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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct.
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
exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct.
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
available < 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
Not
available
Not
available < 5 --- N/A
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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 Architecture & Environmental Design 0 0.0
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
21
Table 6 (cont.) n %
College of Business Administration 17 5.1
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
College of Education, Health, & Human Services 32 9.6
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 Nursing 36 10.8
College of Podiatric Medicine 0 0.0
College of Public Health < 5 ---
School of Digital Sciences 0 0.0
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.”
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
23
Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure.
Figure 2. Respondents by Gender Identity and Position Status (%)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.”
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure.
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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 (%)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure.
Figure 8. Respondents’ Caregiving Responsibilities by Position (%)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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 ---
College of Arts and Sciences 248 25.5
American Sign Language < 5 ---
Anthropology < 5 ---
Applied Conflict Management < 5 ---
Applied Mathematics 0 0.0
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
35
Table 10 (cont.) n %
College of Business Administration 104 10.7
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
College of Communication and Information 48 4.9
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 ---
School of Digital Sciences 6 0.6
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
36
Table 10 (cont.) n %
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
College of Nursing 165 17.0
Nursing 92 55.8
Pre-Nursing 78 47.3
College of Public Health 19 2.0
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
37
Note: Table includes only Undergraduate Student respondents (n = 971). Sum does not total 100% owing to multiple response choices.
Table 10 (cont.) n %
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
College of the Arts 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
College of Arts and Sciences 0 0.0
Anthropology 0 0.0
Applied Mathematics 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
Computer Science 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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
39
Table 11 (cont.) n %
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 ---
Communication Studies 0 0.0
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 ---
Early Childhood Education 0 0.0
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
40
Table 11 (cont.) n %
Hospitality and Tourism Management 0 0.0
Human Development and Family Studies 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
Special Education 0 0.0
Speech Language Pathology 0 0.0
Sport and Recreation Management 0 0.0
College of Nursing 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
Educational Administration 0 0.0
School Psychology 0 0.0
Special Education 0 0.0
PhD Doctoral Degrees 0 0.0
Applied Geology 0 0.0
Applied Mathematics 0 0.0
Audiology 0 0.0
Biology/Biological Sciences < 5 ---
Business Administration 0 0.0
Chemistry/Chemical Physics 0 0.0
Clinical Psychology 0 0.0
Communication and Information 0 0.0
Computer Science < 5 ---
Counseling and Human Development Services 0 0.0
Cultural Foundations 0 0.0
Curriculum and Instruction 0 0.0
Educational Administration 0 0.0
Educational Psychology 0 0.0
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
41
Table 11 (cont.) n %
English 0 0.0
Evaluation and Measurement 0 0.0
Exercise Physiology < 5 ---
Experimental Psychology 0 0.0
Geography 0 0.0
Health Education and Promotion 0 0.0
History 0 0.0
Music Education/Music Theory 0 0.0
Nursing 0 0.0
Physics 0 0.0
Political Science 0 0.0
Public Health 0 0.0
Pure Mathematics 0 0.0
School Psychology 0 0.0
Sociology 0 0.0
Special Education 0 0.0
Speech Language Pathology 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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
42
Table 11 (cont.) n %
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure.
Figure 9. Student Respondents’ Income by Dependency Status (Dependent, Independent) (%)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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 ---
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
49
Table 15 (cont.) n %
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure.
Figure 10. Respondents’ Comfort With Overall Climate by Position Status (%)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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)
Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable
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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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)
Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable
Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure.
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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)
Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable
Figure 13. Faculty and Staff Respondents’ Comfort With Climate in Department/Work Unit by
Gender Identity (%)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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)
Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable
Figure 14. Faculty and Student Respondents’ Comfort With Climate in Classes
by Gender Identity (%)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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)
Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable
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%.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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%
People of Color (n = 31)
White (n = 518)
Multiracial (n = 21)
Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable
Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure.
Figure 16. Faculty and Staff Respondents’ Comfort With Climate
in Department/Work Unit by Racial Identity (%)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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%
People of Color (n = 97)
White (n = 1,116)
Multiracial (n = 67)
Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable
Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure.
Figure 17. Faculty and Student Respondents’ Comfort With Climate in Classes
by Racial Identity (%)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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)
Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable
Figure 18. Respondents’ Comfort With Overall Climate by Sexual Identity (%)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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)
Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable
Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure.
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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)
Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable
Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure.
Figure 20. Respondents’ Comfort With Overall Climate by Religious/Spiritual Affiliation (%)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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)
Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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)
Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable
Figure 22. Respondents’ Comfort With Overall Climate by Disability Status (%)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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)
Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable
Figure 23. Student Respondents’ Comfort With Climate in Their Classes
by Socioeconomic Status (%)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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)
Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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?”
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
68
Table 19. Barriers in Technology/Online Environment Experienced by Respondents With Disabilities
Yes No Not applicable
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
Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they had a disability (n = 210).
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
Yes No Not applicable
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
Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they had a disability (n = 210).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
71
Table 21 (cont.) n %
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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 (%)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Overall experienced conduct¹
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
Figure 26. Respondents’ Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or
Hostile Conduct as a Result of Their Faculty Status (%)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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+
Overall experienced conduct¹
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
Figure 27. Respondents’ Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or
Hostile Conduct as a Result of Their Age (%)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Overall experienced conduct¹
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
Figure 28. Respondents’ Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or
Hostile Conduct as a Result of Their Gender Identity (%)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
77
Table 22 (cont.) n %
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
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.
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 ---
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
78
Table 23 (cont.) n %
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
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.
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 ---
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
79
Table 24 (cont.) n %
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
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure.
Figure 29. Source of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct
for Students (%)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Dept Chair/Head/Director
Sr Admin
Students
Sr Admin
Faculty
Dept Chair/Head/Director
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
Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure.
Figure 30. Source of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct
by Faculty Status (%)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure.
Figure 31. Source of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, and/or Hostile Conduct
by Staff Position Status (%)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
% of respondents who
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
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.
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Faculty member 24 36.9
Senior administration (e.g., president, provost, dean, vice provost, vice
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
85
Table 26 (cont.) n %
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
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.
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Position (staff, faculty, student) 56 21.4
Faculty Status (Tenure Track, Non-Tenure Track,
Adjunct) 46 17.6
Don’t know 44 16.8
Gender/Gender identity 36 13.7
Ethnicity 26 9.9
Educational credentials (M.S., Ph.D., etc.) 25 9.5
Sexual identity 22 8.4
Academic performance 21 8.0
Age 21 8.0
Philosophical views 20 7.6
Gender expression 18 6.9
Racial identity 18 6.9
Political views 15 5.7
Physical characteristics 14 5.3
Religious/Spiritual views 14 5.3
Learning disability/condition 13 5.0
Socioeconomic status 11 4.2
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.”
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
88
Table 27 (cont.) n %
Physical disability/condition 9 3.4
Participation in an organization/team 8 3.1
English language proficiency/accent 7 2.7
Parental status (e.g., having children) 6 2.3
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 ---
A reason not listed above 58 22.1
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
89
7
17
26
16
33
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
People of Color (n = 8)
White (n = 225)
Multiracial (n = 20)
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 (%)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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 (%)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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 ---
An experience not listed above 20 7.6
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
% of respondents who
observed conduct
In a public space at Kent State 78 29.8
In a class/lab/clinical setting 74 28.2
In a meeting with a group of people 60 22.9
While working at a Kent State job 52 19.8
In a Kent State administrative office 35 13.4
In a faculty office 28 10.7
At a Kent State event 19 7.3
In a meeting with one other person 19 7.3
While walking on campus 17 6.5
Off campus 9 3.4
In a Kent State library 8 3.1
In a Kent State dining facility 7 2.7
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
94
Table 29 (cont.) n %
In off-campus housing 0 0.0
On Kent State transportation (e.g., PARTA) 0 0.0
A location not listed above 16 6.1
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
I felt uncomfortable 174 66.4
I was angry 122 46.6
I felt embarrassed 69 26.3
I told a friend 48 18.3
I avoided the harasser 46 17.6
I told a family member 46 17.6
I reported it to or sought support from an on-campus resource 43 16.4
My supervisor 19 44.2
Faculty member 11 25.6
Senior administration (e.g., president, provost, dean, vice provost, vice
president) 11 25.6
Campus security 5 11.6
On-campus counseling service 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 ---
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
96
Table 30 (cont.) n %
Kent State Public Safety/KSUPD 0 0.0
Employee Relations 0 0.0
The Office of Global Education 0 0.0
Center for Adult and Veteran Services 0 0.0
I didn’t report it for fear that my complaint would not be taken seriously 28 10.7
I ignored it 27 10.3
I didn’t know whom to go to 22 8.4
I confronted the harasser at the time 20 7.6
I felt somehow responsible 18 6.9
I confronted the harasser later 15 5.7
I was afraid 12 4.6
I did report it, but I did not feel the complaint was taken seriously 12 4.6
I sought information online 9 3.4
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 ---
Hotline/advocacy services 0 0.0
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
A response not listed above 16 6.1
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
101
Table 32. Emotional Reactions to Unwanted Sexual Contact
Emotional reaction to conduct
n
%
I felt uncomfortable 9 64.3
I was afraid 7 50.0
I felt embarrassed 6 42.9
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 felt uncomfortable 9 64.3
I told a friend 8 57.1
I was afraid 7 50.0
I felt embarrassed 6 42.9
I avoided the harasser 5 35.7
I told a family member 5 35.7
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 ---
Campus security 0 0.0
Coach or athletic training staff member 0 0.0
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
102
Table 33 (cont.) n %
Kent State Public Safety/KSUPD 0 0.0
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 Relations 0 0.0
Employee Assistance Program (IMPACT) 0 0.0
Kent State counseling center or campus counseling
staff 0 0.0
Student staff (e.g., residence hall staff, peer mentor) 0 0.0
Teaching assistant/graduate assistant 0 0.0
My academic advisor 0 0.0
The Office of Global Education 0 0.0
Student Accessibility Services 0 0.0
Center for Adult and Veteran Services 0 0.0
Senior administration (e.g., president, provost,
dean, vice provost, vice president) 0 0.0
My supervisor 0 0.0
My union representative 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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
103
Table 33 (cont.) n %
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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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,
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Note: Table includes only Faculty and Staff responses (n = 600).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Note: Table includes only Faculty and Staff responses (n = 600).
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.”
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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 ---
I find that Kent State is
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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Table 38. Staff Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate
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
I have used Kent State
policies on military active
service-modified duties. < 5 --- 6 2.9 93 45.1 106 51.5
Note: Table includes only Staff responses (n = 266).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Table 39. Staff Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Note: Table includes only Staff responses (n = 266).
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.
Table 40. Staff Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate
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
Note: Table includes only Staff responses (n = 266).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
survey that they were comfortable taking leave that they were entitled to without fear that doing so may affect their
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
survey that they were comfortable taking leave that they were entitled to without fear that doing so may affect their
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Note: Table includes only Staff respondents (n = 266).
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
as Transspectrum. 65Asexual/Other Staff respondents (n = 12) were not included in the analyses because their numbers were too few to
ensure confidentiality.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Note: Table includes only Staff respondents (n = 266).
66Transspectrum Staff respondents (n = 0) were not included in the analyses because no Staff respondents identified
as Transspectrum. 67Asexual/Other Staff respondents (n = 12) were not included in the analyses because their numbers were too few to
ensure confidentiality.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Note: Table includes only Staff respondents (n = 266).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
126
Table 45. Tenure-Track Faculty Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate
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 ---
I feel that I am burdened by
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
Note: Table includes only Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (n = 106).
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
127
Table 46. Tenure-Track Faculty Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate
Perceptions
Strongly
agree
n %
Agree
n %
Disagree
n %
Strongly
disagree
n %
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 have used Kent State
policies on taking leave for
childbearing or adoption. < 5 --- 8 8.7 40 43.5 40 43.5
Note: Table includes only Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (n = 106).
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.
Table 47. Tenure-Track Faculty Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate
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
Note: Table includes only Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (n = 106).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
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 < 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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Table 49. Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate
Perceptions
Strongly
agree
n %
Agree
n %
Disagree
n %
Strongly
disagree
n %
I feel that I am burdened by
service responsibilities. 13 1.9 19 18.8 62 61.4 7 6.9
I feel that I am burdened by
service responsibilities
beyond those of my
colleagues with similar
performance expectations. 10 10.0 16 16.0 69 69.0 5 5.0
Note: Table includes only Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (n = 105).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Table 50. Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate
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
appointment/promotion
standards are applied
equally to all faculty. 5 5.1 44 44.9 33 33.7 16 16.3
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
Note: Table includes only Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (n = 105).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Table 51. Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Respondents’ Perceptions of Workplace Climate
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
Note: Table includes only Non-Tenure-Track Faculty respondents (n = 105).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.”
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Note: Table includes only Faculty respondents (n = 334).
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.”
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Note: Table includes only Faculty respondents (n = 334).
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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 ---
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
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
Note: Table includes only Faculty respondents (n = 334).
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
identity/background. 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
Note: Table includes only Faculty respondents (n = 334).
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Table 56. 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 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
Note: Table includes only Faculty respondents (n = 334).
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
142
Table 57. 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 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 only Faculty respondents (n = 334).
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
144
Table 58 (cont.) n %
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 ---
A reason not listed above 64 21.5
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.”
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
152
Age
No significant difference (p = .809) existed in the overall test for means for Undergraduate
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
Mean difference 0.083
Military Status
No significant difference (p = .421) existed in the overall test for means for Undergraduate
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
Mean difference 0.084
Employment Status
No significant difference (p = .266) existed in the overall test for means for Undergraduate
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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 ---
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
77Transspectrum Student respondents (n = 18) were not included in the analyses because their numbers were too few
to ensure confidentiality of their responses.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
154
Table 69 (cont.)
n % n % n % n %
n %
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
Note: Table includes only Student respondents (n = 987).
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
identity/background. 126 12.8 173 17.6 285 29.1 237 24.2 160 16.3
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
First-Generation Low-Income 92 36.9 64 25.7 67 26.9 19 7.6 7 2.8
Note: Table includes only Student respondents (n = 987).
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Perception n % n % n % n % n %
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
First-Generation Low-Income 110 44.2 69 27.7 33 13.3 23 9.2 14 5.6
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
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
Not-First-Generation Not-Low-Income 277 38.1 266 36.6 109 15.0 38 5.2 37 5.1
First-Generation Low-Income 115 45.6 80 31.7 25 9.9 21 8.3 11 4.4
Note: Table includes only Student respondents (n = 987).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Perception n % n % n % n % n %
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
Not-First-Generation Not-Low-Income 159 21.7 233 31.8 266 36.3 47 6.4 28 3.8
First-Generation Low-Income 72 28.8 75 30.0 73 29.2 14 5.6 16 6.4
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
79Transspectrum Student respondents (n = 18) were not included in the analyses because their numbers were too few
to ensure confidentiality of their responses.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
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 < 5 ---
Immigration compliance issues (e.g., VISA status) < 5 ---
A reason not listed above 104 42.6
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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).
80Transspectrum Student respondents (n = 18) were not included in the analyses because their numbers were too few
to ensure confidentiality of their responses.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
81Transspectrum Student respondents (n = 18) were not included in the analyses because their numbers were too few
to ensure confidentiality of their responses.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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)
People of Color (n = 16)
White (n = 110)
Multiracial (n = 14)
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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)
thought that it would positively influence the climate if it were available.
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
influenced climate, while 20% (n = 49) thought that it would positively influence the climate if it
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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 ---
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Institutional initiative n % n % n % n % n % n %
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
influenced climate, while 16% (n = 38) thought that it would positively influence the climate if it
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
it would positively influence the climate if it were available.
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Institutional initiative n % n % n % n % n % n %
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 ---
Note: Table includes only Staff responses (n = 266).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.”
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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)
thought that it would positively influence the climate if it were available.
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
that it would positively influence the climate if it were available.
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
influenced climate, while 19% (n = 173) thought that it would positively influence the climate if
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
influenced climate, while 23% (n = 205) thought that it would positively influence the climate if
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
it would positively influence the climate if it were available.
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
that it would positively influence the climate if it were available.
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Institutional initiative n % n % n % n % n % n %
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
Providing diversity and equity training
for staff 563 62.6 111 12.3 9 1.0 155 17.2 52 5.8 9 1.0
Providing diversity and equity training
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Institutional initiative n % n % n % n % n % n %
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.”
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.”
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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,
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Unknown/Missing/Other 23 2.33% 19 5.69% 13 4.89% 55 3.47%
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%
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Unknown/Missing/Other 3 0.30% 6 1.80% 7 2.63% 16 1.01%
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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
199
Table B16. Faculty only: With which academic unit/department are you primarily affiliated at this time?
(Question 53)
Academic unit/department n %
College of Applied Engineering, Sustainability & Technology 4 1.2
College of Architecture & Environmental Design 0 0.0
College of the Arts 20 6.0
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
College of Arts and Sciences 154 46.1
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
College of Business Administration 17 5.1
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
200
Table B16 (cont.)
Academic unit/department n %
Department of Marketing & Entrepreneurship 1 8.3
College of Communication and Information 7 2.1
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
College of Education, Health, & Human Services 32 9.6
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 Nursing 36 10.8
College of Podiatric Medicine 0 0.0
College of Public Health 3 0.9
School of Digital Sciences 0 0.0
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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
College of Applied Engineering, Sustainability & Technology 0 0.0
College of Architecture & Environmental Design 0 0.0
College of the Arts 2 0.8
College of Arts and Sciences 3 1.1
College of Business Administration 0 0.0
College of Communication and Information 2 0.8
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 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
School of Digital Sciences 0 0.0
University Counsel/Government Affairs 0 0.0
University Libraries 3 1.1
University Relations 4 1.5
Missing 12 4.5
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Staff in Question 1 (n = 266).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
%
College of Applied Engineering, Sustainability and Technology 31 3.2
Aeronautics 1 3.2
Applied Engineering 12 38.7
Construction Management 0 0.0
Technology 21 67.7
College of Architecture and Environmental Design 4 0.4
Architecture/Architectural Studies 1 25.0
Architecture and Environmental Design - General 1 25.0
Interior Design 0 0.0
College of the Arts 31 3.2
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
College of Arts and Sciences 248 25.5
American Sign Language 3 1.2
Anthropology 1 0.4
Applied Conflict Management 1 0.4
Applied Mathematics 0 0.0
Archaeology 0 0.0
Biology/Biochemistry/Biotechnology 16 6.5
Botany 2 0.8
Chemistry 1 0.4
Classics 0 0.0
Computer Science 11 4.4
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Political Science 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
College of Business Administration 104 10.7
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
College of Communication and Information 48 4.9
Advertising 2 4.2
College of Communication and Information - General 8 16.7
Communication Studies 31 64.6
Digital Media Production 3 6.3
Journalism 4 8.3
Photo Illustration 1 2.1
Public Relations 0 0.0
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
204
Table B18 (cont.)
Academic major
n
%
Visual Communication Design 1 2.1
School of Digital Sciences 6 0.6
Digital Sciences 5 83.3
College of Education, Health and Human Services 144 14.8
Athletic Training 2 1.4
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 4 2.8
Human Development and Family Studies 40 27.8
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
Special Education 9 6.3
Speech Pathology and Audiology 5 3.5
Sport Administration 2 1.4
Trade and Industrial Education 0 0.0
College of Nursing 165 17.0
Nursing 92 55.8
Pre-Nursing 78 47.3
College of Public Health 19 2.0
Public Health 13 68.4
Regional College Bachelor’s Degree Majors 54 5.6
Engineering Technology 5 9.3
Exploratory 3 5.6
Insurance Studies 1 1.9
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
College of Applied Engineering, Sustainability and Technology 1 6.7
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
College of the Arts 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
College of Arts and Sciences 0 0.0
Anthropology 0 0.0
Applied Mathematics 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
Computer Science 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
Geography 0 0.0
Geology 0 0.0
German 0 0.0
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
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 4 26.7
Accounting 0 0.0
Business Administration 3 75.0
Economics 1 25.0
College of Communication and Information 1 6.7
Communication Studies 0 0.0
Information Architecture and Knowledge Management 0 0.0
Journalism and Mass Communication 0 0.0
Library and Information Science 1 100.0
Visual Communication Design 0 0.0
School of Digital Sciences 1 6.7
Digital Sciences 1 100.0
College of Education, Health and Human Services 2 13.3
Career-Technical Teacher Education 0 0.0
Clinical Mental Health Counseling 0 0.0
Cultural Foundations 0 0.0
Curriculum and Instruction 1 50.0
Early Childhood Education 0 0.0
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
Hospitality and Tourism Management 0 0.0
Human Development and Family Studies 0 0.0
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Special Education 0 0.0
Speech Language Pathology 0 0.0
Sport and Recreation Management 0 0.0
College of Nursing 0 0.0
Nursing 0 0.0
College of Public Health 1 6.7
Public Health 1 100.0
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
Curriculum and Instruction 0 0.0
Educational Administration 0 0.0
School Psychology 0 0.0
Special Education 0 0.0
PhD Doctoral Degrees 0 0.0
Applied Geology 0 0.0
Applied Mathematics 0 0.0
Audiology 0 0.0
Biology/Biological Sciences 1 6.7
Business Administration 0 0.0
Chemistry/Chemical Physics 0 0.0
Clinical Psychology 0 0.0
Communication and Information 0 0.0
Computer Science 1 6.7
Counseling and Human Development Services 0 0.0
Cultural Foundations 0 0.0
Curriculum and Instruction 0 0.0
Educational Administration 0 0.0
Educational Psychology 0 0.0
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
209
Table B19 (cont.)
Academic major
n
%
English 0 0.0
Evaluation and Measurement 0 0.0
Exercise Physiology 1 6.7
Experimental Psychology 0 0.0
Geography 0 0.0
Health Education and Promotion 0 0.0
History 0 0.0
Music Education/Music Theory 0 0.0
Nursing 0 0.0
Physics 0 0.0
Political Science 0 0.0
Public Health 0 0.0
Pure Mathematics 0 0.0
School Psychology 0 0.0
Sociology 0 0.0
Special Education 0 0.0
Speech Language Pathology 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 1 6.7
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Students in Question 1 (n = 987).
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
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Students in Question 1 (n = 987).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Students in Question 1 (n = 987).
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
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Students in Question 1 (n = 987).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
219
Table B32. Students only: How are you currently paying for your education at Kent State? (Mark all that
apply.) (Question 69)
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Students in Question 1 (n = 987).
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Students in Question 1 (n = 987).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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 %
Very comfortable 217 36.2
Comfortable 223 37.2
Neither comfortable
nor uncomfortable 83 13.8
Uncomfortable 55 9.2
Very uncomfortable 22 3.7
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Faculty or Staff in Question 1 (n = 600).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
222
Table B37. Students/Faculty only: Overall, how comfortable are you with the climate in your classes?
(Question 6)
Comfort n %
Very comfortable 526 40.2
Comfortable 597 45.6
Neither comfortable
nor uncomfortable 135 10.3
Uncomfortable 46 3.5
Very uncomfortable 6 0.5
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
223
Table B40. Students only: Why did you seriously consider leaving Kent State?
(Mark all that apply.) (Question 9)
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
A reason not listed above 104 42.6
Note: Table includes answers only from those Students who indicated that they considered leaving in Question 7 (n = 244).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
224
Table B41. Faculty/Staff only: Why did you seriously consider leaving Kent State?
(Mark all that apply.) (Question 10)
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
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 4 1.3
A reason not listed above 64 21.5
Note: Table includes answers only from those Faculty/Staff who indicated that they considered leaving in Question 7 (n = 297).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Students in Question 1 (n = 987).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
227
Table B44. What do you believe was the basis of the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 14)
Basis
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
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 4 1.6
English language proficiency/accent 3 1.2
Immigrant/Citizen status 3 1.2
Military/Veteran status 3 1.2
International status 2 0.8
Living arrangement 1 0.4
Don’t know 40 15.5
A reason not listed above 70 27.1
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
An experience not listed above 48 18.6
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
229
Table B46. Where did the conduct occur? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 16)
Location
n
%
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 4 1.6
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
In off-campus housing 1 0.4
On Kent State media (e.g., Kent Stater, Kentwired.com, TV2) 1 0.4
On Kent State transportation (e.g., PARTA) 1 0.4
A location not listed above 21 8.1
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
230
Table B47. Who/what was the source of this conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 17)
Source
n
%
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 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
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
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
231
Table B48. What was your response to experiencing the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 18)
Response
n
%
I felt uncomfortable 178 69.0
I was angry 146 56.6
I felt embarrassed 105 40.7
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
Faculty member 24 36.9
Senior administration (e.g., president, provost,
dean, vice provost, vice 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 7.7
LGBTQ Student Center 5 7.7
Teaching assistant/graduate assistant 5 7.7
Dean of Students or Student Ombuds 4 6.2
Employee Relations 4 6.2
The Office of Global Education 4 6.2
Campus security 3 4.6
Kent State Public Safety/KSUPD 3 4.6
Office of Equal Opportunity & Affirmative Action
(or a facilitator) 2 3.1
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
232
Table B48 (cont.)
Response
n
%
I ignored it 48 18.6
I felt somehow responsible 37 14.3
I was afraid 35 13.6
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
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 4 1.6
Off-campus counseling service 2 50.0
Local law enforcement (other than KSUPD) 1 25.0
A spiritual adviser (e.g., imam, pastor, rabbi, priest,
layperson) 1 25.0
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
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.
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
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 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
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
235
Table B54. What was your response to experiencing the incident(s)?
(Mark all that apply.) (Question 25)
Response
n
%
I felt uncomfortable 9 64.3
I told a friend 8 57.1
I was afraid 7 50.0
I felt embarrassed 6 42.9
I avoided the harasser 5 35.7
I told a family member 5 35.7
I was angry 4 28.6
I left the situation immediately 4 28.6
I didn’t report it for fear that my complaint would not be
taken seriously 4 28.6
I did nothing 3 21.4
I reported it to or sought support from an on-campus
resource 3 21.4
Title IX Coordinator 1 33.3
Staff person 1 33.3
Faculty member 1 33.3
Campus security 0 0.0
Coach or athletic training staff member 0 0.0
Kent State Public Safety/KSUPD 0 0.0
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 Relations 0 0.0
Employee Assistance Program (IMPACT) 0 0.0
Kent State counseling center or campus counseling
staff 0 0.0
Student staff (e.g., residence hall staff, peer mentor) 0 0.0
Teaching assistant/graduate assistant 0 0.0
My academic advisor 0 0.0
The Office of Global Education 0 0.0
Student Accessibility Services 0 0.0
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
236
Table B54 (cont.)
Response
n
%
Center for Adult and Veteran Services 0 0.0
Senior administration (e.g., president, provost,
dean, vice provost, vice president) 0 0.0
My supervisor 0 0.0
My union representative 0 0.0
Other 0 0.0
I felt somehow responsible 2 14.3
I confronted the harasser later 2 14.3
I didn’t know whom to go to 2 14.3
I sought information online 1 7.1
I did report it, but I did not feel the complaint was taken seriously 1 7.1
I ignored it 1 7.1
It didn’t affect me at the time 1 7.1
I confronted the harasser at the time 1 7.1
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
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 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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
238
Table B56. Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty only: As a faculty member… (Question 30)
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
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
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. 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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
239
Table B57. Non-Tenure Track Faculty only: As a faculty member… (Question 32)
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
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
I feel that I am burdened by service responsibilities (e.g., committee
memberships, departmental work assignments). 13 1.9 19 18.8 62 61.4 7 6.9
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. 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
equally to all faculty. 5 5.1 44 44.9 33 33.7 16 16.3
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
240
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
Table B57 (cont.) n % n % n % 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. 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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
241
Table B58. Faculty only: As a faculty member... (Question 34)
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
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
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Faculty in Question 1 (n = 334).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
242
Table B59. Staff only: Please respond to the following statements. (Question 36)
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
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 taking leave for childbearing or adoption. 26 11.9 28 12.8 74 33.8 91 41.6
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
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Staff in Question 1 (n = 266).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
243
Table B60. Faculty only: Please respond to the following statements. (Question 38)
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
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
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Faculty in Question 1 (n = 334).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Faculty member 87 33.2
Coworker 69 26.3
Friend 37 14.1
Staff member 31 11.8
Student employee (e.g., peer mentor) 14 5.3
Department chair/head/director 13 5.0
Senior administration 11 4.2
Stranger 11 4.2
Academic adviser 7 2.7
Don’t know target 7 2.7
Supervisor 5 1.9
Alumni 3 1.1
Off-campus community member 3 1.1
Person whom I supervise 3 1.1
Teaching assistant/Graduate assistant/Lab assistant/Tutor 3 1.1
Social networking site 2 0.8
Donor 1 0.4
Athletic coach/trainer 0 0.0
Health/Counseling services 0 0.0
Kent State media 0 0.0
Kent State Public Safety 0 0.0
A target not listed above 12 4.6
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
246
Table B63. Who/what was the source of this conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 74)
Source
n
%
Faculty member 100 38.2
Student 74 28.2
Staff member 35 13.4
Senior administration 33 12.6
Co-worker 31 11.8
Supervisor 26 9.9
Department chair/head/director 19 7.3
Stranger 12 4.6
Academic adviser 8 3.1
Student employee (e.g., peer mentor) 7 2.7
Don’t know source 5 1.9
Social networking site 4 1.5
Friend 3 1.1
Kent State Public Safety 2 0.8
Off-campus community member 2 0.8
Alumni 1 0.4
Person whom I supervise 1 0.4
Teaching assistant/Graduate assistant/Lab
assistant/Tutor 1 0.4
Athletic coach/trainer 0 0.0
Donor 0 0.0
Health/Counseling services 0 0.0
Kent State media 0 0.0
A source not listed above 10 3.8
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
An experience not listed above 20 7.6
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
248
Table B65. What do you believe was the basis for the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 76)
Basis of conduct
n
%
Position (staff, faculty, student) 56 21.4
Faculty Status (Tenure Track, Non-Tenure Track, Adjunct) 46 17.6
Don’t know 44 16.8
Gender/Gender identity 36 13.7
Ethnicity 26 9.9
Educational credentials (M.S., Ph.D., etc.) 25 9.5
Sexual identity 22 8.4
Academic performance 21 8.0
Age 21 8.0
Philosophical views 20 7.6
Gender expression 18 6.9
Racial identity 18 6.9
Political views 15 5.7
Physical characteristics 14 5.3
Religious/Spiritual views 14 5.3
Learning disability/condition 13 5.0
Socioeconomic status 11 4.2
Physical disability/condition 9 3.4
Participation in an organization/team 8 3.1
English language proficiency/accent 7 2.7
Parental status (e.g., having children) 6 2.3
Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered) 4 1.5
Mental health/Psychological disability/condition 4 1.5
Major field of study 3 1.1
Medical disability/condition 3 1.1
Military/Veteran status 3 1.1
Living arrangement 2 0.8
Pregnancy 2 0.8
Immigrant/Citizen status 1 0.4
International status 1 0.4
A reason not listed above 58 22.1
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
249
Table B66. Where did this conduct occur? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 77)
Location
n
%
In a public space at Kent State 78 29.8
In a class/lab/clinical setting 74 28.2
In a meeting with a group of people 60 22.9
While working at a Kent State job 52 19.8
In a Kent State administrative office 35 13.4
In a faculty office 28 10.7
At a Kent State event 19 7.3
In a meeting with one other person 19 7.3
While walking on campus 17 6.5
Off campus 9 3.4
In a Kent State library 8 3.1
In a Kent State dining facility 7 2.7
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
In off-campus housing 0 0.0
On Kent State transportation (e.g., PARTA) 0 0.0
A location not listed above 16 6.1
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
250
Table B67. What was your response to observing the conduct? (Mark all that apply.) (Question 78)
Response
n
%
I felt uncomfortable 174 66.4
I was angry 122 46.6
I felt embarrassed 69 26.3
I told a friend 48 18.3
I avoided the harasser 46 17.6
I told a family member 46 17.6
I reported it to or sought support from an on-campus resource 43 16.4
My supervisor 19 44.2
Faculty member 11 25.6
Senior administration (e.g., president, provost, dean, vice provost, vice president) 11 25.6
Campus security 5 11.6
On-campus counseling service 5 11.6
Student Conduct 4 9.3
Dean of Students or Student Ombuds 3 7.0
Staff person 3 7.0
Office of Equal Opportunity & Affirmative Action (or a
facilitator) 2 4.7
My academic advisor 2 4.7
My union representative 2 4.7
Title IX Coordinator 1 2.3
The Office of Sexual and Relationship Violence Support Services (SRVSS) 1 2.3
LGBTQ Student Center 1 2.3
Student staff (e.g., residence hall staff, peer mentor) 1 2.3
Teaching assistant/graduate assistant 1 2.3
Student Accessibility Services 1 2.3
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
251
Table B67 (cont.)
Response
n
%
Kent State Public Safety/KSUPD 0 0.0
Employee Relations 0 0.0
The Office of Global Education 0 0.0
Center for Adult and Veteran Services 0 0.0
I didn’t report it for fear that my complaint would not be taken
seriously 28 10.7
I ignored it 27 10.3
I didn’t know whom to go to 22 8.4
I confronted the harasser at the time 20 7.6
I felt somehow responsible 18 6.9
I confronted the harasser later 15 5.7
I was afraid 12 4.6
I did report it, but I did not feel the complaint was taken seriously 12 4.6
I sought information online 9 3.4
I reported it to or sought support from an off-campus resource 3 1.1
Off-campus counseling service 2 66.7
Local law enforcement (other than KSUPD) 1 33.0
Hotline/advocacy services 0 0.0
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
A response not listed above 16 6.1
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Faculty or Staff in Question 1 (n = 600).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
253
Table B69. Faculty/Staff only: I believe that the unjust hiring practices were based upon:
(Mark all that apply.) (Question 81)
Characteristic
n
%
Nepotism 25 23.4
Educational credentials (e.g., BS, MS, PhD) 18 16.8
Position (staff, faculty, student) 17 15.9
Age 9 8.4
Ethnicity 8 7.5
Philosophical views 8 7.5
Gender/gender identity 7 6.5
Major field of study 7 6.5
Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered) 6 5.6
Political views 5 4.7
Racial identity 5 4.7
Don’t know 5 4.7
Participation in an organization/team 4 3.7
English language proficiency/accent 3 2.8
Religious/spiritual views 3 2.8
Socioeconomic status 3 2.8
International status 2 1.9
Living arrangement 2 1.9
Parental status (e.g., having children) 2 1.9
Physical characteristics 2 1.9
Gender expression 1 0.9
Immigrant/citizen status 1 0.9
Sexual identity 1 0.9
Learning disability/condition 0 0.0
Mental Health/Psychological disability/condition 0 0.0
Medical disability/condition 0 0.0
Military/veteran status 0 0.0
Physical disability/condition 0 0.0
Pregnancy 0 0.0
A reason not listed above 48 44.9
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
%
Position (staff, faculty, student) 14 25.0
Faculty status 13 23.2
Age 9 16.1
Don’t know 9 16.1
Educational credentials (e.g., BS, MS, PhD) 7 12.5
Ethnicity 7 12.5
Medical disability/condition 7 12.5
Philosophical views 7 12.5
Gender/gender identity 5 8.9
Participation in an organization/team 4 7.1
Racial identity 4 7.1
Gender expression 2 3.6
Major field of study 2 3.6
Political views 2 3.6
Socioeconomic status 2 3.6
English language proficiency/accent 1 1.8
Immigrant/citizen status 1 1.8
International status 1 1.8
Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered) 1 1.8
Mental Health/Psychological disability/condition 1 1.8
Military/veteran status 1 1.8
Physical characteristics 1 1.8
Physical disability/condition 1 1.8
Religious/spiritual views 1 1.8
Sexual identity 1 1.8
Learning disability/condition 0 0.0
Living arrangement 0 0.0
Parental status (e.g., having children) 0 0.0
Pregnancy 0 0.0
A reason not listed above 19 33.9
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Faculty or Staff in Question 1 (n = 600).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
%
Position (staff, faculty, student) 31 18.2
Educational credentials (e.g., BS, MS, PhD) 27 15.9
Gender/gender identity 19 11.2
Don’t know 18 10.6
Nepotism 15 8.8
Ethnicity 14 8.2
Philosophical views 13 7.6
Age 11 6.5
Political views 9 5.3
Medical disability/condition 7 4.1
Parental status (e.g., having children) 7 4.1
Major field of study 6 3.5
Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered) 5 2.9
Racial identity 5 2.9
Participation in an organization/team 4 2.4
Immigrant/citizen status 3 1.8
Physical characteristics 3 1.8
Physical disability/condition 3 1.8
English language proficiency/accent 2 1.2
Gender expression 2 1.2
International status 2 1.2
Socioeconomic status 2 1.2
Learning disability/condition 1 0.6
Mental Health/Psychological disability/condition 1 0.6
Military/veteran status 1 0.6
Pregnancy 1 0.6
Religious/spiritual views 1 0.6
Living arrangement 0 0.0
Sexual identity 0 0.0
A reason not listed above 74 43.5
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
260
Table B76. Students only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements: (Question 91)
Strongly agree Agree
Neither agree nor
disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
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
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Students in Question 1 (n = 987).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
261
Table B77. Faculty only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements: (Question 92)
Strongly agree Agree
Neither agree nor
disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
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)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
262
.
Table B78. Staff only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements: (Question 93)
Strongly agree Agree
Neither agree nor
disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
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
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Staff in Question 1 (n = 266).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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)
Yes No Not applicable
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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)
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
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
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Students in Question 1 (n = 987).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Providing adequate childcare 81 31.6 30 11.7 1 0.4 125 48.8 16 6.3 3 1.2
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Faculty in Question 1 (n = 334).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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)
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 diversity and equity training for
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
Providing adequate childcare 54 22.9 31 13.1 2 0.8 122 51.7 23 9.7 4 1.7
Note: Table includes answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Staff in Question 1 (n = 266).
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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)
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 diversity and equity training for
students 533 59.0 112 12.4 9 1.0 170 18.8 70 7.8 9 1.0
Providing diversity and equity training for
staff 563 62.6 111 12.3 9 1.0 155 17.2 52 5.8 9 1.0
Providing diversity and equity training 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
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 answers only from those respondents who indicated that they were Students in Question 1 (n = 987).
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Strongly agree Agree
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
http://www.kent.edu/srvss/get-help
http://www.kent.edu/stepupspeakout
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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:) ___________________________________
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
http://www.kent.edu/srvss/get-help
http://www.kent.edu/stepupspeakout
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
283
32. Faculty – Non-Tenure Track only: As a faculty member … Strongly
agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
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
agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
284
36. Staff only: Please respond to the following statements. Strongly
agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
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
agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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)
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
306
91. Students only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements.
Strongly agree Agree
Neither agree nor disagree Disagree
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 agree Agree
Neither agree nor disagree Disagree
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
307
93. Staff only: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements.
Strongly agree Agree
Neither agree nor disagree Disagree
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
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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
agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
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 positively influence climate
Would have no
influence on climate
Would negatively influence climate
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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 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 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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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 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 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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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.
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
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/srvss/get-help
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]
Rankin & Associates Consulting Campus Climate Assessment Project
Kent State University - Regional Campuses Report January 2017
314