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.
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 3
• 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.
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 4
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
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 5
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
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 6
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.
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 7
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.
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 8
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.
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 9
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.
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 10
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
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 11
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
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 12
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,
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 13
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 AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 14
“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
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 15
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.
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 16
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
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 17
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.
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 18
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.
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 19
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
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 20
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
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 21
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)
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 22
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?
a) Extremely uncomfortable b) Slightly uncomfortable c) Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable d) Slightly comfortable e) Extremely comfortable
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?
a) Extremely uncomfortable b) Slightly uncomfortable c) Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable d) Slightly comfortable e) Extremely comfortable
10. How comfortable are you with sharing a public or community restroom with a student who identifies as transgender?
a) Extremely uncomfortable b) Slightly uncomfortable c) Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable d) Slightly comfortable e) Extremely comfortable
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 23
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
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 24
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
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 25
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
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 26
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
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 27
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
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 28
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
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 29
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
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 30
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
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 31
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
Extremely Uncomfortable
Slightly Uncomfortable
Neither Comfortable Nor Uncomfortable
Slightly Comfortable
Extremely Comfortable
Num
ber of Subjects
Comfort Level of Sharing A Suite or Apartment with a Transgender Student
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 32
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
Extremely Uncomfortable
Slightly Uncomfortable
Neither Comfortable Nor Uncomfortable
Slightly Comfortable
Extremely Comfortable
Num
ber of Subjects
Comfort Level of Sharing a Community Restroom with a Transgender Student
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 33
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
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 34
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
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 35
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
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 36
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
Uncomfortable Neither Comfortable Nor Uncomfortable Comfortable
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 37
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
Same Room/Different Sex Pairing Apartment
Gender Identity Assignment Evenly Split Group
None
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 38
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
Uncomfortable Neither Comfortable Nor Uncomfortable Comfortable
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 39
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
Same Room/Different Sex Pairing Apartment
Gender Identity Assignment Evenly Split Group
None
AWARENESS AND COMFORT LEVEL OF STUDENTS 40
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
Same Room/Different Sex Pairing Apartment
Gender Identity Assignment Evenly Split Group
None