social networking site 4 1.5

Friend 3 1.1



Alumni 1 0.4


Teaching assistant/Graduate assistant/Lab

assistant/Tutor 1 0.4


Donor 0 0.0


Kent State media 0 0.0


Note: Table includes answers from only those respondents who indicated that they observed conduct (n = 262). Percentages may not sum to 100% as a result of multiple responses.



247

Table B64. How did you experience the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 75)

Experience

n

%

Person was disrespected. 180 68.7

Person was intimidated/bullied. 122 46.6

Person was ignored or excluded. 82 31.3

Person was isolated or left out. 72 27.5

The person was the target of workplace incivility. 63 24.0

The person was the target of derogatory verbal remarks. 61 23.3

I observed others staring at the person. 28 10.7

The person was the target of retaliation. 24 9.2

The person was singled out as the spokesperson for his/her identity group. 23 8.8

The person received derogatory written comments. 20 7.6

The person received a low performance evaluation/review. 19 7.3

The person was the target of racial/ethnic profiling. 15 5.7

The person feared getting a poor grade because of a

hostile classroom environment. 14 5.3

The person received derogatory phone calls/text messages/email. 9 3.4

Someone implied the person was admitted/hired/ promoted due to his/her identity group. 8 3.1

The person feared for his/her physical safety. 8 3.1

The person received derogatory/unsolicited messages through social media. 6 2.3

The person received threats of physical violence. 3 1.1

The person was the target of graffiti/vandalism. 3 1.1

Someone implied the person was not admitted/hired/promoted due to his/her identity group. 2 0.8

The person feared for his/her family’s safety. 2 0.8

The person was the target of stalking. 1 0.4

The person was the target of unwanted sexual contact. 1 0.4

The person was the target of physical violence. 1 0.4


Note: Table includes answers from only those respondents who indicated that they observed conduct (n = 262).

Percentages may not sum to 100% as a result of multiple responses.



248

Table B65. What do you believe was the basis for the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 76)

Basis of conduct

n

%


Faculty Status (Tenure Track, Non-Tenure Track, Adjunct) 46 17.6



Ethnicity 26 9.9

Educational credentials (M.S., Ph.D., etc.) 25 9.5



Age 21 8.0














Mental health/Psychological disability/condition 4 1.5



Military/Veteran status 3 1.1


Pregnancy 2 0.8

Immigrant/Citizen status 1 0.4



Note: Table includes answers from only those respondents who indicated that they observed conduct (n = 262). Percentages do not sum to 100% as a result of multiple responses.



249

Table B66. Where did this conduct occur? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 77)

Location

n

%










Off campus 9 3.4



On social networking sites

(e.g., Facebook/Twitter/Yik-Yak) 6 2.3

In campus housing 2 0.8

In an experiential learning environment

(e.g., internships, service learning, study abroad,

student teaching) 1 0.4

In athletic/recreational facilities 1 0.4

On Kent State media

(e.g., Kent Stater, Kentwired.com, TV2) 1 0.4

In a Kent State health care setting (e.g., University

Health Services, Psychological Services) 0 0.0




Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they observed conduct (n = 262). Percentages may not sum to 100% as a result of multiple responses.



250

Table B67. What was your response to observing the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 78)

Response

n

%








My supervisor 19 44.2


Senior administration (e.g., president, provost, dean, vice provost, vice president) 11 25.6





Staff person 3 7.0

Office of Equal Opportunity & Affirmative Action (or a

facilitator) 2 4.7




The Office of Sexual and Relationship Violence Support Services (SRVSS) 1 2.3







251

Table B67 (cont.)

Response

n

%





I didn’t report it for fear that my complaint would not be taken

seriously 28 10.7






I was afraid 12 4.6



I reported it to or sought support from an off-campus resource 3 1.1




A spiritual adviser (e.g., imam pastor, rabbi, priest,

layperson) 0 0.0

I filed a complaint with an external agency (e.g., Ohio Civil

Rights Commission, EEOC, US Department of Education) 0 33.3


Note: Table includes answers from only those respondents who indicated that they observed conduct (n = 262). Percentages may not sum to 100% as a result of multiple responses.



252

Table B68. Faculty/Staff only: Have you observed hiring practices at Kent State (e.g. hiring supervisor bias,

search committee bias, lack of effort in diversifying recruiting pool) that you perceive to be unjust or that

would inhibit diversifying the community? (Question 80)

Observed n %

No 487 81.8

Yes 107 18.0




253

Table B69. Faculty/Staff only: I believe that the unjust hiring practices were based upon:


Characteristic

n

%

Nepotism 25 23.4

Educational credentials (e.g., BS, MS, PhD) 18 16.8


Age 9 8.4

Ethnicity 8 7.5


Gender/gender identity 7 6.5





Don’t know 5 4.7



Religious/spiritual views 3 2.8







Immigrant/citizen status 1 0.9



Mental Health/Psychological disability/condition 0 0.0


Military/veteran status 0 0.0


Pregnancy 0 0.0


Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they observed discriminatory practices (n = 107). Percentages may not sum to 100% as a result of multiple responses.



254

Table B70. Faculty/Staff only: Have you have observed at Kent State employment-related discipline or action,

up to and including dismissal that you perceive to be unjust or that would inhibit diversifying the

community? (Question 83)

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated

that they were Faculty or Staff in Question 1 (n = 600).

Observed n %

No 535 90.5

Yes 56 9.5



255

Table B71. Staff /Faculty only: I believe that the unjust employment-related disciplinary actions were based

upon… (Mark all that apply.) (Question 84)

Characteristic

n

%


Faculty status 13 23.2

Age 9 16.1

Don’t know 9 16.1


Ethnicity 7 12.5























Pregnancy 0 0.0


Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they observed unjust disciplinary actions (n = 56). Percentages may not sum to 100% as a result of multiple responses.



256

Table B72. Faculty/Staff only: Have you observed promotion/tenure/reappointment/renewal of

appointment/reclassification practices at Kent State that you perceive to be unjust? (Question 86)

Observed n %

No 424 71.4

Yes 170 28.6




257

Table B73. Faculty/Staff only: I believe that the unjust behaviors, procedures, or employment practices

related to promotion/tenure/reappointment/renewal of appointment/reclassification were based upon:

(Question 87)

Characteristic

n

%





Nepotism 15 8.8

Ethnicity 14 8.2


Age 11 6.5


















Pregnancy 1 0.6





Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they observed unjust practices (n = 170). Percentages may not sum to 100% as a result of multiple responses.



258

Table B74. Using a scale of 1-5, please rate the overall climate on campus on the following dimensions: (Question 89)

1 2 3 4 5 Standard

Deviation Dimension n % n % n % n % n % Mean

Friendly/Hostile 754 47.7 564 35.7 196 12.4 49 3.1 17 1.1 1.7 0.9

Improving/Regressing 514 33.1 521 33.5 395 25.4 81 5.2 43 2.8 2.1 1.0

Inclusive/Not inclusive 474 30.7 502 32.5 418 27.1 109 7.1 41 2.7 2.2 1.0

Positive for persons with

disabilities/Negative 661 42.3 529 33.8 304 19.4 57 3.6 12 0.8 1.9 0.9

Positive for people who identify as lesbian,

gay, bisexual, queer, or transgender/Negative 583 37.6 480 30.9 421 27.1 53 3.4 15 1.0 2.0 0.9

Positive for people of Christian

faiths/Negative 595 38.1 454 29.1 420 26.9 62 4.0 31 2.0 2.0 1.0

Positive for people of Christian faith backgrounds/Negative 507 32.6 459 29.5 589 31.4 70 4.5 31 2.0 2.1 1.0

Positive for people of color/Negative 653 41.6 509 32.4 326 20.8 64 4.1 18 1.1 1.9 0.9

Positive for men/Negative 767 48.9 479 30.5 288 18.3 23 1.5 13 0.8 1.7 0.9

Positive for women/Negative 743 47.5 502 32.1 273 17.4 39 2.5 8 0.5 1.8 0.9

Positive for non-native English

speakers/Negative 468 30.2 408 26.3 540 34.9 109 7.0 24 1.5 2.2 1.0

Positive for people who are not U.S.

citizens/Negative 497 32.3 391 25.4 550 35.7 83 5.4 19 1.2 2.2 1.0

Welcoming/Not welcoming 739 46.9 569 36.1 186 11.8 65 4.1 16 1.0 1.8 0.9

Respectful/Disrespectful 692 44.1 568 36.2 216 13.8 55 3.5 38 2.4 1.8 1.0

Positive for people of high socioeconomic

status/Negative 703 45.2 452 29.0 371 23.8 24 1.5 7 0.4 1.8 0.9

Positive for people of low socioeconomic

status/Negative 543 35.0 466 30.0 394 25.4 109 7.0 40 2.6 2.1 1.1

Positive for people in active military or

veterans status/Negative 721 46.2 474 30.4 338 21.7 18 1.2 9 0.6 1.8 0.9



259

Table B75. Using a scale of 1-5, please rate the overall climate on campus on the following dimensions: (Question 90)

1 2 3 4 5 Standard

Deviation Dimension n % n % n % n % n % Mean

Not racist/Racist 708 45.2 520 33.2 263 16.8 60 3.8 17 1.1 1.8 0.9

Not sexist/Sexist 687 43.9 514 32.8 273 17.4 67 4.3 24 1.5 1.9 1.0

Not homophobic/Homophobic 668 43.2 495 32.0 307 19.8 62 4.0 15 1.0 1.9 0.9

Not age biased/Age biased 682 43.8 463 29.8 290 18.6 99 6.4 22 1.4 1.9 1.0

Not classist (socioeconomic

status)/Classist 636 41.3 501 32.5 305 19.8 74 4.8 25 1.6 1.9 1.0

Not classist (position: faculty,

staff, student)/Classist 616 39.8 432 27.9 310 20.1 119 7.7 69 4.5 2.1 1.1

Not ablest/Ablest 663 43.8 445 29.4 354 23.4 42 2.8 8 0.5 1.9 0.9

Not xenophobic/Xenophobic 640 41.4 472 30.6 331 21.4 75 4.9 27 1.7 1.9 1.0

Not ethnocentric

(international)/Ethnocentric 642 41.8 461 30.0 350 22.8 62 4.0 22 1.4 1.9 1.0



260

Table B76. Students only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements: (Question 91)


Neither agree nor


n % n % n % n % n %

I feel valued by faculty in the classroom. 370 34.6 415 42.1 147 14.9 42 4.3 11 1.1

I feel valued by other students in the classroom. 249 25.4 379 38.7 267 27.3 70 7.2 14 1.4

I think that Kent State faculty are genuinely

concerned with my welfare. 335 34.1 370 37.7 186 19.0 67 6.8 23 2.3

I think that Kent State staff are genuinely concerned

with my welfare (e.g., residence hall staff). 281 28.9 321 33.0 294 30.2 58 6.0 18 1.9

I think that faculty pre-judge my abilities based on

their perception of my identity/background (e.g. age,

race, disability, gender). 126 12.8 173 17.6 285 29.1 237 24.2 160 16.3

I believe that the campus climate encourages free

and open discussion of difficult topics. 322 32.9 384 39.2 201 20.5 53 5.4 20 2.0

I have faculty whom I perceive as role models. 398 40.6 317 32.3 185 18.9 59 6.0 22 2.2

I have staff whom I perceive as role models. 292 30.0 250 25.7 332 34.1 73 7.5 27 2.8

I have advisers who provide me with career advice. 341 34.8 314 32.1 189 19.3 70 7.2 65 6.6

I have advisers who provide me with advice on core

class selection. 392 40.0 346 35.3 134 13.7 59 6.0 48 4.9

My voice is valued in campus dialogues. 231 23.5 308 31.3 339 34.5 61 6.2 44 4.5




261

Table B77. Faculty only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements: (Question 92)


Neither agree nor


n % n % n % n % n %

I feel valued by faculty in my department. 82 24.6 155 46.5 54 16.2 20 6.0 22 6.6

I feel valued by my department head/chair. 88 26.7 142 43.2 53 16.1 23 7.0 23 7.0

I feel valued by students in the classroom. 127 39.7 157 49.1 26 8.1 8 2.5 2 0.6

I think that Kent State senior administration is genuinely concerned with my welfare. 41 12.5 90 27.4 94 28.7 56 17.1 47 14.3

I think that faculty in my department pre-judge my abilities based on their perception of my identity/background. 11 3.4 29 9.0 107 33.1 105 32.5 71 22.0

I think that faculty in my department pre-judge my abilities

based on my faculty status. 36 11.1 78 24.0 87 26.8 91 28.0 33 10.2

I think that my department chair/school director pre-judges my abilities based on my faculty status. 27 8.4 61 18.9 92 28.5 91 28.2 52 16.1

I think that my department chair/school director pre-judges my abilities based on his/her perception of my

identity/background (e.g. age, race, disability, gender). 8 2.5 23 7.2 94 29.6 103 32.4 90 28.3

I believe that the campus climate encourages free and open

discussion of difficult topics. 43 13.0 131 39.7 88 26.7 50 15.2 18 5.5

I feel that my research is valued. 20 7.0 73 25.6 136 47.7 31 10.9 25 8.8

I feel that my teaching is valued. 66 20.6 152 47.5 46 14.4 36 11.3 20 6.3

I feel that my service contributions are valued. 43 13.7 129 41.1 75 23.9 44 14.0 23 7.3

I feel that including diversity-related information in my teaching/pedagogy/research is valued. 47 15.9 107 36.3 111 37.6 16 5.4 14 4.7

I feel the university values academic freedom. 52 16.2 158 49.2 66 20.6 32 10.0 13 4.0

I feel that faculty voices are valued in shared governance. 24 7.6 95 30.2 88 27.9 57 18.1 51 16.2

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Faculty in Question 1 (n = 334)



262

.

Table B78. Staff only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements: (Question 93)


Neither agree nor


n % n % n % n % n %

I feel valued by co-workers in my work unit. 95 35.7 113 42.5 40 15.0 15 5.6 3 1.1

I feel valued by faculty. 54 20.4 109 41.1 55 20.8 37 14.0 10 3.8

I feel valued by my supervisor/manager. 95 36.0 99 37.5 37 14.0 22 8.3 11 4.2

I think that Kent State senior administration is

genuinely concerned with my welfare. 35 9.5 78 29.7 84 31.9 51 19.4 25 9.5

I think that co-workers in my work unit pre-judge

my abilities based on their perception of my

identity/background (e.g. age, race, disability,

gender). 4 1.5 25 9.4 72 27.2 95 35.8 69 26.0

I think that my supervisor/manager pre-judges my

abilities based on his/her perception of my identity/background (e.g. age, race, disability,

gender). 8 3.1 16 6.2 60 23.2 101 39.0 74 28.6

I believe that my work unit encourages free and

open discussion of difficult topics. 52 19.7 88 33.3 74 28.0 33 12.5 17 6.4

I feel that my skills are valued. 57 21.7 122 46.4 39 14.8 33 12.5 12 4.6

I feel my contributions to the university are valued. 42 15.8 109 41.0 66 24.8 34 1.8 15 5.6

Staff opinions are taken seriously by senior

administrators (e.g., deans, vice presidents,

provost). 20 7.6 69 26.3 82 31.3 58 22.1 33 12.6




263

Table B79. Respondents with disabilities only: Within the past year, have you experienced a barrier regarding

any of the following at Kent State? (Question 94)


n % n % n %

Facilities

Athletic facilities (stadium, recreation, etc.) 7 3.4 84 40.8 115 55.8

Classroom buildings 13 6.3 172 83.9 20 9.8

Classrooms, labs 17 8.3 156 76.5 31 15.2

College housing 3 1.5 75 37.1 124 61.4

Computer labs 14 6.9 155 76.4 34 16.7

Dining facilities 15 7.4 121 59.6 67 33.0

Doors 10 4.9 168 81.6 28 13.6

Elevators/Lifts 13 6.3 150 73.2 42 20.5

Emergency preparedness 12 5.8 148 71.8 46 22.3

University Health Services (health center) 6 2.9 104 50.7 95 46.3

Library 13 6.4 166 82.2 23 11.4

On-campus transportation/parking 29 14.2 137 67.2 38 18.6

Other campus buildings 2 1.0 166 81.4 36 17.6

Podium 5 2.5 123 60.9 74 36.6

Recreational facilities 8 4.0 107 53.0 87 43.1

Restrooms 15 7.5 166 82.6 20 10.0

Studios/Performing arts spaces 3 1.5 108 54.0 89 44.5

University sponsored internship/practicum sites 5 2.5 107 53.2 89 44.3

Walkways, pedestrian paths, crosswalks 18 9.0 161 80.1 22 10.9

Technology/Online Environment

Accessible electronic format 17 8.6 147 74.6 33 16.8

ALEKS 31 15.4 100 49.8 70 34.8

ATM machines 12 6.0 132 66.3 55 27.6

Availability of FM listening systems 4 2.0 101 50.2 96 47.8

Clickers 8 4.0 95 47.5 97 48.5

Blackboard 25 12.4 151 75.1 25 12.4

Closed captioning at athletic events 2 1.0 78 39.6 117 59.4

E-curriculum (curriculum software) 14 7.0 123 61.5 63 31.5

Electronic forms 9 4.5 148 74.0 43 21.5

Electronic signage 8 4.0 144 72.4 47 23.6

Electronic surveys (including this one) 9 4.5 167 83.1 25 12.4

Kiosks 1 0.5 119 60.1 78 39.4



264

Table B79 (cont.) Yes No Not applicable

n % n % n %

Library database 14 7.1 153 77.3 31 15.7

PA system 2 1.0 110 55.6 86 43.4

Video 7 3.5 148 74.4 44 22.1

Website 22 11.2 150 76.5 24 12.2

Instructional/Campus Materials

Brochures 11 5.5 155 77.1 35 17.4

Food menus 11 5.6 120 60.9 66 33.5

Forms 11 5.6 161 81.3 26 13.1

Events/Exhibits/Movies 7 3.5 141 70.9 51 25.6

Exams/quizzes 22 11.2 151 76.6 24 12.2

Journal articles 16 8.0 151 75.5 33 16.5

Library books 11 5.6 160 80.8 27 13.6

Other publications 4 2.0 164 83.2 29 14.7

Signage 6 3.0 156 78.4 37 18.6

Textbooks 24 12.1 148 74.7 26 13.1

Video-closed captioning and text description 8 4.0 127 63.8 64 32.2

Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they had a disability in Question 57 (n = 210).



265

Table B80. Students only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree that your courses at Kent State include sufficient materials, perspectives

and/or experiences of people based on each of the following characteristics. (Question 96)


n % n % n % n %

Disability 352 36.4 535 55.3 63 6.5 17 1.8

Ethnicity 358 36.9 547 56.4 56 5.8 8 0.8

Gender/Gender identity 361 37.4 519 53.8 70 7.3 14 1.5

Immigrant/Citizen status 318 33.0 545 56.6 85 8.8 15 1.6

International status 327 34.0 540 56.1 83 8.6 12 1.2

Military/Veteran status 385 40.2 499 52.1 65 6.8 9 0.9

Philosophical views 353 36.7 522 54.2 79 8.2 9 0.9

Political views 332 34.4 513 53.2 104 10.8 16 1.7

Racial identity 341 35.6 543 56.6 68 7.1 7 0.7

Religious/Spiritual views 322 33.4 519 53.9 101 10.5 21 2.2

Sexual identity 331 34.6 515 53.8 96 10.0 15 1.6

Socioeconomic status 324 33.9 519 54.3 95 9.9 17 1.8




266

Table B81. Faculty only: Based on your knowledge of the availability of the following institutional initiatives, please indicate how each influences or would influence the

climate at Kent State. (Question 97)

Initiative IS available at Kent State Initiative IS NOT available at Kent State

Positively

influences climate

Has no influence

on climate

Negatively

influences climate

Would positively

influence climate

Would have no

influence on

climate

Would negatively

influence climate

n % n % n % n % n % n %

Providing flexibility for computing the probationary period for tenure (e.g., tolling) 99 43.8 52 23.0 17 7.5 38 16.8 13 5.8 7 3.1

Providing recognition and rewards for

including diversity issues in courses across

the curriculum 81 34.0 50 21.0 17 7.1 63 26.5 18 7.6 9 3.8

Providing diversity and equity training for

faculty 135 54.0 59 23.6 5 2.0 34 13.6 14 5.6 3 1.2

Providing access to counseling for people

who have experienced harassment 176 67.4 26 10.0 0 0.0 52 19.9 4 1.5 3 1.1

Providing mentorship for new faculty 191 70.0 21 7.7 4 1.5 51 18.7 1 0.4 5 1.8

Providing a clear process to resolve conflicts 163 63.4 23 8.9 1 0.4 61 23.7 7 2.7 2 0.8

Providing a fair process to resolve conflicts 167 65.5 23 9.0 2 0.8 56 22.0 5 2.0 2 0.8

Including diversity-related professional

experiences as one of the criteria for hiring

of staff/faculty 79 32.2 57 23.3 24 9.8 44 18.0 32 13.1 9 3.7

Providing equity and diversity training to

search, promotion and tenure committees 114 46.9 53 21.8 11 4.5 49 20.2 13 5.3 3 1.2

Providing career span development

opportunities for faculty at all ranks 127 49.8 22 8.6 0 0.0 96 37.6 10 3.9 0 0.0





267

Table B82. Staff only: Based on your knowledge of the availability of the following institutional initiatives, please indicate how each influences or would influence the

climate at Kent State: (Question 99)


Positively influences climate

Has no influence on climate

Negatively influences climate

Would positively influence climate

Would have no

influence on climate

Would negatively influence climate

n % n % n % n % n % n %


staff 143 58.8 57 23.5 4 1.6 25 10.3 12 4.9 2 0.8

Providing access to counseling for people

who have experienced harassment 159 67.1 26 11.0 4 1.7 38 16.0 7 3.0 3 1.3

Providing mentorship for new staff 96 39.5 16 6.6 0 0.0 120 49.4 10 4.1 1 0.4

Providing a clear process to resolve conflicts 119 50.6 24 10.2 4 1.7 81 34.5 4 1.7 3 1.3

Providing a fair process to resolve conflicts 120 51.7 24 10.3 2 0.9 78 33.6 6 2.6 2 0.9

Considering diversity-related professional

experiences as one of the criteria for hiring of

staff/faculty 70 31.0 57 25.2 16 7.1 39 17.3 35 15.5 9 4.0

Providing career development opportunities

for staff 136 56.7 28 11.7 0 0.0 70 29.2 5 2.1 1 0.4





268

Table B83. Students only: Based on your knowledge of the availability of the following institutional initiatives, please indicate how each influences or would influence the

climate at Kent State: (Question 101)


Positively influences climate

Has no influence on climate

Negatively influences climate


Would have no



n % n % n % n % n % n %


students 533 59.0 112 12.4 9 1.0 170 18.8 70 7.8 9 1.0


staff 563 62.6 111 12.3 9 1.0 155 17.2 52 5.8 9 1.0


faculty 567 63.7 103 11.6 12 1.3 151 17.0 48 5.4 9 1.0

Providing a person to address student

complaints of classroom inequity 540 60.5 115 12.9 5 0.6 173 19.4 46 5.2 13 1.5

Increasing opportunities for cross-cultural

dialogue among students 499 56.2 121 13.6 9 1.0 190 21.4 59 6.6 10 1.1

Increasing opportunities for cross-cultural

dialogue between faculty, staff and students 501 56.0 121 13.5 6 0.7 205 22.9 51 5.7 10 1.1

Incorporating issues of diversity and cross-

cultural competence more effectively into the

curriculum 512 57.5 135 15.2 12 1.3 159 17.9 56 6.3 16 1.8

Providing effective faculty mentorship of

students 600 67.4 104 11.7 7 0.8 144 16.2 27 3.0 8 0.9

Providing effective academic advising 679 75.9 69 7.7 5 0.6 111 12.4 22 2.5 9 1.0

Providing diversity training for student staff 518 58.3 118 13.3 12 1.3 180 20.2 50 5.6 11 1.2



This survey is accessible in alternative formats.

For more information please contact:

Student Accessibility Services Phone: 330-672-3391 E-mail: [email protected]

Kent State University Assessment of Climate for Learning, Living, and Working

(Administered by Rankin & Associates, Consulting)

Purpose

You are invited to participate in a survey of students, faculty, staff and administrators regarding the climate at Kent State. Climate refers to the current attitudes, behaviors, and standards of employees and students concerning the access for, inclusion of, and level of respect for individual and group needs, abilities, and potential. Your responses will inform us about the current climate at Kent State and provide us with specific information about how the environment for learning, living and working at Kent State can be improved.

Procedures

You will be asked to complete the attached survey. Your participation is confidential. Please answer the questions as openly and honestly as possible. You may skip questions. The survey will take between 20 and 30 minutes to complete. You must be 18 years of age or older to participate. When you have completed the survey, please return it directly to the external consultants (Rankin & Associates) using the enclosed envelope. Any comments provided by participants are also separated at submission so that comments are not attributed to any demographic characteristics. These comments will be analyzed using content analysis. Anonymous quotes from submitted comments will also be used throughout the report to give “voice” to the quantitative data.

Discomforts and Risks

There are no anticipated risks in participating in this assessment beyond those experienced in everyday life. Some of the questions are personal and might cause discomfort. In the event that any questions asked are disturbing, you may skip any questions or stop responding to the survey at any time. If you experience any discomfort in responding to these questions and would like to speak with someone or review relevant policies please copy and paste the link(s) below into a new browser.

http://www.kent.edu/srvss/get-help

http://www.kent.edu/stepupspeakout

Benefits

The results of the survey will provide important information about our climate and will help us in our efforts to ensure that the environment at Kent State is conducive to learning, living, and working.

Voluntary Participation

Participation in this assessment is voluntary. If you decide to participate, you do not have to answer any questions on the survey that you do not wish to answer. Individuals will not be identified and only group data will be reported (e.g., the analysis will include only aggregate data). Please note that you can choose to withdraw your responses at any time before you submit your answers. Refusal to take part in this assessment will involve no penalty or loss of student or employee benefits.



269

Statement of Confidentiality for Participation In the event of any publication or presentation resulting from the assessment, no personally identifiable information will be shared. Your confidentiality in participating will be insured. The external consultant (Rankin & Associates) will not report any group data for groups of fewer than 5 individuals that may be small enough to compromise confidentiality. Instead, Rankin & Associates will combine the groups to eliminate any potential for demographic information to be identifiable. Please also remember that you do not have to answer any question or questions about which you are uncomfortable. The survey has been approved by the Kent State Institutional Review Board.

Statement of Anonymity for Comments Upon submission, all comments from participants will be de-identified to make those comments anonymous. Thus, participant comments will not be attributable to their author. However, depending on what you say, others who know you may be able to attribute certain comments to you. In instances where certain comments might be attributable to an individual, Rankin & Associates will make every effort to de-identify those comments or will remove the comments from the analyses. The anonymous comments will be analyzed using content analysis. In order to give “voice” to the quantitative data, some anonymous comments may be quoted in publications related to this survey.

Right to Ask Questions You can ask questions about this assessment in confidence. Questions concerning this project should be directed to: Susan R. Rankin, Ph.D. Principal & Senior Research Associate Rankin & Associates, Consulting [email protected] 814-625-2780 Questions regarding the survey process may also be directed to: Kathryn Wilson Professor of Economics College of Business Administration [email protected] Shay Little Interim Vice President of Student Affairs [email protected] Questions concerning the rights of participants: Research at Kent State that involves human participants is carried out under the oversight of an Institutional Review Board. Questions or problems regarding these activities should be addressed to: Research and Sponsored Programs Cartwright Hall Kent State University P.O. Box 5190 Kent, OH 44242-0001 330-672-0709 PLEASE MAKE A COPY OF THIS CONSENT DOCUMENT FOR YOUR RECORDS, OR IF YOU DO NOT HAVE PRINT CAPABILITIES, YOU MAY CONTACT THE CONSULTANT TO OBTAIN A COPY By submitting this survey you are agreeing to take part in this assessment, as described in detail in the preceding paragraphs.



270

Survey Terms and Definitions

Androgynous: A person appearing and/or identifying as neither man nor woman, presenting a gender either mixed or neutral.

American Indian (Native American): A person having origin in any of the original tribes of North America who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.

Asexual: A person who does not experience sexual attraction. Unlike celibacy, which people choose, asexuality is an intrinsic part of an individual.

Assigned Birth Sex: Refers to the assigning (naming) of the biological sex of a baby at birth.

Bullied: Unwanted offensive and malicious behavior which undermines, patronizes, intimidates or demeans the recipient or target.

Classist: A bias based on social or economic class.

Climate: Current attitudes, behaviors, and standards of employees and students concerning the access for, inclusion of, and level of respect for individual and group needs, abilities, and potential.

Disability: A physical or mental impairment that limits one or more major life activities.

Discrimination: Discrimination refers to the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person based on the group, class, or category to which that person belongs rather than on individual merit. Discrimination can be the effect of some law or established practice that confers privileges based on of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender, gender expression, gender identity, pregnancy, physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer-related or genetic characteristics), genetic information (including family medical history), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual identity, citizenship, or service in the uniformed services.

Experiential Learning: Experiential learning refers to a pedagogical philosophy and methodology concerned with learning activities outside of the traditional classroom environment, with objectives which are planned and articulated prior to the experience (internship, service learning, co-operative education, field experience, practicum, cross-cultural experiences, apprentticeships, etc.).

Family Leave: The Family Medical Leave Act is a labor law requiring employers with 50 or more employees to provide certain employees with job-protected unpaid leave due to one of the following situations: a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform his or her job; caring for a sick family member; caring for a new child (including birth, adoption or foster care).

Gender Identity: A person’s inner sense of being man, woman, both, or neither. The internal identity may or may not be expressed outwardly, and may or may not correspond to one’s physical characteristics.

Genderqueer: This term represents a blurring of the lines around gender identity and sexual orientation. Genderqueer individuals typically reject notions of static categories of gender and embrace a fluidity of gender identity and sexual orientation. This term is typically assigned an adult identifier and not used in reference to preadolescent children.

Gender Expression: The manner in which a person outwardly represents gender, regardless of the physical characteristics that might typically define the individual as male or female.

Harassment: Harassment is unwelcomed behavior that demeans, threatens or offends another person or group of people and results in a hostile environment for the targeted person/group.

Homophobia: The irrational hatred and fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. Homophobia includes prejudice, discrimination, harassment, and acts of violence brought on by fear and hatred.

Intersex: A general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male.

Non-Native English Speakers: People for whom English is not their first language.



271

People of Color: People who self-identify as other than White.

Physical Characteristics: Term that refers to one’s appearance.

Position: The status one holds by virtue of her/his position/status within the institution (e.g., staff, full-time faculty, part-time faculty, administrator, etc.)

Racial Identity: A socially constructed category about a group of people based on generalized physical features such as skin color, hair type, shape of eyes, physique, etc.

Sexual Identity: Term that refers to the sex of the people one tends to be emotionally, physically and sexually attracted to; this is inclusive of, but not limited to, lesbians, gay men, bisexual people, heterosexual people, and those who identify as queer.

Socioeconomic Status: The status one holds in society based on one’s level of income, wealth, education, and familial background.

Transgender: An umbrella term referring to those whose gender identity or gender expression [previously defined] is different from that traditionally associated with their sex assigned at birth [previously defined].

Unwanted Sexual Contact: Unwanted physical sexual contact includes forcible fondling, sexual assault, forcible rape, use of drugs to incapacitate, forcible sodomy, gang rape, and sexual assault with an object.

Directions

Please read and answer each question carefully. For each answer, darken the appropriate oval completely. If you want to change an answer, erase your first answer completely and darken the oval of your new answer. You may decline to answer specific questions. You must answer at least 50% of the questions for your responses to be included in the final analyses.

The survey will take between 20 and 30 minutes to complete. You must answer at least 50% of the questions for your responses to be included in the final analyses.



272

1. What is your primary position at Kent State? Undergraduate student

Started at Kent State as a first-year student Transferred from another institution Post-secondary ESL

Graduate/Professional student Non-degree Certificate Master’s degree candidate Doctoral degree candidate/Ed.S. Professional student (College of Podiatric Medicine)

Faculty Tenure Track (Full-Time)

Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor

Non-Tenure Track (Full-Time) Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor Lecturer Associate Lecturer Senior Lecturer Visiting Professor

Adjunct/Part-Time Administrator with faculty rank (Dean, Chair, Director) Staff

Classified Non-represented

Clerical/Secretarial Worker Service/Maintenance Worker Skilled Crafts Worker Technical or Paraprofessional

Represented (in the AFSCME bargaining unit) Clerical/Secretarial Worker Service/Maintenance Worker Skilled Crafts Worker Technical or Paraprofessional

Unclassified Professional (Non-Faculty Supervisory) Professional (Non-Faculty Non-Supervisory)

2. Are you full-time or part-time in that primary status? Full-time Part-time 3. What is your primary Kent State campus affiliation? Ashtabula Campus East Liverpool Campus Geauga Campus (including the Regional Academic Center in Twinsburg) Kent Campus (including the College of Podiatric Medicine) Salem Campus Stark Campus Trumbull Campus Tuscarawas Campus



273

Part 1: Personal Experiences When responding to the following questions, think about your experiences during the past year. 4. Overall, how comfortable are you with the climate at Kent State? Very comfortable Comfortable Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable Uncomfortable Very uncomfortable 5. Faculty/Staff only: Overall, how comfortable are you with the climate in your department/work unit? Very comfortable Comfortable Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable Uncomfortable Very uncomfortable 6. Students/Faculty only: Overall, how comfortable are you with the climate in your classes? Very comfortable Comfortable Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable Uncomfortable Very uncomfortable 7. Have you ever seriously considered leaving Kent State? No [Skip to Question 12] Yes 8. Students only: When did you seriously consider leaving Kent State? (Mark all that apply.) During my first year as a student During my second year as a student During my third year as a student During my fourth year as a student During my fifth year as a student After my fifth year as a student 9. Students only: Why did you seriously consider leaving Kent State? (Mark all that apply.) Campus climate was not welcoming Coursework was too difficult Didn’t like major Didn’t meet the selection criteria for a major Financial reasons Homesick Lack of a sense of belonging Lack of support group My marital/relationship status Never intended to graduate from Kent State Personal reasons (medical, mental health, family emergencies, etc.) Immigration compliance issues (e.g., VISA status) A reason not listed above



274

10. Faculty/Staff only: Why did you seriously consider leaving Kent State? (Mark all that apply.) Campus climate was unwelcoming Family responsibilities Financial reasons (salary, resources, etc.) Increased workload Interested in a position at another institution Lack of benefits Limited opportunities for advancement Local community did not meet my (my family) needs Offered position in government or industry Personal reasons (medical, mental health, family emergencies, etc.) Recruited or offered a position at another institution Revised retirement plans Spouse or partner relocated Spouse or partner unable to find suitable employment Tension with supervisor/manager Tension with co-workers Wanted to move to a different geographical location A reason not listed above 11. We are interested in knowing more about your experiences. If you would like to elaborate on why you seriously considered leaving, please do so here. 12. Students only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements regarding your academic experience at Kent State.


Neither agree nor disagree Disagree

Strongly disagree

I am performing up to my full academic potential. Few of my courses this year have been intellectually stimulating. I am satisfied with my academic experience at Kent State. I am satisfied with the extent of my intellectual development since enrolling at Kent State. I have performed academically as well as I anticipated I would. My academic experience has had a positive influence on my intellectual growth and interest in ideas. My interest in ideas and intellectual matters has increased since coming to Kent State. I intend to graduate from Kent state. I am considering transferring to another institution for academic reasons.



275

13. Within the past year, have you personally experienced any exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct (bullied, harassed) that has interfered with your ability to work or learn at Kent State? No [Skip to Question 20] Yes 14. What do you believe was the basis of the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) Academic performance Age Educational credentials (M.S., Ph.D., etc.) English language proficiency/accent Ethnicity Faculty Status (Tenure Track, Non-Tenure Track, Adjunct) Gender/Gender identity Gender expression Immigrant/Citizen status International status Learning disability/condition Living arrangement Major field of study Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered) Mental health/Psychological disability/condition Medical disability/condition Military/Veteran status Parental status (e.g., having children) Participation in an organization/team Physical characteristics Physical disability/condition Philosophical views Political views Position (staff, faculty, student) Pregnancy Racial identity Religious/Spiritual views Sexual identity Socioeconomic status Don’t know A reason not listed above



276

15. How did you experience the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) I was ignored or excluded. I was intimidated/bullied. I was isolated or left out. I was disrespected. I observed others staring at me. I was singled out as the spokesperson for my identity group. Someone implied I was admitted/hired/promoted due to my identity group. Someone implied I was not admitted/hired/promoted due to my identity group. I feared getting a poor grade because of a hostile classroom environment. I received a low performance evaluation/review. I was the target of workplace incivility. I was the target of racial/ethnic profiling. I was the target of stalking. I was the target of unwanted sexual contact. I received derogatory written comments. I received derogatory phone calls/text messages/email. I received derogatory/unsolicited messages through social media (e.g., Facebook posts, Twitter posts, etc.). I was the target of derogatory verbal remarks. I was the target of retaliation. I received threats of physical violence. I was the target of graffiti/vandalism. I feared for my physical safety. I feared for my family’s safety. I was the target of physical violence. An experience not listed above 16. Where did the conduct occur? (Mark all that apply.) At a Kent State event In a class/lab/clinical setting In a Kent State health care setting (e.g., University Health Services, Psychological Services) In a Kent State dining facility In a Kent State administrative office In an experiential learning environment (e.g., internships, service learning, study abroad, student teaching) In a faculty office In a public space at Kent State In a meeting with one other person In a meeting with a group of people In a Kent State library In athletic/recreational facilities In campus housing In off-campus housing Off campus On social networking sites/Facebook/Twitter/Yik-Yak On Kent State media (e.g., Kent Stater, Kentwired.com, TV2) On Kent State transportation (e.g., PARTA) While working at a Kent State job While walking on campus A location not listed above



277

17. Who/What was the source of this conduct? (Mark all that apply.) Academic adviser Alumni Athletic coach/trainer Co-worker Department chair /head/director Donor Faculty member Friend Health/Counseling services Kent State media (e.g., Kent Stater, TV2, flyers, websites) Kent State Public Safety Off-campus community member Person whom I supervise Senior administration (e.g., president, provost, dean, vice provost, vice president) Social networking site (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Yik-Yak) Staff member Stranger Student Student employee (e.g., resident assistant, peer mentor, work-study) Supervisor Teaching assistant/Graduate assistant/Lab assistant/Tutor Don’t know source A source not listed above 18. What was your response to experiencing the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) I felt uncomfortable I felt embarrassed I felt somehow responsible I ignored it I was afraid I was angry I confronted the harasser at the time I confronted the harasser later I avoided the harasser I told a friend I told a family member I reported it to or sought support from an on-campus resource

Campus security Coach or athletic trainer Kent State Public Safety/KSUPD Student Conduct Office of Equal Opportunity & Affirmative Action (or a facilitator) Title IX Coordinator The Office of Sexual and Relationship Violence Support Services (SRVSS) LGBTQ Student Center Dean of Students or Student Ombuds Employee Relations On-campus counseling service Student staff (e.g., residence hall staff, peer mentor) Teaching assistant/graduate assistant My academic advisor The Office of Global Education Student Accessibility Services Center for Adult and Veteran Services Staff person Faculty member Senior administration (e.g., president, provost, dean, vice provost, vice president) My supervisor My union representative Other



278

I reported it to or sought support from an off-campus resource Local law enforcement (other than KSUPD) Hotline/advocacy services A spiritual adviser (e.g., imam, pastor, rabbi, priest, layperson) Off-campus counseling service I filed a complaint with an external agency (e.g., Ohio Civil Rights Commission, EEOC, U.S. Department of Education)

I sought information online I didn’t know whom to go to I didn’t report it for fear that my complaint would not be taken seriously I did report it, but I did not feel the complaint was taken seriously A response not listed above 19. We are interested in knowing more about your experience. If you would like to elaborate on your personal experiences, please do so here.

As a reminder, upon submission, all comments from participants will be de-identified to make those comments anonymous. Additionally, please note that providing information through this survey does not mean you are making a formal report to or complaint with the university. If you wish to file a complaint with the university regarding the issues described in this section, please contact the appropriate resources below. Complaints of unlawful discrimination and harassment (including failure to accommodate a disability) should be directed to the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action at 330-672-2038. Complaints of gender inequity and discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual assault, intimate partner violence, or stalking should be directed to the Title IX Coordinator at 330-672-2038. Students wishing to file a complaint of a nature not described above may contact the Student Ombuds at 330-672-9494 to determine the appropriate resource. Employees wishing to file a complaint of a nature not described above may contact the Office of Employee Relations at 330-672-2901 to determine the appropriate resource. Criminal matters should also be directed to the appropriate law enforcement agency. The KSUPD can be reached at 330-672-3070.

If you have experienced any discomfort in responding to these questions and would like to speak with someone, please copy and paste the link(s) below into a new browser.





279

Incidents involving forced or unwanted sexual acts are often difficult to talk about. The following questions are related to any incidents you have experienced with unwanted physical sexual contact. If you have experienced this action, the questions may evoke an emotional or physical response. If you experience any difficulty, please take care of yourself and seek support from campus or community resources. 20. While a member of the Kent State community, have you experienced unwanted sexual contact (including interpersonal violence, stalking, sexual assault, sexual assault with an object, forcible fondling, forcible rape, use of drugs to incapacitate, forcible sodomy or gang rape)? No [Skip to Question 28] Yes 21. When did the unwanted sexual contact occur? Within the last year 2-4 years ago 5-10 years ago 11-20 years ago More than 20 years ago 22. Students only: What semester were you in when you experienced the unwanted sexual contact? (Mark all that apply.) First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth After eighth semester While a graduate/professional student 23. Who did this to you? (Mark all that apply.) Acquaintance/Friend Family member Kent State faculty member Kent State staff member Stranger Kent State student Current or former dating/intimate partner Other Role/Relationship not listed above 24. Where did the incident(s) occur? (Mark all that apply.) Off campus (please specify location:) ___________________________________ On campus (please specify location:) ___________________________________



280

25. What was your response to experiencing the incident(s)? (Mark all that apply.) I did nothing I felt uncomfortable I felt embarrassed I felt somehow responsible I ignored it I was afraid I was angry It didn’t affect me at the time I left the situation immediately I confronted the harasser at the time I confronted the harasser later I avoided the harasser I told a friend I told a family member I reported it to or sought support from an on-campus resource

Campus security Coach or athletic training staff member Kent State Public Safety/KSUPD Student Conduct Office of Equal Opportunity & Affirmative Action (or a facilitator) Title IX Coordinator The Office of Sexual and Relationship Violence Support Services (SRVSS) LGBTQ Student Center Dean of Students or Student Ombuds Employee Relations Employee Assistance Program (IMPACT) Kent State counseling center or campus counseling staff Student staff (e.g., residence hall staff, peer mentor) Teaching assistant/graduate assistant My academic advisor The Office of Global Education Student Accessibility Services Center for Adult and Veteran Services Staff person Faculty member Senior administration (e.g., president, provost, dean, vice provost, vice president) My supervisor My union representative Other

I reported it to or sought support from an off-campus resource Local law enforcement (other than KSUPD) Local or national hotline Local rape crisis center A spiritual adviser (e.g., imam, pastor, rabbi, priest, layperson) Off-campus counseling service I filed a complaint with an external agency (e.g., Ohio Civil Rights Commission, EEOC, US Department of Education)

I sought information online I didn’t know whom to go to I didn’t report it for fear that my complaint would not be taken seriously I did report it, but I did not feel the complaint was taken seriously A response not listed above



281

26. If you did not report the unwanted sexual contact to a campus official or staff member, please share what kept you from doing so. 27. If you did report the unwanted sexual contact to a campus official or staff member, did you feel that it was responded to appropriately? If not, please explain why you felt that it was not. If you have experienced any discomfort in responding to these questions and would like to speak with someone, please copy and paste the link(s) below into a new browser.





282

Part 2: Work-Life 28. Staff/Faculty only: Please respond to the following statements. Strongly

agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

I am reluctant to bring up issues that concern me for fear that doing so will affect my performance evaluation/review or tenure/merit/promotion decision. My colleagues/co-workers expect me to represent “the point of view” of my identity (e.g., ability, ethnicity, gender, race, religion, sexual identity). The process for determining salaries/merit raises is clear. I am comfortable taking leave that I am entitled to without fear that doing so may affect my job/career. I have to work harder than I believe my colleagues/co-workers do to achieve the same recognition. 29. Staff/Faculty only: If you would like to expand on any of your responses, please do so here. 30. Faculty – Tenured/Tenure Track only: As a faculty member … Strongly


I believe that the tenure/promotion process is clear. I believe that the tenure/promotion process is reasonable. I feel that my service contributions are important to tenure/promotion. I feel pressured to change my research agenda to achieve tenure/promotion. I believe that my teaching load is equitable compared to my colleagues. I feel that I am burdened by service responsibilities (e.g., committee memberships, departmental work assignments). I feel that I am burdened by service responsibilities (e.g., committee memberships, departmental work assignments) beyond those of my colleagues with similar performance expectations. In my department, faculty members who use family accommodation (FMLA) policies are disadvantaged in promotion or tenure. I believe the tenure standards/promotion standards are applied equally to all faculty. I find that Kent State is supportive of the use of sabbatical/faculty professional improvement leave. I find that my department is supportive of my taking leave. I feel that my point of views are taken into account for course assignments and scheduling. I have used Kent State policies on taking leave for childbearing or adoption. I believe that Faculty Excellence Awards (merit raises) are awarded fairly. 31. Faculty - Tenured/Tenure Track only: If you would like to expand on any of your responses, please do so here.



283

32. Faculty – Non-Tenure Track only: As a faculty member … Strongly


I believe that the renewal of appointment/promotion process is clear. I believe that the renewal of appointment/promotion process is reasonable. I feel pressured to do service and research. I feel pressured to do work and/or service without compensation. I believe that my teaching load is equitable compared to my colleagues. I feel that I am burdened by service responsibilities (e.g., committee memberships, departmental work assignments). I feel that I am burdened by service responsibilities (e.g., committee memberships, departmental work assignments) beyond those of my colleagues with similar performance expectations. In my department, faculty members who use family accommodation (FMLA) policies are disadvantaged in promotion or tenure. I believe the renewal of appointment/promotion standards are applied equally to all faculty. I feel that my point of views are taken into account for course assignments and scheduling. I have used Kent State policies on taking leave for childbearing or adoption. I believe the process for obtaining professional development funds is fair and accessible. I feel that my tenured and tenure-track colleagues understand the nature of my work. I feel that full-time non-tenure track faculty (FTNTTs) are equitably represented at the departmental level (e.g. representatives on committees that reflects adequately the number of FTNTTs in the unit). I feel that FTNTTs are equitably represented at the university level. I believe that my workload is equitable compared to my tenured or tenure-track colleagues. 33. Faculty - Non-Tenure Track only: If you would like to expand on any of your responses, please do so here. 34. Faculty only: As a faculty member … Strongly


I believe that my colleagues include me in opportunities that will help my career as much as they do others in my position. I perform more work to help students (e.g., formal and informal advising, sitting for qualifying exams/thesis committees, helping with student groups and activities, providing other support) beyond those of my colleagues with similar performance expectations. I feel that my diversity-related research/teaching/service contributions have been/will be valued for promotion,tenure, or performance review (if not applicable, please skip). I believe that campus and college awards, stipends, grants and development funds are awarded fairly. I have peers/mentors who provide me career advice or guidance when I need it. I believe that my workload is reasonable.

35. Faculty only: If you would like to expand on any of your responses, please do so here.



284

36. Staff only: Please respond to the following statements. Strongly


I find that Kent State is supportive of staff taking leave. I find that my supervisor is supportive of my taking leave. I find that Kent State is supportive of flexible work schedules. I find that my supervisor is supportive of flexible work schedules. I feel that people who do not have children are burdened with work responsibilities (e.g., stay late, off-hour work, work week-ends) beyond those who do have children. I have used Kent State policies on taking leave for childbearing or adoption. I have used Kent State policies on military active service-modified duties. I have supervisors who provide me job/career advice or guidance when I need it. I have colleagues/co-workers who provide me job/career advice or guidance when I need it. My supervisor provides me with resources to pursue professional development opportunities. Kent State provides me with resources to pursue professional development opportunities. My supervisor provides ongoing feedback to help me improve my performance. I have adequate access to administrative support to do my job. My supervisor provides adequate resources to help me manage work-life balance (e.g., childcare, wellness services, eldercare, housing location assistance, transportation, etc.). Kent State provides adequate resources to help me manage work-life balance (e.g., childcare, wellness services, eldercare, housing location assistance, transportation, etc.). 37. Staff only: If you would like to elaborate on any of your responses to the previous statements please do so here. 38. Faculty only: Please respond to the following statements. Strongly


I feel that people who do not have children are burdened with work responsibilities (e.g., stay late, off-hour work, work week-ends) beyond those who do have children. I have used Kent State policies on military active service-modified duties. My department provides me with resources to pursue professional development opportunities. I have adequate access to administrative support to do my job. My department provides adequate resources to help me manage work-life balance (e.g., childcare, wellness services, eldercare, housing location assistance, transportation, etc.).

39. Faculty only: If you would like to elaborate on any of your responses to the previous statements please do so here.



285

Part 3: Demographic Information Your responses are confidential and group data will not be reported for any group with fewer than 5 responses that may be small enough to compromise confidentiality. Instead, the data will be aggregated to eliminate any potential for individual participants to be identified. You may also skip questions. 40. What is your birth sex (assigned)? Female Intersex Male 41. What is your gender/gender identity? Genderqueer Man Transgender Woman A gender not listed here (please specify): ___________________________________ 42. What is your current gender expression? Androgynous Feminine Masculine A gender expression not listed here (please specify): ___________________________________ 43. What is your citizenship status in U.S.? U.S. citizen Permanent resident A visa holder (F-1, J-1, H1-B, A, L, G, E, and TN) Other legally documented status Undocumented resident 44. What is your racial/ethnic identity? (If you are of a multi-racial/multi-ethnic/multi-cultural identity, mark all that apply.) Alaskan Native (if you wish please specify) ___________________________________ American Indian (if you wish please specify) ___________________________________ Asian or Asian American (if you wish please specify) ___________________________________ Black or African American (if you wish please specify) ___________________________________ Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) or Latin American (if you wish please specify) _______________________ Middle Eastern (if you wish please specify) ___________________________________ Native Hawaiian (if you wish please specify) ___________________________________ Pacific Islander (if you wish please specify) ___________________________________ White (if you wish please specify) ___________________________________ A racial/ethnic identity not listed here (please specify) ___________________________________ 45. Which term best describes your sexual identity? Asexual Bisexual Gay Heterosexual Lesbian Queer Questioning A sexual identity not listed here (please specify) ___________________________________ 46. What is your age? 22 and under 23 – 34 35 – 48 49 – 65 66 and over



286

47. Do you have substantial parenting or caregiving responsibility? No Yes (Mark all that apply)

Children 18 years of age or under Children over 18 years of age, but still legally dependent (in college, disabled, etc.) Independent adult children over 18 years of age Sick or disabled partner Senior or other family member A parenting or caregiving responsibility not listed here (e.g., pregnant, adoption pending) (please specify) ___________________________________

48. Are/were you a member of the U.S. Armed Forces? I have not been in the military Active military Reservist/National Guard ROTC Veteran 49. Students only: What is the highest level of education achieved by your primary parent(s)/guardian(s)?

Parent/Guardian 1:

No high school Some high school Completed high school/GED Some college Business/Technical certificate/degree Associate’s degree Bachelor's degree Some graduate work Master’s degree (e.g., MA, MS, MBA) Specialist degree (e.g.,EdS) Doctoral degree (e.g., PhD, EdD) Professional degree (e.g., MD, JD) Unknown Not applicable

Parent/Guardian 2: No high school Some high school Completed high school/GED Some college Business/Technical certificate/degree Associate’s degree Bachelor's degree Some graduate work Master’s degree (e.g., MA, MS, MBA) Specialist degree (e.g.,EdS) Doctoral degree (e.g., PhD, EdD) Professional degree (e.g., MD, JD) Unknown Not applicable

50. Staff only: What is your highest level of education? No high school Some high school Completed high school/GED Some college Business/Technical certificate/degree Associate’s degree Bachelor’s degree Some graduate work Master’s degree (M.A, M.S., MBA) Specialist degree (Ed.S.) Doctoral degree (e.g., Ph.D., Ed.D.) Professional degree (e.g., M.D., J.D.) 51. Undergraduate Students only: What year did you begin at Kent State? 2009 or before 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015



287

52. Graduate Students only: Where are you in your graduate career? Master’s student

First year Second year Third (or more) year

Doctoral student/Professional/Ed.S. First year Second year Third (or more) year All but dissertation (ABD)

53. Faculty only: With which academic division/department are you primarily affiliated with at this time? College of Applied Engineering, Sustainability & Technology College of Architecture & Environmental Design College of The Arts

School of Art School of Fashion Design & Merchandising School of Music School of Theatre & Dance

College of Arts And Sciences Department of Anthropology Department of Biological Sciences Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry Department of Computer Science Department of English Department of Geography Department of Geology Department of History Department of Mathematical Sciences Department of Modern & Classical Language Studies Department of Pan-African Studies Department of Philosophy Department of Physics Department of Political Science Department of Psychology Department of Sociology School of Biomedical Sciences Chemical Physics Interdisciplinary Program (Graduate Program Only) Integrated Life Sciences - Bachelor of Science/Doctor of Medicine Degree Program

College Of Business Administration Department of Accounting Department of Economics Department of Finance Department of Management & Information Systems Department of Marketing & Entrepreneurship

College Of Communication And Information School of Communication Studies School of Journalism & Mass Communication School of Library & Information Science School of Visual Communication Design

College Of Education, Health, & Human Services School of Health Sciences School of Foundations, Leadership & Administration School of Lifespan Development & Educational Sciences School of Teaching, Learning & Curriculum Studies

College of Nursing College of Podiatric Medicine College of Public Health School of Digital Sciences University Libraries



288

54. Staff only: With which work unit are you primarily affiliated with at this time? Athletics Business and Finance College of Applied Engineering, Sustainability & Technology College of Architecture & Environmental Design College of The Arts College of Arts And Sciences College Of Business Administration College Of Communication And Information College Of Education, Health, & Human Services College of Nursing College of Podiatric Medicine College of Public Health Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Enrollment Management and Student Affairs Human Resources Information Services Institutional Advancement Provost Office Regional Campuses School of Digital Sciences University Counsel/Government Affairs University Libraries University Relations 55. Undergraduate Students only: What is your academic major? First choose your college, then choose your major. (You may choose up to 2 choices in each college and in each department) College of Applied Engineering, Sustainability and Technology

Aeronautics Applied Engineering Construction Management Technology

College of Architecture and Environmental Design Architecture/Architectural Studies Architecture and Environmental Design - General Interior Design

College of the Arts Art Education/Art History College of the Arts - General Crafts Dance/Dance Studies Fashion Design/Fashion Merchandising Fine Arts Music/Music Education/Music Technology Theater Studies

College of Arts and Sciences American Sign Language Anthropology Applied Conflict Management Applied Mathematics Archaeology Biology/Biochemistry/Biotechnology Botany Chemistry Classics Computer Science Criminology and Justice Studies Earth Science Economics English Environmental and Conservation Biology French Literature, Culture and Translation



289

Geography Geology German Literature, Translation and Culture History Horticulture/Horticulture Technology Integrated Life Sciences Integrative Studies International Relations/Comparative Politics Mathematics Medical Technology Pan-African Studies Paralegal Studies Philosophy Physics Political Science Pre-Medicine/Pre-Osteopathy/Pre-Dentistry/Pre-Pharmacy/Pre-Veterinary Medicine Psychology Russian Literature, Culture and Translation Sociology Spanish Literature, Culture and Translation Teaching English as a Second Language Translation Zoology

College of Business Administration Accounting Business Management Business Undeclared Computer Information Systems Economics Entrepreneurship Finance Marketing/Managerial Marketing

College of Communication and Information Advertising College of Communication and Information - General Communication Studies Digital Media Production Journalism Photo Illustration Public Relations Visual Communication Design

School of Digital Sciences Digital Sciences

College of Education, Health and Human Services Athletic Training Community Health Education Early Childhood Education Education/Health/Human Service General Educational Studies Exercise Science Hospitality Management Human Development and Family Studies Integrated Health Studies Integrated Language Arts Integrated Mathematics Integrated Science Integrated Social Studies Life Science Middle Childhood Education Nutrition Physical Education Physical Science



290

Pre-Human Development Family Studies Pre-Speech Pathology Audiology Recreation, Park and Tourism Management School Health Education Special Education Speech Pathology and Audiology Sport Administration Trade and Industrial Education

College of Nursing Nursing Pre-Nursing

College of Public Health Public Health

Regional College Bachelor’s Degree Majors Engineering Technology Exploratory Insurance Studies Magnetic Resonance Imaging Radiologic Imaging Sciences Technical and Applied Studies

Regional College Associate Degree Majors Accounting Technology Allied Health Management Technology Associate of Technical Study Aviation Maintenance Technology Business Management Technology Computer Design, Animation and Game Design Computer Technology Early Childhood Education Technology Electrical/Electronic Engineering Technology Emergency Medical Services Technology Engineering of Information Technology Enology Environment Management Environmental Health and Safety Human Services Technology Individualized Program Industrial Trades Technology Information Technology for Administrative Professionals Justice Studies Legal Assisting Manufacturing Engineering Technology Mechanical Engineering Technology Nursing ADN Occupational Therapy Assistant Technology Physical Therapist Assistant Technology Radiologic Technology Respiratory Therapy Technology Systems/Industrial Engineering Technology Veterinary Technology Viticulture

University College (Exploratory)



291

56. Graduate Students only: What is your academic degree program? First choose your degree, then choose your college, then choose your major. Masters Degrees College of Applied Engineering, Sustainability and Technology

Technology College of Architecture and Environmental Design

Architecture Architecture and Environmental Design Health Care Design Landscape Architecture Urban Design

College of the Arts Art Education Art History Conducting Crafts Ethnomusicology Fine Arts Music Composition/Music Theory/Musicology Music Education Performance Theatre Studies

College of Arts and Sciences Anthropology Applied Mathematics Applied Mathematics Biology Biomedical Sciences Chemistry Chemical Physics Clinical Psychology Computer Science Creative Writing Criminology and Criminal Justice English Experimental Psychology French Geography Geology German History Latin Liberal Studies Mathematics for Secondary Teachers Philosophy Physics Political Science Public Administration Pure Mathematics Sociology Spanish Teaching English as Second Language Translation

College of Business Administration Accounting Business Administration Economics

College of Communication and Information Communication Studies Information Architecture and Knowledge Management Journalism and Mass Communication



292

Library and Information Science Visual Communication Design

School of Digital Sciences Digital Sciences

College of Education, Health and Human Services Career-Technical Teacher Education Clinical Mental Health Counseling Cultural Foundations Curriculum and Instruction Early Childhood Education Educational Administration Educational Psychology Evaluation and Measurement Exercise Physiology Health Education and Promotion Higher Education and Student Personnel Hospitality and Tourism Management Human Development and Family Studies Instructional Technology Nutrition Reading Specialization Rehabilitation Counseling School Counseling/School Psychology Secondary Education Special Education Speech Language Pathology Sport and Recreation Management

College of Nursing Nursing

College of Public Health Public Health

Professional Degrees Advanced Nursing Practice Audiology Podiatric Medicine Educational Specialist Counseling Curriculum and Instruction Educational Administration School Psychology Special Education PhD Doctoral Degrees Applied Geology Applied Mathematics Audiology Biology/Biological Sciences Business Administration Chemistry/Chemical Physics Clinical Psychology Communication and Information Computer Science Counseling and Human Development Services Cultural Foundations Curriculum and Instruction Educational Administration Educational Psychology English Evaluation and Measurement Exercise Physiology Experimental Psychology Geography Health Education and Promotion



293

History Music Education/Music Theory Nursing Physics Political Science Public Health Pure Mathematics School Psychology Sociology Special Education Speech Language Pathology Translation Studies Certificate and Non-Degree Programs Adult Gerontology Nursing Advanced Practice Registered Nurse Advanced Study in Library and Information Science ASL/English Interpreting (Non-degree) Autism Spectrum Disorders Behavioral Intervention Specialist Career-Technical Teacher Education College Teaching Community College Leadership Deaf Education (Non-degree) Deaf Education Multiple Disabilities Disability Studies and Community Inclusion Early Childhood Deaf Education Early Childhood Intervention Specialist (Non-degree) Early Intervention Enterprise Architecture Gerontology Health Care Facilities Health Informatics Institutional Research and Assessment Internationalization of Higher Education Mild/Moderate Educational Needs (Non-degree) Moderate/Intensive Educational Needs (Non-degree) Music Composition/Music Conducting/Music Performance Nursing and Health Care Management Nursing Education Online Learning and Teaching PMH Family NP for PMH Child/Adolescent Clinical Nurse Specialist Primary Care Pediatric Clinical Nurse Specialist Primary Care Pediatric Nurse Practitioner Psychiatric Mental Health Family Nurse Practitioner Teaching English as a Second/Foreign Language Web-Enabled E-Learning Knowledge Management Women's Health Nurse Practitioner



294

57. Do you have a condition/disability that impacts your learning, working or living activities? No [Skip to Question 58] Yes 58. Which of the following condition(s)/disability(s) do you have that impact your learning, working or living activities? (Mark all that apply.) Acquired/Traumatic Brain Injury Asperger’s/Autism Spectrum Disorder Blind/visually impaired Chronic Diagnosis or Medical Condition (e.g., Lupus, Cancer, Multiple Sclerosis, Fibromyalgia, etc.) Deaf/hard of hearing Learning Disability (e.g. in reading, writing or math; auditory processing disorder; ADHD; etc.) Mental Health/Psychological Condition Physical/Mobility condition that affects walking Physical/Mobility condition that does not affect walking Speech/Communication Condition A disability/condition not listed here (please specify): ___________________________________ 59. Is English your native language? Yes [Skip to Question 12] No 60. What is the language(s) spoken in your home? English only Other than English (please specify) ___________________________________ English and other language(s) (please specify) ___________________ 61. What is your religious or spiritual identity? (Mark all that apply.) Agnostic Atheist Baha'i Buddhist Christian

African Methodist Episcopal African Methodist Episcopal Zion Assembly of God Baptist Catholic/Roman Catholic Christian Orthodox Christian Methodist Episcopal Christian Reformed Church (CRC) Church of Christ Church of God in Christ Disciples of Christ Episcopalian Evangelical Greek Orthodox Lutheran Mennonite Moravian Nondenominational Christian Pentecostal Presbyterian Protestant Protestant Reformed Church (PR) Quaker Reformed Church of America (RCA) Russian Orthodox Seventh Day Adventist The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints United Methodist



295

Unitarian Universalist United Church of Christ A Christian affiliation not listed above (please specify) ___________________________________

Confucianist Druid Hindu Jain Jehovah’s Witness Jewish

Conservative Orthodox Reform

Muslim Ahmadi Shi’ite Sufi Sunni

Native American Traditional Practitioner or Ceremonial Pagan Rastafarian Scientologist Secular Humanist Shinto Sikh Taoist Tenrikyo Wiccan Spiritual, but no religious affiliation No affiliation A religious affiliation or spiritual identity not listed above (please specify) __________________________ 62. Students only: Are you currently financially dependent (family/guardian is assisting with your living/educational expenses) or independent (you are the sole provider for your living/educational expenses)? Dependent Independent 63. Students only: What is your best estimate of your family’s yearly income (if dependent student, partnered, or married) or your yearly income (if single and independent student)? Below $29,999 $30,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $69,999 $70,000 - $99,999 $100,000 - $149,999 $150,000 - $199,999 $200,000 - $249,999 $250,000 - $499,999 $500,000 or more 64. Students only: Where do you live? Campus housing

Allyn Hall Beall Hall Centennial Court A Centennial Court B Centennial Court C Centennial Court D Centennial Court E Centennial Court F Clark Hall Dunbar Hall Engleman Hall Fletcher Hall



296

Johnson Hall Koonce Hall Korb Hall Lake Hall Leebrick Hall Manchester Hall McDowell Hall Olson Hall Prentice Hall Stopher Hall Van Campen Hall Verder Hall Wright Hall

Non-campus housing Independently in an apartment/house Living with family member/guardian Fraternity/Sorority housing

Transient housing (e.g., couch surfing, sleeping in car, shelter, sleeping on campus such as StudentCenter, Library/lab, shelter)

65. Students only: Do you participate in any of the following at Kent State? (Mark all that apply.) I do not participate in any clubs/organizations Honorary/Academic/Professional/Educational (e.g., American Association of Airport Executives, Financial

Management Association, Rotaract, Ceramics Club, Chi Sigma Iota, May 4th Task Force, etc.) Cultural/International (e.g., Native American Student Association, Chinese Culture Club, Cultural Diversity

Association, Kent African Student Association, Nepalese Student Association, Russian Club, Students for Justice in Palestine, etc.)

Greek (e.g., fraternity & sorority) Intercollegiate Athletics Media (e.g., Uhuru Magazine, Daily Kent Stater, The Burr, Black Squirrel Radio, National Association of

Black Journalists, etc.) Political (e.g., Black United Students, Model United Nations, College Republicans, Political Science Club Performing Arts (e.g., Graduate Student Theatre Forum, participation in theatrical and musical productions Religious (e.g., Muslim Student Association, United Christian Ministries, Hillel, Chinese and American

Friends East –CAFÉ, Service (e.g., UNICEF KSU, Relay for Life Committee, Circle K International, Students Against Sexual

Assault Special Interest (e.g., Magical Arts Society, Kent State Pokemon League, Legacy Dance Team, PRIDE!

Kent, Silver Eagles Drill Team, Sports & Recreation (e.g., Club Sports, Golden Reflections, Kayak Club, CHAARG, etc.) Student Government (e.g., Undergraduate Student Government, Kent Interhall Council, Graduate Student

Association, etc.) A type of club/organization not listed here (please specify) ___________________________________

66. Students only: At the end of your last semester, what was your cumulative grade point average? 3.5 – 4.00 3.0 – 3.49 2.5 – 2.99 2.0 – 2.49 1.5 – 1.99 1.0 – 1.49 0.0 – 0.99

67. Students only: Have you experienced financial hardship while attending Kent State? No Yes



297

68. Students only: How have you experienced the financial hardship? (Mark all that apply) Difficulty affording child care Difficulty affording educational materials (e.g., art supplies, lab equipment, software, uniforms) Difficulty affording food Difficulty affording health care Difficulty affording housing Difficulty affording other campus fees Difficulty affording professional association fees/conferences Difficulty affording study abroad Difficulty affording tuition Difficulty commuting to campus Difficulty participating in co-curricular events or activities (alternative spring breaks, class trips, etc.) Difficulty participating in social events Difficulty purchasing my books Difficulty traveling home during Kent State breaks A financial hardship not listed above (please specify) ___________________________________ 69. Students only: How are you currently paying for your education at Kent State? (Mark all that apply.) Agency/Employer reimbursement (non-KSU) (e.g., BVR) Credit card Family contribution GI Bill Graduate assistantship/fellowship Grants/need based scholarships (e.g., Pell) International government scholarship Job/personal contribution KSU tuition waiver Loans Merit based scholarship (e.g., athletic, honors, music, Trustees) Resident assistant Work Study A method of payment not listed here (please specify) ___________________________________ 70. Graduate Students only: Do you receive a graduate student stipend for a graduate assistantship with the university? No Yes 71. Students only: Are you employed either on campus or off-campus during the academic year? (Mark all that apply.) No Yes, I work on-campus – (Please indicate total number of hours you work)

1-10 hours/week 11-20 hours/week 21-30 hours/week 31-40 hours/week More than 40 hours/week

Yes, I work off-campus – (Please indicate total number of hours you work) 1-10 hours/week 11-20 hours/week 21-30 hours/week 31-40 hours/week More than 40 hours/week



298

Part 4: Perceptions of Campus Climate 72. Within the past year, have you observed any conduct directed toward a person or group of people at Kent State that you believe created an exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive and/or hostile (bullying, harassing) working or learning environment? No [Skip to Question 80] Yes 73. Who/what was the target of the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) Academic adviser Alumni Athletic coach/trainer Co-worker Department chair /head/director Donor Faculty member Friend Health/Counseling services Kent State media (e.g., Kent Stater, TV2, flyers, websites) Kent State Public Safety Off-campus community member Person whom I supervise Senior administration (e.g., president, provost, dean, vice provost, vice president) Social networking site (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Yik-Yak) Staff member Stranger Student Student employee (e.g., resident assistant, peer mentor, work-study) Supervisor Teaching assistant/Graduate assistant/Lab assistant/Tutor Don’t know target A source not listed above 74. Who/what was the source of the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) Academic adviser Alumni Athletic coach/trainer Co-worker Department chair /head/director Donor Faculty member Friend Health/Counseling services Kent State media (e.g., Kent Stater, TV2, flyers, websites) Kent State Public Safety Off-campus community member Person whom I supervise Senior administration (e.g., president, provost, dean, vice provost, vice president) Social networking site (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Yik-Yak) Staff member Stranger Student Student employee (e.g., resident assistant, peer mentor, work-study) Supervisor Teaching assistant/Graduate assistant/Lab assistant/Tutor Don’t know source A source not listed above



299

75. How did you experience the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) Person was ignored or excluded. Person was intimidated/bullied. Person was isolated or left out. Person was disrespected. I observed others staring at the person. The person was singled out as the spokesperson for his/her identity group. Someone implied the person was admitted/hired/promoted due to his/her identity group. Someone implied the person was not admitted/hired/promoted due to his/her identity group. The person feared getting a poor grade because of a hostile classroom environment. The person received a low performance evaluation/review. The person was the target of workplace incivility. The person was the target of racial/ethnic profiling. The person was the target of stalking. The person was the target of unwanted sexual contact. The person received derogatory written comments. The person received derogatory phone calls/text messages/email. The person received derogatory/unsolicited messages through social media (e.g., Facebook posts, Twitter posts, etc.). The person was the target of derogatory verbal remarks. The person was the target of retaliation. The person received threats of physical violence. The person was the target of graffiti/vandalism. The person feared for his/her physical safety. The person feared for his/her family’s safety. The person was the target of physical violence. An experience not listed above 76. What do you believe was the basis for the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) Academic performance Age Educational credentials (M.S., Ph.D., etc.) English language proficiency/accent Ethnicity Faculty Status (tenure Track, Non-Tenure Track, Adjunct) Gender/Gender identity Gender expression Immigrant/Citizen status International status Learning disability/condition Living arrangement Major field of study Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered) Mental health/Psychological disability/condition Medical disability/condition Military/Veteran status Parental status (e.g., having children) Participation in an organization/team Physical characteristics Physical disability/condition Philosophical views Political views Position (staff, faculty, student) Pregnancy Racial identity Religious/Spiritual views Sexual identity Socioeconomic status Don’t know A reason not listed above



300

77. Where did this conduct occur? (Mark all that apply.) At a Kent State event In a class/lab/clinical setting In a Kent State health care setting (e.g., University Health Services, Psychological Services) In a Kent State dining facility In a Kent State administrative office In an experiential learning environment (e.g., internships, service learning, study abroad, student teaching) In a faculty office In a public space at Kent State In a meeting with one other person In a meeting with a group of people In a Kent State library In athletic/recreational facilities In campus housing In off-campus housing Off campus On social networking sites (e.g., Facebook/Twitter/Yik-Yak) On Kent State media (e.g., Kent Stater, Kentwired.com, TV2) On Kent State transportation (e.g., PARTA) While working at a Kent State job While walking on campus A location not listed above 78. What was your response to observing this conduct? (Mark all that apply.) I felt uncomfortable I felt embarrassed I felt somehow responsible I ignored it I was afraid I was angry I confronted the harasser at the time I confronted the harasser later I avoided the harasser I told a friend I told a family member I reported it to or sought support from an on-campus resource

Campus security Kent State Public Safety/KSUPD Student Conduct Office of Equal Opportunity & Affirmative Action (or a facilitator) Title IX Coordinator The Office of Sexual and Relationship Violence Support Services (SRVSS) LGBTQ Student Center Dean of Students or Student Ombuds Employee Relations On-campus counseling service Student staff (e.g., residence hall staff, peer mentor) Teaching assistant/graduate assistant My academic advisor The Office of Global Education Student Accessibility Services Center for Adult and Veteran Services Staff person Faculty member Senior administration (e.g., president, provost, dean, vice provost, vice president) My supervisor My union representative



301

I reported it to or sought support from an off-campus resource

Local law enforcement (other than KSUPD) Hotline/advocacy services A spiritual adviser (e.g., imam pastor, rabbi, priest, layperson) Off-campus counseling service I filed a complaint with an external agency (e.g., Ohio Civil Rights Commission, EEOC, US Department of Education)

I sought information online I didn’t know whom to go to I didn’t report it for fear that my complaint would not be taken seriously I did report it, but I did not feel the complaint was taken seriously A response not listed above 79. We are interested in knowing more about your observations. If you would like to elaborate on your observations of conduct directed toward a person or group of people on campus that you believe created an exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or hostile working or learning environment, please do so here.



302

80. Faculty/Staff only: Have you observed hiring practices at Kent State that you perceive to be unjust or that would inhibit diversifying the community (e.g., hiring supervisor bias, search committee bias, lack of effort in diversifying recruiting pool)? No [Skip to Question 83] Yes 81. Faculty/Staff only: I believe that the unjust hiring practices were based upon…(Mark all that apply.) Age Educational credentials (M.S., Ph.D., etc.) English language proficiency/accent Ethnicity Gender/Gender identity Gender expression Immigrant/Citizen status International status Learning disability/condition Living arrangement Major field of study Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered) Mental health/Psychological disability/condition Medical disability/condition Military/Veteran status Nepotism Parental status (e.g., having children) Participation in an organization/team Physical characteristics Physical disability/condition Philosophical views Political views Position (staff, faculty, student) Pregnancy Racial identity Religious/Spiritual views Sexual identity Socioeconomic status Don’t know A reason not listed above 82. Faculty/Staff only: We are interested in knowing more about your observations. If you would like to elaborate on your observations, please do so here.



303

83. Faculty/ Staff only: Have you observed at Kent State employment-related discipline or action, up to and including dismissal, that you perceive to be unjust or would inhibit diversifying the community? No [Skip to Question 86] Yes 84. Faculty/Staff only: I believe that the unjust employment-related disciplinary actions were based upon…(Mark all that apply.) Age Educational credentials (M.S., Ph.D., etc.) English language proficiency/accent Ethnicity Faculty Status (tenure Track, Non-Tenure Track, Adjunct) Gender/Gender identity Gender expression Immigrant/Citizen status International status Learning disability/condition Living arrangement Major field of study Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered) Mental health/Psychological disability/condition Medical disability/condition Military/Veteran status Parental status (e.g., having children) Participation in an organization/team Physical characteristics Physical disability/condition Philosophical views Political views Position (staff, faculty, student) Pregnancy Racial identity Religious/Spiritual views Sexual identity Socioeconomic status Don’t know A reason not listed above 85. Faculty/Staff only: We are interested in knowing more about your observations. If you would like to elaborate on your observations, please do so here.



304

86. Faculty/Staff only: Have you observed promotion/tenure/reappointment/renewal of appointment/reclassification practices at Kent State that you perceive to be unjust? No [Skip to Question 89] Yes 87. Faculty/Staff only: I believe the unjust behavior, procedures or employment practices related to promotion/tenure/reappointment/renewal of appointment/reclassification were based upon… (Mark all that apply.) Age Educational credentials (M.S., Ph.D., etc.) English language proficiency/accent Ethnicity Gender/Gender identity Gender expression Immigrant/Citizen status International status Learning disability/condition Living arrangement Major field of study Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered) Mental health/Psychological disability/condition Medical disability/condition Military/Veteran status Nepotism Parental status (e.g., having children) Participation in an organization/team Physical characteristics Physical disability/condition Philosophical views Political views Position (staff, faculty, student) Pregnancy Racial identity Religious/Spiritual views Sexual identity Socioeconomic status Don’t know A reason not listed above 88. Faculty/Staff only: We are interested in knowing more about your observations. If you would like to elaborate on your observations, please do so here.



305

89. Using a scale of 1–5, please rate the overall climate on campus on the following dimensions. (Note: As an example, for the first item: “friendly—hostile,” 1=very friendly, 2=somewhat friendly, 3=neither friendly nor hostile, 4=somewhat hostile, and 5=very hostile) 1 2 3 4 5

Friendly Hostile Improving Regressing Inclusive Not inclusive

Positive for persons with disabilities Negative for persons with disabilities Positive for people who identify as lesbian,

gay, bisexual, or transgender Negative for people who identify as

lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender Positive for people of Christian faiths Negative for people of Christian faiths

Positive for people of other than Christian faith backgrounds

Negative for people of other than Christian faith backgrounds

Positive for People of Color Negative for People of Color Positive for men Negative for men

Positive for women Negative for women Positive for non-native English speakers Negative for non-native English speakers

Positive for people who are not U.S. citizens

Negative for people who are not U.S. citizens

Welcoming Not welcoming Respectful Disrespectful

Positive for people of high socioeconomic status

Negative for people of high socioeconomic status

Positive for people of low socioeconomic status

Negative for people of low socioeconomic status

Positive for people in active military/veterans status

Negative for people in active military/veterans status

90. Using a scale of 1–5, please rate the overall climate on campus on the following dimensions. (Note: As an example, for the first item: 1= completely free of racism, 2=mostly free of racism, 3=occasionally encounter racism; 4= regularly encounter racism; 5=constantly encounter racism) 1 2 3 4 5

Not racist Racist Not sexist Sexist

Not homophobic Homophobic Not age biased Age biased

Not classist (socioeconomic status) Classist (socioeconomic status) Not classist (position: faculty, staff, student) Classist (position: faculty, staff, student)

Not ablest Ablest Not xenophobic (religion/spirituality) Xenophobic (religion/spirituality)

Not Ethnocentric (international) Ethnocentric (International)



306

91. Students only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements.



Strongly disagree

I feel valued by faculty in the classroom. I feel valued by other students in the classroom. I think that Kent State faculty are genuinely concerned with my welfare. I think that Kent State staff are genuinely concerned with my welfare (e.g., residence hall staff). I think that faculty pre-judge my abilities based on their perception of my identity/background (e.g. age, race, disability, gender). I believe that the campus climate encourages free and open discussion of difficult topics. I have faculty whom I perceive as role models. I have staff whom I perceive as role models. I have advisers who provide me with career advice. I have advisers who provide me with advice on core class selection. My voice is valued in campus dialogues. 92. Faculty only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements.



Strongly disagree

I feel valued by faculty in my department. I feel valued by my department head/chair. I feel valued by students in the classroom. I think that Kent State senior administration is genuinely concerned with my welfare. I think that faculty in my department pre-judge my abilities based on their perception of my identity/background (e.g. age, race, disability, gender). I think that faculty in my department pre-judge my abilities based on my faculty status (Tenure Track, Non-Tenure Track, Adjunct). I think that my department chair/school director pre-judges my abilities based on my faculty status (Tenure Track, Non-Tenure Track, Adjunct). I think that my department chair/school director pre-judges my abilities based on his/her perception of my identity/background (e.g. age, race, disability, gender). I believe that the campus climate encourages free and open discussion of difficult topics. I feel that my research is valued. I feel that my teaching is valued. I feel that my service contributions are valued. I feel that including diversity-related information in my teaching/pedagogy/research is valued. I feel the university values academic freedom. I feel that faculty voices are valued in shared governance.



307

93. Staff only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements.



Strongly disagree

I feel valued by co-workers in my work unit. I feel valued by faculty. I feel valued by my supervisor/manager. I think that Kent State senior administration is genuinely concerned with my welfare. I think that co-workers in my work unit pre-judge my abilities based on their perception of my identity/background (e.g. age, race, disability, gender). I think that my supervisor/manager pre-judges my abilities based on his/her perception of my identity/background (e.g. age, race, disability, gender). I believe that my work unit encourages free and open discussion of difficult topics. I feel that my skills are valued. I feel my contributions to the university are valued. Staff opinions are taken seriously by senior administrators (e.g., deans, vice presidents, provost). 94. Respondents with disabilities only: Within the past year, have you experienced a barrier regarding any of the following at Kent State?

Yes No Not

applicable Facilities Athletic facilities (stadium, recreation, etc.) Classroom buildings Classrooms, labs College housing Computer labs Dining facilities Doors Elevators/Lifts Emergency preparedness University Health Services (health center) Library On-campus transportation/parking Other campus buildings Podium Recreational facilities Restrooms Studios/Performing arts spaces University sponsored internship/practicum sites Walkways, pedestrian paths, crosswalks Technology/Online Environment Accessible electronic format ALEKS ATM machines Availability of FM listening systems Clickers Blackboard Closed captioning at athletic events E-curriculum (curriculum software) Electronic forms Electronic signage



308

Electronic surveys (including this one) Kiosks Library database PA system Video Website Instructional/Campus MaterialsBrochures Food menus Forms Events/Exhibits/Movies Exams/quizzes Journal articles Library books Other publications Signage Textbooks Video-closed captioning and text description

95. We are interested in knowing more about your experiences. If you would like to elaborate on your responsesregarding accessibility, please do so here.



309

Part 5: Institutional Actions Relative to Climate Issues 96. Students only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree that your courses at Kent State include sufficient materials, perspectives and/or experiences of people based on each of the following characteristics. Strongly


Disability Ethnicity Gender/Gender identity Immigrant/Citizen status International status Military/Veteran status Philosophical views Political views Racial identity Religious/Spiritual views Sexual identity Socioeconomic status 97. Faculty only: Based on your knowledge of the availability of the following institutional initiatives, please indicate how each influences or would influence the climate at Kent State. Initiative IS Available at

Kent State Initiative IS NOT Available at

Kent State

Positively influences

climate

Has no influence

on climate

Negatively influences

climate


Would have no



Providing flexibility for computing the probationary period for tenure (e.g., tolling) Providing recognition and rewards for including diversity issues in courses across the curriculum Providing diversity and equity training for faculty Providing access to counseling for people who have experienced harassment Providing mentorship for new faculty Providing a clear process to resolve conflicts Providing a fair process to resolve conflicts Including diversity-related professional experiences as one of the criteria for hiring of staff/faculty Providing equity and diversity training to search, promotion and tenure committees Providing career span development opportunities for faculty at all ranks Providing adequate childcare 98. We are interested in hearing more about your opinions on institutional actions. If you would like to elaborate on your responses regarding the impact of institutional actions on campus climate, please do so here.



310

99. Staff only: Based on your knowledge of the availability of the following institutional initiatives, please indicate how each influences or would influence the climate at Kent State. Initiative IS Available at


Kent State


climate

Has no influence

on climate


climate


Would have no



Providing diversity and equity training for staff Providing access to counseling for people who have experienced harassment

Providing mentorship for new staff Providing a clear process to resolve conflicts Providing a fair process to resolve conflicts Considering diversity-related professional experiences as one of the criteria for hiring of staff/faculty

Providing career development opportunities for staff

Providing adequate childcare 100. We are interested in hearing more about your opinions on institutional actions. If you would like to elaborate on your responses regarding the impact of institutional actions on campus climate, please do so here.



311

101. Students only: Based on your knowledge of the availability of the following institutional initiatives, please indicate how each influences or would influence the climate at Kent State. Initiative IS Available at


Kent State


climate

Has no influence

on climate


climate


Would have no



Providing diversity and equity training for students Providing diversity and equity training for staff Providing diversity and equity training for faculty 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 Incorporating issues of diversity and cross-cultural competence more effectively into the curriculum Providing effective faculty mentorship of students Providing effective academic advising Providing diversity training for student staff (e.g., student union, resident assistants) Providing adequate childcare 102. We are interested in hearing more about your opinions on institutional actions. If you would like to elaborate on your responses regarding the impact of institutional actions on campus climate, please do so here.



312

Part 6: Your Additional Comments 103. Are your experiences on campus different from those you experience in the community surrounding campus? If so, how are these experiences different? 104. This survey has asked you to reflect upon a large number of issues related to the climate and your experiences in this climate, using a multiple-choice format. If you wish to elaborate upon any of your survey responses, further describe your experiences, or offer additional thoughts about these issues and ways that Kent State might improve the climate, you are encouraged to do so in the space provided below.



313

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS SURVEY

To thank all members of the Kent State community for their participation in this survey, you have an opportunity to win a “Climate Survey Thank-You” survey award. Submitting your contact information for a survey award is optional. No survey information is connected to entering your information. To be eligible to win a survey award, please provide your position (faculty/staff or student), full name and e-mail address. This page will be separated from your survey responses upon receipt by Rankin & Associates and will not be used with any of your responses. Providing this information is voluntary, but must be provided if you wish to be entered into the drawing. Please submit only one entry per person; duplicate entries will be discarded. Students All students who fill out the survey and provide an email address will receive FlashPerks. Drawing winners will also receive one of the following:

• A free parking pass

• $25 gift card for the University Bookstore Staff Winners can pick either:

• Football season tickets

• Porthouse Theater season tickets

Faculty Winners can pick either:

• Football season tickets

• Porthouse Theater season tickets Faculty Staff Student Name: ____________________________________________________ E-mail address: ____________________________________________________ Awards will be reported in accordance with IRS regulations. Please consult with your tax professional if you have questions. We recognize that answering some of the questions on this survey may have been difficult. If you have experienced any discomfort in responding to these questions and would like to speak with someone, the following web pages provide a list of resources to contact:


http://www.kent.edu/stepupspeakout If you would like to speak to someone about the survey or the Climate Study process, contact either of the co-chairs: Kathryn Wilson 330-672-1093 [email protected]

Shay Little 330-672-4050 [email protected]



314

Kent State - Regional Campus Narrative...Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment...

Documents

Transcript of Kent State - Regional Campus Narrative...Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment...