The Awareness and Comfort Level of the On-Campus Student ... · • Apartment-style living was the...

Running head: AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS

The Awareness and Comfort Level of the On-Campus

Student Population Of Transgender-Identifying Individuals

Kari Jo Freudigmann

Missouri State University

AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 2

Abstract

New student population demographics have been making themselves known on campuses

across the country. The transgender-identifying population is no different; however, it is often

not discussed. The aim of this research is to determine how many students who live in on-

campus housing are aware that the transgender community exists at Missouri State University,

discover how many students would be content with living with a roommate or suitemate who

identifies as transgender, and identify how many cisgender students are comfortable sharing a

private or community-style restroom facility with a student who identifies as transgender.

• Administered through an online survey created on Campus Lab’s Baseline

• Went live on Monday, April 21, 2014, and closed on Friday, May 2, 2014.

• Sent to all 3,355 on-campus students.

• 411 started, 410 indicated being 18 or older (making them old enough to take the survey),

and 396 completed the entire survey; some subjects did not complete the entire survey,

however any results recorded will be used for the purpose of this study.

Characteristics of Subjects

• Missouri State University students that live in on-campus housing.

• Primarily in 2nd or 4th semester of living on campus.

• Primarily female.

• Primarily white/Caucasian.

• Approximately an accurate representation of each residence hall.

Frequency Distributions

• Population was moderately aware of transgender-identifying students living in their

residence halls.


• Population was either extremely or slightly uncomfortable sharing a room.

• Population was either extremely or slightly comfortable sharing a suite or apartment.

• Population was extremely comfortable sharing a public or community restroom.

• Apartment-style living was the top choice of mixed-sex housing.

Cross Tabulations

• The longer the subject lived on campus, the more aware they had become.

• No trends were noticed between current housing style and comfort level with the same

housing style.

• Non-binary subjects were most comfortable sharing housing, then females, then males.

• Multiracial and Asian American subjects were most comfortable sharing housing and

restroom spaces.

Significance of Findings

• Pioneered research.

• Shows opinions of on-campus students.

• Puts non-binary students on the map.

Implications for Practice

• Shows a need for resources (safe space for transgender-identifying students).

• Shows a need for education.

Recommendations for Future

• More time.

• Beginnings for future research.

• Be sure survey is complete and clear.


The Awareness and Comfort Level of the On-Campus

Student Population Of Transgender-Identifying Individuals

In the last decade, massive demographic shifts have occurred in American higher

education. Among these new and expanded populations, students identifying as transgender

have emerged. To be an inclusive campus for all students that enroll, it is important to assess the

students’ needs and the students’ beliefs and opinions about their peers. In this research,

information about residence hall students and their attitudes towards the on-campus transgender

population are revealed. Before conducting the study, it is important to research and explain the

issue by looking at previous findings.

Review of Literature

Current research on the transgender-identifying population is scarce and non-

generalizable. Very few empirical studies have been conducted and reviewed in regards to their

experiences on college or university campuses. The majority of literature is focused on the

housing aspect of college life and how the culture of residential living either includes or omits a

safe space for transgender students to succeed. Through the research that is available, several

themes do become apparent. The underlying themes in the literature are the awareness of the

transgender population by students, a student’s comfort level of living with a student who

identifies as transgender, and a student’s comfort level of sharing a restroom space with a student

who identifies transgender.

Awareness

The first step to making an inclusive space for any demographic is to identify the

population. Creating awareness for the transgender population and educating unaware students

is an important springboard for staff members to realize a need for change in culture. A general


ignorance to the transgender culture causes many myths about the community to arise (Beemyn,

2003). First, many people also do not know all of the subcultures of transgenderism (i.e. gender

bending, two-spirit, etc.). Second, it is a common belief that individuals that identify as

transgender want to and will have surgery in order to “fix” their bodies. Lastly, many

transgender activists are trying to debunk the myth that transgenderism is a personal disorder,

rather than a cultural one (Beemyn, 2003). These are all examples of misunderstandings that

may occur.

Housing

An individual’s awareness level of the transgender population can determine the

individual’s opinions of the community. Identifying the attitudes and beliefs of cisgender

students towards transgender students is important when trying to determine how safe a space is.

Krum, Davis, and Galupo (2013) has recognized five common mixed-sex housing options

through research. While each institution does have a different way of creating inclusive housing,

most have fallen into one of these categories with some slight variations. First, the same

room/different sex pairings option allows students of any legal sex to live with each other.

Bathrooms are set up in numerous ways including all students in an apartment or suite sharing

one bathroom, having a unisex restroom on the floor, or having one sex-inclusive restroom on a

floor, but also allowing these students to use sex-segregated restrooms on neighboring floors if

they so choose. Second, apartment style living allows students to have their own room within an

apartment and only share the kitchen, living room, and other common areas with other students.

Each apartment may have one or more bathrooms in it. Third, gender identity assignment allows

students to be assigned to a room based on their gender identity rather than sex. Students can

request to live with students of the same gender identity or have the university place them with a


student of the same gender identity. Fourth is evenly split groups. An example of this would be

a three-bedroom apartment for six people where each room contains only those of the same legal

sex, but each room may differ from the neighboring room. Lastly, self-contained single rooms

are also an option. Students are given the opportunity to request a single room or buy out a

double so they may have their own room. Of these five options, students indicated they

preferred apartment-style housing and self-contained single units (Krum et al., 2013). While

Missouri State University, the university at which this research has been conducted, does not

have most of these options for mixed-sex housing, it is clarifying to document the opinions of

students who currently live in the housing styles mentioned in Krum et al. (2013) but are

segregated by sex. Also, as stated, housing is related to the setup up of restroom facilities where

students live.

Bathrooms

Different style residence halls have different ways of implementing restrooms for

students to use. The previous section gives an outline of how some universities already handle

this. It is also important to note that creating restrooms that have single-stall lockable doors are

not just beneficial to transgender students (Beemyn, Curtis et al., 2005). Allowing more than

one sex to use the restroom also allows individuals with disabilities who may have an aide of a

different sex or families that need to help a child of a different sex use a restroom without issues.

Renaming all of the restrooms as “toilet,” “unisex,” or “gender-neutral” may also allow the

university to be more consistent in signage (Beemyn, Curtis et al., 2005; Beemyn, Domingue et

al., 2005). This is important to the research because educating cisgender students about how the

needs of transgender students overlap the needs of other student demographics may assist in

creating inclusivity.


The Problem: A Lack of Literature

The literature related to transgender college students is devastatingly minimal. The

majority of sources that can be found provide merely suggestions to institutions that either lack

resources for transgender students or are in the process of creating an inclusive space. Of these

sources (Beemyn, 2003; Beemyn, Domingue, Pettitt, & Smith, 2005), one of the suggested steps

is to educate the student body. An important part of education is knowing at what level the

audience currently is. This study aims to seek the awareness and comfort levels of students who

live on campus at Missouri State University. It will attempt to fill some of the gaps of current

research. Students who participate in the questionnaire will be able to express their opinions

related to their awareness of and comfort level of living or using restroom facilities with

transgender-identifying peers as well as indicating specific housing styles within which they

would feel comfortable living with a transgender-identifying student.

Research Objectives

The research objectives of this study focused on the attitudes, beliefs, and opinions of

residence hall students. After the study was conducted, it is hoped that a clearer understanding

would be found for four main objectives. This inquiry would help (a) identify how many

students are aware that the transgender community exists at Missouri State University, (b)

discover how many students would be content with living with a transgender-identifying

roommate or suitemate, (c) discover how many students are comfortable sharing a private or

community-style restroom facility with a transgender-identifying student, and (d) determine with

which housing types, from the research of Krum et al. (2013), students are most comfortable.


Hypotheses

After researching the topic and reviewing research questions and objectives, several

statements were hypothesized about how students would react to each of the objectives. By

looking at the previous research and literature available, a first hypothesis was that the older the

student was, the more aware of the transgender community the student would be. The age of

subjects was indicated by the number of semesters they had lived on campus. A second

hypothesis was that the housing style in which the subject currently lives will have an effect on

which housing style the respondent would be more comfortable sharing with a transgender-

identifying individual. Gender may also play a role in how a subject responds in terms of overall

comfort level and type of housing style with which the respondent is most comfortable.

Likewise, different race and ethnic identities may effect responses in a similar way that gender

did.

Method

The population for this study consisted of Missouri State University on-campus students.

These students were from each of the on-campus residences (Blair-Shannon, Freudenberger,

Wells, Woods, Monroe Apartments, Hammons, Hutchens, Scholars, Sunvilla, and Kentwood).

The total population was the entire on-campus population of 3,355 students. Using all of the

residence halls helped assess the opinions of those living in different styles of rooms, suites, or

apartments and the opinions of those who have lived in on-campus housing for various lengths of

time. Through the research tool, individuals self-identified the number of semesters they have

lived on campus, their gender, their race or ethnicity, and residence hall in which they live. This

information was received through a survey administered through Campus Labs.


The subjects of this study were contacted via email through the Campus Labs program.

Subjects consented to participate through a consent letter that was in the email sent to them with

the link to the survey; consent was given electronically when the subject started the survey. This

consent letter also explained any risks that could occur due to taking the study as well as any

extra information (i.e. explain that the research is being conducted outside of the housing office).

Subjects submitted the questionnaire back through Campus Labs, which collected the data into

one convenient location. Their identity will remain confidential. Due to subjects receiving

unique links to the questionnaire, the Baseline application was able to remind subjects who had

not completed the survey to do so by sending subsequent emails. The subjects all received my

email address so they may contact me with any questions regarding the study.

Setting

Due to the subjects having been selected from residence halls, they had unique

similarities compared to other populations of students. Each of the students had lived in a

Missouri State residence hall for at least one semester, most for two or three semesters, and some

as many as seven or eight semesters or more. Compared to the entire campus population, the on-

campus population was disproportionately young because students were not required to live on

campus after completing 30 credit hours. However, by utilizing the population of each residence

hall, a wider variety of age was obtained. Due to the subjects having completed fewer credits

than the entire campus population, it was also assumed that the knowledge of the subjects may

have been lesser than the average upper-class student. This related to the study due to the

objective of obtaining the awareness level of the students.


Major Concepts and Definitions

In a research study it is important to clearly define any terms that the audience may not

recognize or be able to explain. It is also essential to operationalize any subjective terminology

so the subjects can respond to the survey tool as congruently with the researcher’s intentions as

possible. Lastly, organizing the survey in a way that subjects can easily identify the main

concepts of the research is crucial. In this study some terminology and three major concepts

were identified.

Terminology. It was imperative that the term transgender was well established. This

term guided how the subjects responded to the different questions. For the sake of this study,

transgender was defined as “an umbrella term for people whose gender identity or expression is

different from those typically associated with the sex assigned to them at birth (also known as an

individual’s legal sex).” This definition was clearly stated on any page of the survey that

mentioned the term.

Four different housing styles were also be described, as introduced from the research

conducted by Krum et al. (2013). The first housing type, same room/different sex pairing, meant

that students of any legal sex may live together. The second housing style was apartment-style.

This style would allow students to have their own room but share a kitchen, living room, and

other common areas with students of any legal sex. Other common areas could include a

bathroom. A third style, gender identity assignment, simply meant that students are assigned to a

room based on their gender identity rather than legal sex. The fourth style, evenly split group,

was when students live with another student of the same legal sex, but share a kitchen, living

room, and other common areas with students of any legal sex. Other common areas could

include a bathroom. The fifth housing style Krum et al. (2013) recognized was not used for the


purpose of this study because it was a private single room. Students would not have a roommate

in this housing style.

Concepts. The first concept, awareness of an on-campus transgender-identifying student

population on campus, was brought forth. This concept was a self-reported awareness measured

on a Likert-type ordinal scale. Second, the concept of gender identity needed to be thoroughly

explained. Gender identity was also self-reported by allowing subjects to write in the gender that

most matched their identity. It was measured nominally. And, third, the concept of comfort or

contentedness was identified. As with awareness, this was done via an ordinal Likert-type scale.

Each of these concepts helped participants better understand how to answer the survey questions.

To better explain how these concepts were integrated into the study, an example questionnaire

can be found in Appendix A.

Ethical Issues

Assessing ethical concerns with research was crucial to the study. It was important to

take note of how the subjects of the research may be harmed, how their confidentiality may be

violated, and if the subjects were guaranteed anonymity. In this study, the main concern of

ethics was when a subject self-identified outside of the gender binary on the questionnaire. If

subjects that identified this way can be recognized, the release of such information could result in

social isolation, which can cause depression, anxiety, and other mental health concerns. All raw

data and identifying information was held online in a password-protected website. This

guaranteed confidentiality of subjects’ identities unless the Campus Labs server is breached.

Data Analysis

Campus Labs gathered the data from this quantitative, cross-sectional study. The

application collected the information as questionnaires were returned, and the researcher was


given the option of placing the different information into tables or charts. While the application

completed a lot of the math and offered graphs, the researcher analyzed what the data actually

means. Campus Labs was also unable to explain cross tabulations, especially due to some

questions being open-ended. Variables needed to be recoded into easy-to-use categories. The

researcher analyzed this part of the data as well.

Challenges and Obstacles

Three main problems and limitations existed while conducting the research: lack of time,

lack of previous literature, and a question missing from the administered survey. The primary

limitation of this study was time. A more detailed work schedule can be viewed in Appendix B,

but it will be described in brief in this section. The researcher only had approximately one

month to administer the survey, receive results, and analyze the data. This was not nearly

enough time to complete the project at the best of the researcher’s ability, but allowed a baseline

to be set for any possible future research. Secondly, there was not a lot of previous literature off

which to create this research. The hope is that the results of this study could be used for those

conducting research in this area in the future. Lastly, the survey that had been sent out to

subjects was missing one of the questions from the “Level of Comfort” section and had awkward

wording to one of the questions. Question number nine from the survey (Appendix A) was not

included in the questionnaire that had been administered and the options for question number six

were awkward and hard to differentiate.

Results

The questionnaire (Appendix A) was emailed to 3,355 on-campus students via Campus

Labs on Monday, April 21, 2014. Students were given twelve days to complete the survey;

reminder emails were sent to students that had not already completed the survey on Monday,


April 28, and Thursday, May 1. Of these 3,355 students, 411 started the survey; one student

identified as being under the age of 18, which automatically ended the survey; and 396 students

completed the survey in its entirety. Regardless of degree of completion, any results submitted

were used for the purpose of this study.

Description of Subjects

While all of the subjects have the commonality of living on campus at the time of the

survey being administered, there are some unique demographic characteristics. Subjects

primarily notated that they have lived on campus for either two or four semesters including the

current semester (Figure C1). Most respondents identified as female (i.e. female, f, femail, girl),

however a few subjects did identify outside of the gender binary (i.e. genderfluid, queer,

bigender) (Figure C2). The majority (329) of subjects identified as white or Caucasian (Figure

C3). The last demographic recorded, the location of where the subjects lived, was relatively

accurate to the actual population (Figure C4). Gender was the only demographic that was greatly

disproportionate to Missouri State’s actual population. Missouri State’s actual population

indicated a higher population of males than the respondents did and it did not acknowledge non-

binary students.

Frequency Distributions

Subjects responded to several questions regarding awareness and comfort levels. For

awareness, the question “How aware are you that students who identify as transgender may live

in your residence hall?” was asked. Results were rather mixed with a majority of 401

respondents (155 or 38.65%) indicating moderate awareness (Figure C5). These results may

have been skewed and mixed due to the awkward wording of available responses. The term


“awareness” was also not appropriately defined, which may have caused some confusion. The

rest of the questions asked were based on the comfort levels of respondents.

The first two questions that asked about comfort levels had asked subjects their comfort

level with sharing a living space with students that identify as transgender. Results were rather

even across the board for sharing a room, but a majority (173 or 43.58%) felt either slightly or

extremely uncomfortable with sharing a room (Figure C6). A change was indicated in the results

for comfort levels in regards to sharing a suite or an apartment with a student that identifies as

transgender (Figure C7). When it came to sharing a suite or apartment, 180 (45.34%) subjects

responded feeling either slightly or extremely comfortable. This change shows that subjects

were more likely to feel comfortable the more separated they were from the student who

identifies as transgender.

Comparative data related to comfort levels and restroom spaces was also supposed to be

available, however, the question regarding sharing a private restroom space did not send out with

the survey. In regards to sharing a public or community restroom with someone who identifies

as transgender, respondents were rather receptive (Figure C8). A vast majority (145 or 36.43%)

of subjects indicated extreme comfort with sharing a public or community restroom. After

adding those that were also slightly comfortable, that number rises to 213 (53.52%). Opinions of

sharing a private restroom with a student that identifies as transgender would be helpful in

determining if the hypothesis of more separation equals more comfort is plausible.

The final question on the questionnaire asked subjects to indicate all applicable housing

styles (Krum et al., 2013) they would be comfortable sharing with an individual who identifies as

transgender (Figure C9). Just as in the research of Krum et al. (2013), apartment-style living was

a top choice. Two hundred and sixty-three subjects indicated apartments as a housing style they


would feel comfortable sharing. This result echoed how subjects responded to comfort levels in

sharing a room versus sharing a suite or apartment.

Cross Tabulations

Four major hypotheses were suggested earlier in this study. By cross tabulating certain

demographics with frequency distributions, information was gathered and analyzed. The first

hypothesis proposes that subjects that have lived on campus longer would also have more

awareness of students that identify as transgender living amongst them. Due to the traditional

semester for admission being in the fall, this cross tabulation only considered subjects

completing a full year on campus. A cross tabulation of number of semesters lived on campus

and awareness levels showed support for this hypothesis (Figure C10). The largest change was

an approximate 20% increase of awareness between a third and fourth year on campus.

The second hypothesis advocated that the current building style a subject lived in would

affect the subject’s response to the type of housing the subject would be most comfortable

sharing with an individual that identifies as transgender. A cross tabulation of the residence hall

the subjects lived in and the housing style subjects indicated they would be most comfortable

sharing with an individual that identifies as transgender was utilized (Figure C11). No major

trends were noticed from this cross tabulation; subjects seemed to respond similarly regardless of

current housing style. Most subjects indicated the housing styles from most comfortable to least

comfortable as follows: apartments, evenly split group, gender identity assignment, and same

room/different sex pairing, and the least amount of subjects from each building indicated none of

these options. The only main differentiation was the switch of evenly split group and gender

identity assignment from Sunvilla Tower and Kentwood.


A third hypothesis suggested that a respondent’s gender would affect how comfortable

the subject was with sharing spaces with those that identify as transgender. By cross tabulating

gender and the three questions regarding comfort level and sharing housing and restroom spaces,

a pattern could be determined (Figure C12). Non-binary respondents were unanimously

comfortable with sharing these spaces. Females were the next most comfortable and males were

the least comfortable of the three gender categories with sharing housing and restroom spaces.

When cross tabulating gender and housing styles, it became more difficult to differentiate male

and female responses (Figure C13). Non-binary respondents are still significantly comfortable

with sharing any type of housing style with a student who identifies as transgender.

The last hypothesis projected that race and ethnicity may have a similar effect to comfort

levels as gender did. Results to the cross tabulation of race and ethnicity with comfort levels

were varied (Figure C14). The most notable trend was that subjects that identified with two or

more races expressed more comfort with sharing housing and restroom spaces with students that

identify as transgender. A similar trend was seen when cross tabulating race and ethnicity with

the different housing styles (Figure C15.1 and Figure C15.2). Subjects that identify as

multiracial and Asian American were the only racial and ethnic categories that did not feel

uncomfortable with any of the housing options.

Problems and Limitations

Several challenges became apparent while interpreting the data from this research. First,

there were difficulties in categorizing some of the data. Many of the demographic questions

were left open-ended for subjects to self-identify. For the gender category, it was difficult to tell

if some identities were typographic mistakes or if they were a type of example (e.g. femail).

Race and ethnicity was also difficult to categorize because the point of the open-ended question


was to not box individuals into specific classifications. For example, a subject may have

identified as “Chinese”, which was placed into the “Asian” category; however, they may actually

identify as “Chinese American”, which would have resulted in the subject being placed into the

“Asian American” category.

A second challenge was the missing question and the awkward wording of a question.

More hypotheses could have been addressed if the information from the question that was not

administered had been collected. The confusion from the wording of the awareness question

also made analyzing the data from this question difficult. It was hard to decipher if the varied

responses were representative of respondent’s awareness levels, or if respondents were simply

misinterpreting the meaning of the options.

Lastly, the lack of time to complete the report was a major obstacle. Analyzing this much

data was challenging to do in the short period of time allowed. On top of that, after the data had

been analyzed and written into a report, there were some technological difficulties that erased all

of the findings and discussion section of the report twice. These sections had to be reconstructed

in an even shorter amount of time. Regardless of these roadblocks, there is a lot to discuss from

the results of the research.

Discussion

Research is only as important as what is done with it. This study breaks ground on a very

controversial and undiscovered topic. The results show that students were relatively receptive to

the idea of mixed-sex housing, but that education of the transgender population was a greatly

needed asset to Missouri State. To get a clearer picture of how this research has made an effect,

the major significance in the findings, implications for future use in student affairs, and some

recommendations for further research in this area will be discussed.


Significance of Findings

The results of this research are significant in several different ways. First, it is pioneering

research; there is very little other research existing on this topic. Secondly, it actually shows the

opinions of students on campus rather than just gives suggestions like some of the previous

research had done. Lastly, this survey is putting students that identify outside of the gender

binary on the map. By asking subjects to self-identify in an open format their gender, it validates

their gender. The significance of these findings can help student affairs professionals in their

practice.

Implications for Student Affairs Practice

Through the research, a lot of needs have become apparent. These are needs that student

affairs professionals could fulfill. Due to the amount of subjects that indicated feeling

uncomfortable sharing living or restroom space with a student that identifies as transgender, it

can be assumed that this uncomfortable feeling could result in an unsafe space. Student affairs

professionals should spearhead initiatives to be sure residence halls remain a safe space for

transgender-identifying individuals as well as create intentional educational programming to

facilitate dialogue about gender.

Recommendations for Future Research

Just as the results can be utilized for student affairs professionals, the results can be used

to guide future research. If conducted again, it would be wise to allow for more time to review

the survey before administering it, more time for analyzing data, and more time to draw

conclusions. It is critical to remember that this is only the beginnings of research in this field

and adjustments may need to be made to the data collecting tool as well as how the information

is analyzed. There is still so much more to learn.


References

Beemyn, B. (2003). Serving the needs of transgender college students. Journal of Gay & Lesbian

Issues in Education, 1(1), 33-50.

Beemyn, B., Curtis, B., Davis, M., & Tubbs, N. J. (2005). Transgender issues on college

campuses. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation: Research,

Policy, and Personal Perspective: New Directions for Student Servies (pp. 49-60).

Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

Beemyn, B., Domingue, A., Pettitt, J., & Smith, T. (2005). Suggested steps to make campuses

more trans-inclusive. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 3(1), 89-94.

doi:10.1300/J367v03n01_09

Krum, T. E., Davis, K. S., & Galupo, M. P. (2013). Gender-inclusive housing preferences: A

survey of college-aged transgender students. Journal of LGBT Youth, 10(1/2), 64-82.

doi:10.1080/19361653.2012.718523


APPENDIX A

Questionnaire

Section I: Demographics For questions 1-5, please indicate the option with which you most identify.

1. Please specify your age. a) Under 18 (This option would end the survey) b) 18 or older

2. Please specify how many semesters (including the current semester) you have lived in a Missouri State University Residence Hall.

a) (Fill in Text Box) 3. Please specify your gender.

a) (Fill in Text Box) 4. Please specify your race/ethnicity.

a) (Fill in Text Box) 5. Please specify in which residence hall you live.

a) Blair-Shannon House b) Freudenberger House c) Wells House d) Woods House e) Monroe Apartments f) Scholars House g) Hammons House h) Hutchens House i) Sunvilla Tower j) Kentwood


Section II: Awareness For question 6, please define transgender as an umbrella term for people whose gender identity or expression is different from those typically associated with the sex assigned to them at birth (also known as an individual’s legal sex).

6. How aware are you that students who identify as transgender may live in your residence hall?

a) Not at all aware (I do not know that someone who identifies as transgender can live in my residence hall)

b) Slightly aware (I do not think that someone who identifies as transgender could live in my residence hall)

c) Somewhat aware (I am unsure as to whether someone who identifies as transgender could live in my residence hall)

d) Moderately aware (I think someone who identifies as transgender could live in my residence hall)

e) Extremely aware (I know someone who identifies as transgender who lives in my residence hall)


Section III: Level of Comfort For questions 7-10, please define transgender as an umbrella term for people whose gender identity or expression is different from those typically associated with the sex assigned to them at birth (also known as an individual’s legal sex).

7. How comfortable are you with sharing a room with a student who identifies as transgender?

a) Extremely uncomfortable b) Slightly uncomfortable c) Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable d) Slightly comfortable e) Extremely comfortable

8. How comfortable are you with sharing a suite or apartment (not room) with a student who identifies as transgender?


9. How comfortable are you with sharing a private restroom (such as a restroom within a suite or an apartment) with a student who identifies as transgender?


10. How comfortable are you with sharing a public or community restroom with a student who identifies as transgender?



Section IV: Housing Styles For question 11, please define the different housing styles as the following:

Same room/different sex pairing: Students of any legal sex may live together. Example: Any traditional (non-suite or apartment) 2- or 3-bed room with students of any sex living together.

Apartment: Students have their own room but share a kitchen, living room, and other common areas with students of any legal sex. Other common areas could include a bathroom. Example: Monroe Apartments with students of any sex living together

Gender identity assignment: Students are assigned to a room based on their gender identity rather than legal sex. Example: Any room, suite, or apartment where students are placed based on gender identity rather than legal sex.

Evenly split group: Students live with another student of the same legal sex, but share a kitchen, living room, and other common areas with students of any legal sex. Other common areas could include a bathroom. Example: A Blair-Shannon House suite where within each room any legal sex lives, but the three rooms could have differing same legal sex pairings.

11. Which type of housing style(s) would you be comfortable sharing with a student who

identifies as transgender? (Please select all that apply) a) Same room/different sex pairing b) Apartment c) Gender identity assignment d) Evenly split group e) None of these options


APPENDIX B

Work Schedule

Table 1

Work Schedule

Task Time Needed

Proposed Date Technical Expertise

Gaps in Knowledge and Skills

Literature Review

1 Semester Done Database knowledge

Already created

Instrument Construction

1 Week Done Campus Labs Baseline

Data Collection 3 Weeks Administer 4/21

First reminder 4/28

Second reminder 5/1

Survey closes 5/2

Campus Labs N/A

Data Analysis 1 Week 5/7 Campus Labs Baseline

Data Report 1 Week 5/7

Final Report 1 Week 5/7


APPENDIX C

Figure 1. Subjects were primarily in their second or fourth semester on campus. n=403

1 18

231

11

90

8

28

2 10

0 2 0 1 1 0

50

100

150

200

250

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 833

Num

ber of Subjects

Number of Semesters

Semesters on Campus


Figure 2. Subjects primarily identified as female. A few subjects identified out of the gender

binary. n=403

Female; 293

Non-‐Binary; 5

Male; 105

Gender Identity of Subjects


Figure 3. The majority of subjects identified as white or Caucasian. n=398

13

20

3

15

2

329

2

1

5

5

3

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Multiracial

African American / Black

American Indian / Native American

Asian/PaciGic Islander

Asian-‐American

Caucasian / White

European

European-‐American

Hispanic

N/A; Other

South American

Number of subjects

Race and Ethnicity of Subjects


Figure 4. Subjects responded in a way that was approximately accurate to actual subject

population. n=400

73

66

46

24

20

19

49

63

28

12

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Blair-‐Shannon House

Freudenberger House

Wells House

Woods House

Monroe Apartments

Scholars House

Hammons House

Hutchens House

Sunvilla Tower

Kentwood

Number of Subjects

Residence Hall in Which Subjects Live


Figure 5. Subjects indicated more awareness than a lack of awareness. n=401

82

30

90

155

44

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Not at all Aware Slightly Aware Somewhat Aware Moderately Aware

Extremely Aware

Num

ber of Subjects

Awareness of Transgender Students in the Residence Halls


Figure 6. The majority of subjects indicated a lack of comfort with sharing a room with an

individual who identifies as transgender. n=397

88 85

90

53

81

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Extremely Uncomfortable

Slightly Uncomfortable

Neither Comfortable Nor Uncomfortable

Slightly Comfortable

Extremely Comfortable

Num

ber of Subjects

Comfort Level of Sharing a Room with a Transgender Student


Figure 7. The majority of subjects indicated comfort with sharing a suite or apartment with an

individual who identifies as transgender. n=397

52

81 84

69

111

0

20

40

60

80

100

120






Num

ber of Subjects

Comfort Level of Sharing A Suite or Apartment with a Transgender Student


Figure 8. A large majority of students felt extremely comfortable sharing a public or community

restroom with an individual who identifies as transgender. n=398

39 50

96

68

145

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160






Num

ber of Subjects

Comfort Level of Sharing a Community Restroom with a Transgender Student


Figure 9. Respondents were given the option to select more than one preference. The majority

of subjects indicated feeling most comfortable with sharing an apartment with individuals who

identify as transgender, closely followed by an evenly split group. n=393

132

263

170

208

83

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Same Room/Different Sex Pairing

Apartment Gender Identity Assignment

Evenly Split Group

None

Num

ber of Responses

Comfort Level of Sharing SpeciDic Housing Styles with a Transgender Student


Figure 10. The longer a subject lived on campus, the more aware the subject became of

individuals who identify as transgender living in the residence halls.

80

13 5 1

49

23 6

1

102

53 17

8

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

One Year Two Years Three Years Four Years

Percent of Respondents

Number of Semesters on Campus and Awareness Levels

Uncomfortable Neither Comfortable Nor Uncomfortable Comfortable


Figure 11. The number of respondents for each housing style based on current residence hall.

No trends were noticed.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Num

ber of Responses

Residence Halls and Housing Styles

Same Room/Different Sex Pairing Apartment

Gender Identity Assignment Evenly Split Group

None


Figure 12. Non-binary respondents were most comfortable with sharing spaces with students

who identify as transgender, followed by females, with males having been the least comfortable.

284 111

184

86

405 107

15

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Female Male Non-‐Binary

PErcentage of Responses

Gender and Comfort Level



Figure 13. Each non-binary subject responded that they would be comfortable with sharing each

housing style. Females and males shared similar answers.

0

50

100

150

200

250

Female Male Non-‐Binary

Num

ber of Responses

Gender and Housing Styles



None


Figure 14. A large majority of subjects that identified as multiracial and Asian American

indicated slight or extreme comfort with sharing housing or restroom spaces with individuals

who identify as transgender.

2

18 3 11

5 335

3 2

5 5 3

16 3 18

3

216

1

4 3

34

23 3 15

6

1

426 3 6 7

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

Percent of Responses

Race and Ethnicity and Comfort Level



Figure 15.1. Subjects that identify as multiracial and Asian American were the only race and

ethnic categories that did not indicate a lack of comfort in any housing style.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Num

ber of REsponses

Race and Ethnicity and Housing Styles



None


Figure 15.2. The “White/Caucasian” race and ethnic category had been placed on a separate

figure in order to make Figure 15.1 more legible.

0

50

100

150

200

250

White / Caucasian

Num

ber of Responses

Race and Ethnicity and Housing Styles



None

The Awareness and Comfort Level of the On-Campus Student ... · • Apartment-style living was the...

Documents

Transcript of The Awareness and Comfort Level of the On-Campus Student ... · • Apartment-style living was the...