University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Faculty experiences: sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority college students

(USC Thesis Other)

Faculty experiences: sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority college students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Faculty Experiences: Sense of Belonging for Sexual and Gender Minority College Students

by

Brandon Michael Elliott

Rossier School of Education

University of Southern California

A dissertation submitted to the faculty

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education

May 2021

© Copyright by Brandon Michael Elliott 2021

All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Brandon Michael Elliott certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Monique Claire Datta
Alison Keller Muraszewski
Patricia Elaine Tobey, Chair

Rossier School of Education

University of Southern California

2021

iv
Abstract
The literature establishes that sexual and gender minority college students experience a lack of
sense of belonging and perceive an adverse campus climate. The majority of literature focuses on
student-centered data through abundant qualitative and quantitative studies. At the core of the
problem are microaggressions, which occur frequently on the college campus. The literature
asserts that faculty are one of the most essential stakeholders in improving sense of belonging
and campus climate perceptions for sexual and gender minority students. The literature also
establishes that students who feel welcome and accepted at their college perform better
academically suffer from less emotional distress. Literature connecting the role that faculty plays
in influencing campus climate and sense of belonging for these students’ outcomes is limited.
Consequently, this study seeks to add to the existing literature to yield a more complete
understanding of the problem by focusing on faculty. Findings from this study suggest that
faculty desire to provide a more inclusive practice but may not be equipped with the necessary
knowledge, agency, or institutional support to facilitate change. Recommendations for future
research as well implications for faculty and higher education institutions are discussed.
Keywords: sexual and gender minority, faculty, campus climate, sense of belonging,
microaggression, higher education

v
Dedication
To my mother, I could not have reached this milestone without your love, support, sacrifice,
guidance, and care.

vi
Acknowledgements
I have leaned on so many people to reach this milestone. First and foremost, a sincere
thank you to my dissertation committee and capstone assistant. Dr. Tobey, you have been so
giving with your time and expertise. I would not have completed this dissertation without your
care, guidance, and mentorship. Dr. Murphy, thank you for your extensive help to get me started
on the right footing and for providing such useful editing insights. Dr. Muraszewski, I
specifically asked you to join my dissertation committee because you were the first professor I
had in this program, and you drastically transformed my academic writing. Dr. Datta, while I
haven't had a course with you, I wish I had. You were so giving of your time, and I'll never
forget the surprise I felt when you sent a fully edited document of my first three chapters. All
four of you have been incredibly generous and supportive, and I feel immensely grateful to have
three brilliant scholar-practitioners on my committee.
This program has been transformative for my life, career, and worldview, and I have had
the privilege of learning from incredible professors. Thank you, Dr. Muraszewski, for cultivating
my self-efficacy for academic writing. Thank you, Dr. Tobey, for providing so much care and
guidance throughout the dissertation process. Thank you to Dr. Maddox, Dr. Malloy, Dr.
Meszaros, Dr. Robles, Dr. Seder, Dr. Sparangis, Dr. Wilcox, and Professor Yeoman for teaching
so brilliantly. To my Cohort 12 (the "COVID Cohort") colleagues: I never thought I'd be in a
doctoral program where I would form such meaningful relationships. But I am forever grateful.
To my Moorpark College Choral & Vocal Program family, thank you. My students—
current and past—have continued to teach me and inspire me. It truly has been a unique
experience to be a student alongside them for the past three years. They, too, have been so
supportive of this educational journey. My interns have stepped up to help in small but

vii
meaningful ways: encouraging me to stop working late at work and go home to study or rest;
stepping up to help with clerical tasks; asking, "what can I do to help?" To my dear colleague
and friend, Professor Anderson. Thank you for being a constant source of support and
encouragement. Balancing this program with my work at the college and my work with Choral
Arts Initiative has been so challenging, and you have always been there to listen, offer words of
wisdom, and encourage.
To my Choral Arts Initiative family: you continue to inspire and uplift me. During my
moments of doubt or stress, I would relive moments of music-making or listen to previous
recordings, and it would help me find my center. I cannot wait to join in song with all of you
again in person.
Then there is my family—my Ohana. Like most Asian and Pacific-Islanders, "family" is
a broad term. All I can say is that the love and support I have felt from all of you has been so
meaningful, especially during my doctoral journey. The understanding and care you all shared
when I had to skip the family outings to study or write meant so much to me. Mother, you have
worked so hard to give me a life full of meaning and ensure I had access to higher education.
Your love and support at every step in my life path mean the world to me. Father, your
unconditional support never goes unnoticed, and while we never got to go to a USC football
game, I know you're proud to be a Trojan Dad. To my step-father Chris, I have come to
appreciate your perspective and input so much, and it has guided me in more ways than you
probably know. To my step-mother, Karen, thank you for keeping my father in check and for
being so supportive and giving. To my grandmother, Barbara, I wish you were here still; I miss
your presence so much. Thank you for teaching me how to love unconditionally. To my
grandmother, Carolyn, for all of the omiyage, the bounty of food, and for the occasional (read:

viii
frequent) motivating text messages. To my best friend Seth, for knowing when it's time to make
me a martini or when it's time to tell me to take the night to study. To my mentors and former
teachers (yes, you are family as well!) Rich Messenger, Dale Warland, Rob Istad, Chris
Peterson, Brett Scott, thank you for always being there when I needed guidance.
This section is not all-inclusive, and there are so many of you who have helped me. The
chances are high that if you are reading this, I owe you my gratitude. Mahalo nui loa.

ix
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 4
Global Stakeholder Goal and Study Framework Alignment .............................................. 5
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 5
Limitation and Delimitations .............................................................................................. 6
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................. 7
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 8
Chapter Two: Review of Literature ................................................................................................ 9
Literature on the Sexual and Gender Minority College Students ....................................... 9
Campus Climate and Academic Achievement ................................................................... 9
Emotional and Psychological Health ................................................................................ 11
Mental Health and the Impact on Academic Achievement .............................................. 13
Phenomenology and Faculty Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ... 14
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Faculty Knowledge, Motivation and
Organizational Variables ............................................................................................ 32

Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 35

x
Faculty Sampling, Population, Strategy, and Rationale ................................................... 36
Data Collection and Instrumentation ................................................................................ 38
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 39
Data Credibility, Authenticity, and Trustworthiness ........................................................ 41
Ethics ................................................................................................................................. 42
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 43
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 44
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 46
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 46
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 48
Guiding Question Findings ............................................................................................... 49
Sub-Question Findings ...................................................................................................... 55
Findings Summary ............................................................................................................ 63
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 65
Guiding Question Discussion ........................................................................................... 65
Sub-Question Discussion .................................................................................................. 69
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 71
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Outline .......................................................... 73
Future Research ................................................................................................................ 78
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 78
References ..................................................................................................................................... 81
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................... 96
Appendix C: Informed Consent .................................................................................................... 99

xi
List of Tables
Table 1 Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessment 19
Table 2 Motivation Influences and Assessment 24
Table 3 Organization Influences and Assessment 31
Table 4 Participants’ Demographic Characteristics 47
Table 5 Faculty Responses to Definition of Microaggression 56
Table 6 Motivation and Expectancies of Ally or Safe Zone Training 59
Table 7 Organizational Barriers Perceived by Faculty 62
Appendix A: Research Question Alignment With Conceptual Framework 94

xii
List of Figures
Figure: 1 Faculty, Student, and College Variables: Conceptual Framework 33
Figure 2: Four Levels Model 75

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Higher education is considered the gateway to upward mobility and economic success.
While many elements ensure higher education institutions’ successful operation, faculty play a
significant role. The faculty member’s privileged role has far-reaching implications on campus
climate, student success, and retention (Campbell-Whatley et al., 2015; Meyers, 2009; Miller &
Mills, 2019; Oseguera & Rhee, 2009; Woodford et al., 2014). As colleges and universities across
the country strive to deepen their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, one must pause
to ask what types of students come to mind in this commitment and, more important, which
students are being left behind.
For sexual and gender minority students, research illustrates higher education institutions
have much work to do. “Sexual and gender minority” is an umbrella term that refers to multiple
sexual or gender minority groups, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, polysexual, pansexual,
transgender, gender fluid, or other evolving definitions (American Psychological Association,
2020). Sexual and gender minority students earn lower grade point averages than heterosexual
students (Bruffaerts et al., 2018; De Luca et al., 2016; Miller & Mills, 2019). It is not because
these students are predisposed to be less intelligent. Rather, it is because it is more challenging to
succeed in an environment where one does not feel as though they belong (Applebaum, 2019;
Campbell-Whatley et al., 2015). Despite social transformation in the United States with
increasing federal and state protections for sexual and gender minority citizens, this
transformation seems not to permeate the very fabric of the American Dream—education
(Crawford, 2012; Jackson & Perez, 2012; Rosenbaum et al., 2017).

2

Background of the Problem
Ample research establishes that sexual and gender minority college students suffer from
more emotional and psychological concerns than their peers (Effrig et al., 2011; Kisch et al.,
2005; Oswalt & Wyatt, 2011). The literature illustrates that microaggressions and forms of subtle
discrimination are prevalent in colleges and can be equally as harmful as physical violence
(Craig et al., 2017; Garvey & Inkelas, 2012; Hirsch et al., 2017; S. M. Williams et al., 2018). The
definition of microaggression is subject to scholarly debate due to its contemporary context
(Lilienfeld, 2017; M. T. Williams, 2020). Nonetheless, the literature provides a common
definition of microaggressions: a brief verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignity that
communicates hostile, derogatory, or negative slights and insults towards individuals of
underrepresented status (Berk, 2017a; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015; M. T. Williams, 2020).
In addition to microaggressions in the class environment, there are not enough dedicated
mental health resources available for sexual and gender minority students to address the
prominently higher rates of suicide and depression, most notably at two-year or community
college institutions which enroll more than half of all undergraduate college students in the
country (American Association of Community Colleges, 2014; Robinson & Espelage, 2011).
While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2018) determined that suicide is one of
three leading causes of death on the rise, it is essential to remember that the rate is six to ten
times higher for sexual and gender minority college students (Woodford et al., 2019). Studies
demonstrate that mental health symptoms such as depression and suicide ideation paired with a
lack of sense of belonging on a college campus negatively impact academic achievement
significantly (Hirsch et al., 2017; Robinson & Espelage, 2011).
3

The problem facing sexual and gender minority college students is not unique to any one
college campus. Rather, this problem is widespread and permeates college campuses nationwide
(Berk, 2017c; Ogunyemi et al., 2019; Robinson & Espelage, 2011; M. T. Williams, 2020;
Woodford et al., 2019). Due to this problem’s broad reach, this study examined faculty
stakeholders from various higher education institutions rather than focusing on one specific study
site.
Statement of the Problem
Sexual and gender minority students do not feel the same sense of belonging that their
heterosexual peers do at college campuses (Garvey et al., 2017). The problem is necessary to
address because there is a pronounced inequity in the educational and emotional outcomes of
sexual and gender minority students. The literature indicates that microaggressions are regular
and pervasive in the college classroom, which negatively impacts students’ academic success
(Bruffaerts et al., 2018; Hirsch et al., 2017). Additionally, faculty members do not know how to
identify or respond to microaggressions that intentionally or unintentionally target sexual and
gender minority students (Dessel et al., 2017; Pitcher et al., 2018; Woodford et al., 2019).
A significant body of literature points to the problems of negative campus climate and
poor sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority students. Said literature also points to the
vital role of faculty in the overall campus climate. Campus climate and overall sense of
belonging on a college campus are significant contributors to academic success and wellbeing
(Applebaum, 2019; Dessel et al., 2017; Woodford et al., 2012). When a student regularly
experiences microaggressions from peers and faculty alike, that student will have more difficulty
succeeding. An additional problem is that there seems to be a disconnect between the literature
and the perceived and real role that individual faculty members play in fostering a safe and
4

inclusive campus belonging that ensures academic success for all students (Applebaum, 2019;
Garvey & Inkelas, 2012).
Purpose of the Study
The majority of literature on sexual and gender minority students in higher education
focuses on campus climate and other student matters. This study focused on the lived
experiences of faculty as it relates to their work with these students through a gap analysis lens to
understand how their perceived role contributes to the overall campus climate. Bystander
intervention is mentioned numerous times in the literature; seldom does the literature focus on
how faculty may or may not feel prepared to intervene in instances of microaggressions in the
college classroom (Dessel et al., 2017). Faculty self-efficacy regarding bystander intervention,
inclusion in curriculum, and their role in shaping the campus climate could potentially provide a
missing element in the collective body of literature.
With a focus on faculty self-efficacy and how person, behavior, and environment interact
to contribute to campus climate, social cognitive theory was this study’s guiding theoretical
framework. Framed through the lens of social cognitive theory and Clark and Estes’s (2008)
knowledge, motivation, and organizational gap analysis framework, the study sought to describe
the essence of the faculty experience surrounding microaggressions and their overall role in
influencing campus climate. Through such understanding of lived experience, the study may lead
to recommendations to help faculty better understand their essential role as well as provide
additional knowledge and resource recommendations to best benefit sexual and gender minority
students. Given the nature of such a phenomenological study, there was a guiding question and
sub-question for the study:
5

• Guiding Question: What are the lived experiences of faculty regarding campus climate
and microaggressions?
• Sub-Question: What knowledge, motivation, or organizational variables are involved
regarding how faculty are equipped to serve sexual and gender minority college students?
Global Stakeholder Goal and Study Framework Alignment
As part of this study, there was no identified research site. Rather, faculty members
representing various institutions participated in the study, thereby necessitating the development
of a global goal not associated with one specific organization. Based on the abundance of
literature, a stakeholder global goal was synthesized: Higher education faculty will improve
perceived campus climate and sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority college
students (Applebaum, 2019; Ballard et al., 2008; Brown et al., 2004; Campbell-Whatley et al.,
2015; Casanova et al., 2018; Craig et al., 2017; Garvey & Inkelas, 2012; Garvey & Rankin,
2015; Garvey et al., 2015, 2017; Hirsch et al., 2017; Hughes & Hurtado, 2018; Katz et al., 2016;
Lester et al., 2016; Linley et al., 2016; Ogunyemi et al., 2019; Oseguera & Rhee, 2009; Pitcher et
al., 2018; Robinson & Espelage, 2011; Sarikaya & Kara, 2020; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020;
Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015; Tillapaugh, 2016; Woodford et al., 2014, 2015, 2019). A theoretical
framework was identified to frame the synthesized global goal. A conceptual framework was
also created to add additional clarity and focus to the study.
Significance of the Study
The goal for higher education as a profession is to close achievement gaps and address
inequities for all students. While there are many student populations in need of additional
support, the problems for sexual and gender minority concerns need more attention. The
significance of this study will reside in the ability to transform how faculty view their role as
6

shapers of a campus climate perceived as safe and inclusive by all students. Ideally, faculty will
learn from this study how making small shifts in their teaching, curriculum, and classroom
management may notably improve campus climate (Applebaum, 2019; Dessel et al., 2017;
Garvey & Rankin, 2015; Garvey et al., 2015; Oseguera & Rhee, 2009; M. T. Williams, 2020).
Limitation and Delimitations
A significant limitation of this study is that faculty may be hesitant to participate in a
study of this nature, especially if they feel as though their knowledge or expertise as an educator
is being challenged, questioned, or observed (Ahn, 2018). Another limitation is that faculty who
already consider themselves sexual and gender minority allies would most likely have a higher
response rate, thereby jeopardizing a representative sample. Similar findings are established in
the literature for optional safe space or positive space training for sexual and gender minority
faculty allies; faculty who already consider themselves allies participate in the voluntary training,
thereby minimizing the effectiveness of training campus-wide (L. L. Kearns et al., 2014b).
The focus of this study was solely on faculty, as ample research already establishes that
there are achievement and equity concerns for sexual and gender minority students (Craig et al.,
2017; Hirsch et al., 2017; Ripley et al., 2012). In contrast, the research is scant in examining the
role of faculty, their knowledge and self-efficacy, and their experiences in contributing to an
inclusive campus climate. The specific and narrow scope of this study presented a delimitation as
it did intentionally leave out other campus climate contributors, such as staff, administrators, or
other higher education professionals. The study also intentionally omitted other factors that may
also negatively impact sexual and gender minority academic achievement, such as family
rejection or specialized healthcare needs.
7

It would be negligent not to discuss that microaggressions are multi-directional. Faculty-
to-faculty, student-to-faculty, management-to-faculty, and many other directional
microaggressions occur but were not examined in this study (Berk, 2017c). Additionally, I
acknowledge that there are other important student-facing roles on the typical college campus.
However, this study was limited by its single focus on the faculty. Similarly, other factors
contributing to campus climate perceptions that do not involve faculty or staff were not
examined. Examples include gender-neutral restrooms or facilities, campus health center
resources, and affirming images displayed on the campus (Ballard et al., 2008; Woodford et al.,
2019).
Definition of Terms
• LGBTQIA+: An initialism that stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,
queer/questioning, and asexual. The plus sign intends not to exclude any other spectrums
of sexual or gender identity unintentionally. There are many variants used to refer to the
dimensions of sexual and gender identity, including LGBT, LGBTQ, LGBT+, and more.
As research progresses regarding sexual orientation, a variety of acronyms have emerged.
A criticism of these acronyms is that a study referring to sexual minorities as LGBT may
only be studying those identifying as gay and bisexual and not considering transgender or
lesbian individuals. In other instances, the choice of acronym by researchers may be
deliberate. What can be concluded is that the use of acronyms, if used as an umbrella
term, lacks specificity and perhaps can be inaccurate (American Psychological
Association, 2020).
• Sexual and gender minority: Sexual and gender minority is an umbrella term to refer to
multiple sexual and gender minority identities (American Psychological Association,
8

2020). The use of this term is encouraged and preferred terminology unless a specific
identity is being studied. For clarity in this paper, the term “sexual and gender minority”
is consistently used; it communicates broadness and inclusion within the sociocultural
context and avoids the use of inaccurate abbreviations (American Psychological
Association, 2020, p. 146). When citing literature that utilizes various acronyms, sexual
and gender minority will be the term utilized unless the article studies specific sexual
identities.
• Microaggression: Also abbreviated as MA in some of the literature, a microaggression is
a brief verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignity that communicates hostile,
derogatory, or negative slights and insults towards individuals of underrepresented status
(Berk, 2017a; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015). Microaggressions can be intentional or
unintentional but are often delivered by individuals without awareness, thought, or
knowledge (Applebaum, 2019; Berk, 2017a; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015).
Organization of the Study
The study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One provides an overview of the study
as well as key terms. Chapter Two provides a review of relevant literature and discusses how the
literature informs the theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Chapter Three details the study’s
anticipated needs as well as a methodology regarding the choice of participants, data collection
and protocols, and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are documented and analyzed.
Finally, Chapter Five provides a holistic interpretation of findings, recommendations for future
research, implications, and possible recommendations based on the literature and data.

9

Chapter Two: Review of Literature
Student success is a priority for higher education institutions across the globe. However,
some students are left behind, creating inequities and disparities. Sexual and gender minority
college students are among those who experience a gap in achievement and equity. The chapter
first reviews the literature on campus climate, student wellbeing, student success, and the
essential role of faculty. The chapter will then explain Clark and Estes’s (2008) knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences framework. The types of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences examined are outlined and examined. These influences are then
compared against the assumed college faculty knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences on sexual and gender minority sense of belonging and academic achievement. Such an
exploration intends to address the gaps for sexual and gender minority college students. The
chapter ends with a presentation of the conceptual framework guiding this study.
Literature on the Sexual and Gender Minority College Students
Studies on sexual and gender minority students are increasing in number. According to
the literature, significant factors, variables, and causes influence the problem of practice. The
section focuses on what the literature says about campus climate and sense of belonging. A
variety of cascading variables are explored from this main factor, including implications on
mental health and wellbeing and how they impact academic achievement. Finally, there is an
examination of the literature regarding the critical role faculty play in students’ overall sense of
belonging.
Campus Climate and Academic Achievement
Twenty-nine percent of sexual and gender minority undergraduate college students have
been victims of harassment or physical violence due to their sexual or gender identity during
10

their college experience (Garvey & Rankin, 2015; Woodford et al., 2012). Microaggressions are
still heard and seen often on the college campus (Lester et al., 2016, 2017; Suárez-Orozco et al.,
2015). Microaggressions may include phrases or slurs, lack of all-gender restrooms, and health
centers catering to heterosexuals (e.g., sexual health pamphlets only addressing heterosexual
sex). In a qualitative study, 90% of gay, lesbian, or bisexual college students heard the phrase
“that’s so gay” in the college classroom within an academic year, which was negatively
associated with their overall wellbeing (Woodford et al., 2012). Another study with over 6,000
undergraduate students who identified as a sexual or gender minority cited several reasons for
feeling unwelcomed on campus (Woodford et al., 2019). Common reasons cited in this study
were the abundance of phrases or slurs such as “that’s so gay,” mental health professionals
telling students their sexual identity is just a phase of curiosity, or lack of gender-neutral
restrooms (Woodford et al., 2019). Moreover, bystanders of sexual and gender minority
harassment are highly unlikely to report or intervene unless the bystander knows the victim
personally (Dessel et al., 2017; Woodford et al., 2012).
Campus climate and sense of belonging is a significant factor in the overall academic and
mental outcomes of sexual and gender minority college students (Campbell-Whatley et al., 2015;
Garvey et al., 2015). Garvey et al. (2015) found that nearly one-third of all undergraduate college
students transferred or seriously considered transferring to another college in hopes of seeking a
more positive campus climate. The results are doubled for sexual and gender minority college
students, with a majority of these students lacking a sense of meaningful connection to the
college community (Garvey et al., 2015). Lack of connection to a college campus is made worse
by negative interactions with faculty who have substandard sexual and gender minority
awareness or resources (Pitcher et al., 2018). Garvey et al. (2015) presented a qualitative study of
11

sexual and gender minority students and found that they are often frustrated with the
curriculum’s lack of representation. In the same study, researchers found that what happens in
the classroom, led by a faculty member, is most important to a student’s experience (Garvey et
al., 2015). When considering that most sexual and gender minority college students regularly
encounter microaggressions in the classroom, it is understandable that they do not often perceive
their campus as inclusive or positive (Pitcher et al., 2018; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015; Woodford
et al., 2012). Such prevalence creates an environment incongruent with academic success and a
sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority college students (Woodford et al., 2019).
Faculty are often not confident in their ability to intervene if they hear microaggressions in the
classroom; lack of consensus on microaggression intervention training is a suspected cause
(Berk, 2017c; Lilienfeld, 2017; M. T. Williams, 2020).
While scholars disagree on how best to reduce or eliminate microaggressions in the
college classroom, they agree on the negative impacts on microaggression victims (Applebaum,
2019; Berk, 2017b; Lester et al., 2016; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015; M. T. Williams, 2020). When
considering the evidence that sexual and gender minority students face more microaggressions
than other student populations and comparing that to the research findings that microaggressions
create negative mental health and wellbeing outcomes, the inequity becomes increasingly
evident.
Emotional and Psychological Health
Research indicates that sexual and gender minority college students face a statistically
significant higher occurrence of emotional and psychological concerns (Effrig et al., 2011; Kisch
et al., 2005; Oswalt & Wyatt, 2011). Effrig et al. (2011) asserted that sexual and gender minority
students—and most especially transgender students—are at a pronounced higher risk of self-
12

injury or suicide. A nationwide clinical sample of 27,616 undergraduate college students
examined mental health and suicidality. Of the nationwide sample, only 0.2% identified as
transgender. However, of that 0.2%, nearly half of them disclosed that they engaged in self-
harming behavior. Moreover, 62.2% of these same transgender students indicated that they had
contemplated suicide over a sustained period (Effrig et al., 2011).
The most common emotional and psychological concerns for sexual and gender minority
students are hopelessness, depression, and suicidality (De Luca et al., 2016; Effrig et al., 2011;
Hirsch et al., 2017; S. M. Williams et al., 2018). A study of 15,977 undergraduate college
students found that while depression and hopelessness are of concern among all college students,
those who identify as LGBT have a 2.6 times higher occurrence (Kisch et al., 2005). Kisch et al.
(2005) concluded that LGBT students are also more than two times likelier to consider suicide.
Two separate research initiatives yielded complementary results in that nearly 80% of LGBTQ
college students presently have depression or have recently recovered from depression (Craig et
al., 2017; Rein et al., 2018). While all college students are at risk for depression and stress, a
nationwide study of more than 35,000 undergraduate and graduate students found that 35.3% of
bisexual students, 31.7% of gay and lesbian students, and 24.2% of questioning students were
diagnosed with depression compared to 16.2% of heterosexual college students (Oswalt &
Wyatt, 2011).
Numerous nationwide studies provide evidence that sexual and gender minority students
are at pronounced risk for depression, self-harm, suicide, stress, and hopelessness (Craig et al.,
2017; De Luca et al., 2016; Dessel et al., 2017; Hirsch et al., 2017; Pitcher et al., 2018; Rein et
al., 2018). These mental health concerns have significant implications in overall student success
and wellbeing. Linear studies investigating the relationship between academic performance and
13

mental health in college students, in particular, are sparse. However, the studies that do exist
strongly indicate that college students who endure pronounced mental health challenges
experience a distinct inequity. The abundance of literature that establishes the link between
sexual and gender minority undergraduate college students and mental health concerns indicates
that they also face pronounced inequity (Hirsch et al., 2017; Oswalt & Wyatt, 2011; Robinson &
Espelage, 2011; Woodford et al., 2012).
Mental Health and the Impact on Academic Achievement
Sexual and gender minority students, who are at a nearly two-times-higher risk for mental
health concerns, are at an academic disadvantage. It is important to note that being a sexual and
gender minority individual does not inherently create a predisposed risk of mental health or
academic impairment. Rather, it is the societal treatment of sexual and gender minority
individuals that leads to mental health and academic challenges (Craig et al., 2017; Frank &
Cannon, 2010; S. M. Williams et al., 2018). Bruffaerts et al. (2018) reported that college students
diagnosed with depression face statistically significant decreases in academic performance. Their
research found that mental health problems are associated with reduced academic function, as
indicated by a GPA reduction of 0.2 to 0.3 points (Bruffaerts et al., 2018). Additional research
indicates that sexual and gender minority students are 50 times more likely to experience
academic impairment and increased isolation from the campus community than heterosexual
students (Keyes et al., 2012). In a mental health questionnaire of 5,689 college students, 52% of
the respondents who had depression or anxiety also reported significant academic impairment
(Keyes et al., 2012).
De Luca et al. (2016) found that students who have attempted suicide or have had
recurring suicide ideation have some of the worst academic performance levels among those
14

with a mental illness. In an extensive study of 26,457 undergraduate students examining the
correlation between suicide ideation and academic performance, those who had experienced
suicidal ideation or attempted suicide within the previous 12 months had a 0.49 to 0.57 lower
GPA compared to mentally healthy students (De Luca et al., 2016). Drawing on research cited
previously in the literature review, it is evident that LGBTQIA+ students have a higher risk of
suicide ideation and attempted suicide (Hirsch et al., 2017; Keyes et al., 2012; Woodford et al.,
2019). Suicide risk draws a linear relationship with academic performance in that sexual and
gender minority students are also suffering academically at disproportionately higher rates. The
research findings presented in the literature establish the correlation between mental illness and
academic achievement. The literature also establishes these students as a whole have higher
occurrences of mental illness. Altogether, the literature also illustrates that campus climate and
sense of belonging are significant factors in achievement and emotional wellbeing.
Phenomenology and Faculty Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework provides a framing lens to identify and close
organizations’ performance gaps. However, it should be noted that this study was not designed to
solve a problem or improve human performance. With a phenomenological design, the intent
was to illuminate the faculty experience and derive meaning in their work with sexual and
gender minority students through a gap analysis lens (Clark & Estes, 2008; Creswell & Creswell,
2018). Phenomenological research involves describing lived experiences through which one may
derive essences, themes, or better understanding for further research (Creswell & Creswell,
2018; Maxwell, 2013). Such an approach allows for an improved understanding of a
phenomenon that is seldom studied. Coded through the lens of a problem-solving framework, the
study examined assumed performance influences in the three broad categories of knowledge,
15

motivation, and organization based on theoretical principles, literature specific to the sexual and
gender minority achievement, and student sense of belonging. Focusing on the key stakeholders,
henceforth referred to as faculty, and their performance within the organization context may also
provide a better understanding of organizational deficiencies. The gap analysis process draws
upon an understanding of the goals of a faculty member and how these relate to a global
stakeholder goal. As discussed in Chapter One, the global goal for this study is the result of a
synthesis of the literature rather than excerpting a goal from any particular organization.
The essence of Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework is that successful change does not
occur without correcting gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational support for the
stakeholders. At the most fundamental level, faculty may find themselves unmotivated because
there is a divide between what they can do and what they want to do (Hardré, 2012). Hardré’s
(2012) assertion is an example of the interplay between knowledge and motivation. Furthermore,
organizational resources, leadership, values, and priorities can also influence knowledge and
motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008). In the sections that follow, the assumed performance
influences, informed by the literature, are compared against the objective of decreasing inequities
harming sexual and gender minority students.
Knowledge and Skills
Scholars agree the best efforts to assist sexual and gender minority students achieve
academic success and overall sense of belonging begin in the classroom, with faculty playing the
most significant role (Berk, 2017a; Garvey & Rankin, 2015; Lester et al., 2017). The assumption
is that faculty possess expert content knowledge in their discipline. However, there is frequently
an emphasis on research and publication over teaching methodology for those entering the
professoriate (Ahn, 2018; Marx et al., 2016; Wade et al., 2016). The focus of this section is not
16

to question knowledge specific to the faculty member’s domain but to thoughtfully examine the
knowledge related to inclusion and equity within their andragogical practice. The knowledge
types are outlined below. The literature review will focus on the knowledge and skills necessary
for faculty to serve students equitably and to help marginalized students feel a sense of belonging
on their campus. The literature is first examined regarding the knowledge types for faculty.
College faculty need knowledge and skills to support the work of student success at their
colleges and universities. The literature analyzed herein is sorted into knowledge types based on
Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2002) taxonomy. The knowledge types considered in this review are
factual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge provides the learner with the facts,
terminology, details, or elements necessary to understand a new concept (Krathwohl, 2002).
Procedural knowledge builds on factual knowledge and allows the learner to transfer factual
knowledge specific to their domain while also empowering further inquiry (Krathwohl, 2002).
Metacognitive knowledge supports the learner by fostering an awareness of their cognition and
cognitive process. Doing so allows the work to be done thoughtfully, enhance problem-solving,
and monitor and adjust practice (Krathwohl, 2002). Faculty’s factual, procedural, and
metacognitive knowledge types related to inclusive teaching and sexual and gender minority
awareness may effectively improve campus climate and, consequently, these students’
achievement outcomes.
Sexual and Gender Minority Student Inclusivity
College and university faculty need additional knowledge and awareness regarding
sexual and gender minority students. Factual knowledge allows faculty to better navigate the
complexities they might face. For example, a transgender student may not respond to roll call
attendance reflecting a previous legal name when the professor calls out names from the roster.
17

The process for students to have their names changed officially on academic rosters can be
arduous and prohibitive (Woodford et al., 2019). Some faculty members without awareness of
death names or preferred pronouns may inadvertently commit a variety of microaggressions in
the classroom, creating an unsafe space for the sexual and gender minority student (Berk, 2017c;
Garvey & Rankin, 2015). Conversely, faculty members who are aware of preferred names and
pronouns cultivate lasting and significant feelings of safety and belonging (Linley et al., 2016).
Faculty Implementation in the Classroom
Once faculty members are equipped with the factual knowledge to navigate complexities
unique to sexual and gender minority students, procedural knowledge can operationalize. Faculty
can create more inclusive classrooms by having a greater awareness of sexual and gender
minority challenges. From this awareness, faculty are better positioned to respond to derogatory
comments, which occur in 30% of observed college classrooms (Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015). In
one study, several students said faculty did nothing when they were harassed or bullied by
another student using offensive words such as queer or faggot (Craig et al., 2017). The literature
demonstrates that for faculty, inaction is not due to their being hateful of sexual minorities; they
lack the knowledge and confidence to intervene in the moment (Berk, 2017c; Dessel et al., 2017;
Woodford et al., 2019). Additionally, faculty may begin to implement inclusivity through the
delivery of instruction or curriculum. There are a variety of ways to create a curriculum of
inclusion in all disciplines of academic study (Formby, 2017; Hughes & Hurtado, 2018). As
outlined in Chapter Three, part of this study was to learn from faculty in various disciplines how
they might incorporate more inclusion in their curriculum.
18

Microaggression Identification and Awareness
Microaggressions occur regularly in the college classroom (Applebaum, 2019; Casanova
et al., 2018; M. T. Williams, 2020). However, student peers do not commit most
microaggressions; instead, most microaggressions are committed by faculty members (Berk,
2017c; Craig et al., 2017). No words need to be spoken for a microaggression even to occur;
thus, understanding the nonverbal components of microaggressions implies that faculty
metacognition and awareness ensure a safe and inclusive classroom environment (Berk, 2017a;
Lester et al., 2016). Faculty members must be aware of what is said and, equally as important,
what is not said that may deeply offend students and create lasting feelings of disconnect to the
campus community. In a University of Illinois student survey, commonly cited microaggressions
involved faculty members calling on sexual and gender minority students to provide the gay
perspective or refusing or consistently forgetting to call students by their preferred name or
pronouns (Berk, 2017c). While some microaggressions committed by faculty members may be
unintentional, they can have lasting negative implications for students. Faculty members must be
metacognitively present to prioritize thoughtful and inclusive communications in their
classrooms.
Table 1 shows the faculty stakeholder goal guiding this study. The knowledge influences
and assessments are included to provide visual organization for the survey design.

19

Table 1
Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessment
Stakeholder Global Goal
Higher education faculty will improve perceived campus climate and sense of belonging for
sexual and gender minority college students.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Faculty need knowledge of
what microaggressions are.
Declarative (factual) Interview: describe their
knowledge, experience,
behaviors (and behavioral
influences), and perceptions
within their environment.

Faculty need knowledge and
skill to prevent, mitigate, or
intervene during moments of
microaggressions in the
classroom.
Procedural

Interview: describe their
knowledge, experience,
behaviors (and behavioral
influences), and perceptions
within their environment.

Faculty need increased
awareness of their own
microaggressions they may
unintentionally implement in
the classroom.
Procedural Interview: describe their
knowledge, experience,
behaviors (and behavioral
influences), and perceptions
within their environment.

Motivation
Assuming faculty have the knowledge to create safe spaces for all students, there must
also be a motivational element. Social cognitive theory asserts that knowledge is unlikely to be
demonstrated unless there is motivation to do so (Bandura, 2018; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020).
The principle of social cognitive theory is that it places the onus on individuals to shape
experiences and events (Bandura, 2012). Motivation is a relevant factor in creating positive
change for sexual and gender minority student success. Change is unlikely to happen even after
addressing all organizational and knowledge gaps. Clark and Estes (2008) assert that motivation
20

is not present until someone actively chooses to start a task, persists through the tasks, and exerts
the mental effort necessary to complete it. For faculty to assume their role in addressing sexual
and gender minority inequity, they must be motivated to do so.
Decisive internal processes that initiate and sustain motivational activities include goals,
self-evaluation, self-efficacy, social comparisons, self-regulation, values, outcome expectations,
and attributions (Bandura, 2018; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). If faculty are equipped with the
knowledge to confront microaggressions, adopt inclusive andragogical practices, and are
motivated to implement this knowledge, success is probable. Of the various processes significant
to motivation, an exploration of self-efficacy and situated expectancy value theory will be most
useful for the faculty stakeholder group. Assuming that the knowledge and skills are addressed,
one must then acknowledge the value of the skills as well as have the self-efficacy to implement
the skills in the classroom.
Self-Efficacy Theory
Because there are a variety of social cognitive theoretical perspectives, this section will
focus on the theory constructs introduced and expanded by Bandura (1986, 1997, 2001). One of
Bandura’s most significant developments within social cognitive theory was his publication on
self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy refers to one’s belief in their ability to execute
behaviors necessary to produce specific performance outcomes (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997).
The influence of self-efficacy is multifaceted and can be attributed to personal experiences as
well as to social comparisons such as feedback (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). Self-efficacy
theory is relevant to faculty and their ability to confront microaggressions, refrain from
committing microaggressions, and update curricula to be more inclusive. The motivation to do so
21

may expand into various levels within academia: the faculty member, the organization, and the
interaction between faculty colleagues.
According to Darby and Newman (2014), an individual is motivated when they actively
choose to instigate and sustain goal-directed activities. Motivational factors are internal
processes, but motivation is also influenced by external forces such as the social environment
(Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). More succinctly, motivation requires the presence of active
choice, persistence, and sustained mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). At the time of this study,
there were no known empirical studies examining faculty self-efficacy regarding sexual and
gender minority inclusivity or the identification and intervention of sexual and gender minority
microaggressions. Given that the literature states sexual and gender minority microaggressions
are still an issue in higher education and faculty behaviors directly influence campus climate,
faculty self-efficacy was a primary research interest in this study (Applebaum, 2019; Berk,
2017b; Dessel et al., 2017; Pitcher et al., 2018; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015; M. T. Williams,
2020). It is also established that the majority of faculty care about their students’ success and
wellbeing, and this has a notable impact on student engagement and motivation to learn (Meyers,
2009; Miller & Mills, 2019; Slate et al., 2011). Considering the relevant literature, faculty have
the motivation to ensure student success but may lack the knowledge or self-efficacy to cultivate
inclusivity for sexual and gender minority students. If faculty have higher levels of self-efficacy
regarding sexual and gender minority inclusion and microaggression intervention, it is
reasonable to expect that campus climate and student success for these students will improve
(Campbell-Whatley et al., 2015; Dessel et al., 2017; Garvey & Rankin, 2015; Pitcher et al., 2018;
Woodford et al., 2012).
22

Situated Expectancy Value Theory
Eccles et al. (1983) pioneered the expectancy value model surrounding achievement and
the choices that inform or dissuade that achievement. These researchers determined that one’s
expectancies for success are a significant factor in one’s choice, persistence, and effort in the
task or activity at hand (Eccles et al., 1983). Now labeled situated expectancy value theory
(SEVT) in contemporary research, the model also incorporates social cognition, developmental
sciences, and sociocultural perspectives into the original model (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). There
are many reciprocal links between self-efficacy theory and situated expectancy value theory,
though they are different in how beliefs are defined. At the forefront of psychological
determinants in SEVT is one’s beliefs about how well they will do in a given task or goal, also
referred to as self-efficacy. However, SEVT categorizes beliefs into three distinct types:
expectancies for success, academic self-concepts, and perceptions of task difficulty. While
related and interconnected, the researchers admit that it was an empirical mistake to view these
three distinct beliefs into one measurement, as was done previously (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020).
With three categories of beliefs informing SEVT, there is additional room for diagnoses
in perceived lack of ability or motivation. For example, when asked, “Can I do the task?” and
“Do I want to do the task?” an individual may believe they have the ability to succeed, but may
also believe the task is too challenging to warrant the time or sustained mental effort.
Nonetheless, if an individual can answer both questions with an assertive “yes,” the literature
posits that it would be reasonable to expect this individual to possess the values to persist
through a task and ultimately succeed (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020).
While internal values are significant in the SEVT model, external factors are relevant
influencers in motivation (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). Faculty members at higher education
23

institutions may be there for meaningful work in the public sector rather than pursue perhaps
more lucrative opportunities in the private sector. Jacobson (2011) further expands on this as he
posits those working in the public sector are generally motivated by factors such as meaning and
compassion for the public good. In other words, the altruistic motivation is present for a majority
of faculty, and most working in public sectors believe they are contributing to the betterment of
society. However, to the point of Eccles and Wigfield (2020), there are different types of beliefs.
Higher education institutions must emphasize the importance of values, cultural norms,
and moral obligation at the organizational level as these are considered primary external
motivational drivers (Jacobson, 2011). Under SEVT, the literature establishes that values present
a significant role in both motivation and achievement (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020; Schunk &
DiBenedetto, 2020). Operating under the assumption that the vast majority of faculty members
do value student success and equity, the gap may be less a motivational one and more related to
knowledge. However, to close gaps in knowledge, one must be motivated to do so. If institutions
value success and equity for the various marginalized student populations, then faculty may self-
regulate to identify whether there is a knowledge gap and then proceed to acquire new skills and
knowledge.
Table 2 illustrates the assumed motivational influences for faculty, accounting for both
situated expectancy value theory and self-efficacy. The assumed motivation influences build
upon the assumed knowledge influences outlined in Table 1. The motivational influence
assessment informs the survey questions distributed to faculty as part of this study.

24

Table 2
Motivation Influences and Assessment
Stakeholder Global Goal
Higher education faculty will improve perceived campus climate and sense of belonging for
sexual and gender minority college students.
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Value – Faculty need the personal
and organizational value to learning
more about sexual minority student
matters.

Interview: discuss and describe their experiences, the
experiences of other faculty members, and the role of
students within their environment.
Value – Faculty need the value of
increased training and skill
development in microaggression
awareness and intervention.
Interview: discuss and describe their experiences, the
experiences of other faculty members, and the role of
students within their environment.

Organizational Influences for Faculty and Campus Climate in Higher Education
For faculty members, meaning, purpose, and motivation can be significant factors beyond
salary. Moreover, even highly qualified faculty with notable motivation and knowledge may not
be as successful if they have inadequate organizational support. Clark and Estes (2008) assert
that common causes of performance gaps are organizational barriers such as ineffective work
processes or resources. Beyond resources and work processes, there is also a significant element
of organizational culture. Specifically, “organizational culture inevitably filters and affects all
attempts to improve performance, and successful performance improvement will depend on
taking the specific organizational culture into account” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 103). If job
satisfaction correlates with motivation and job satisfaction correlates with organizational culture,
it is plausible to assume that motivation is influenced by the organizational culture (Sarikaya &
Kara, 2020; Sezen-Gültekin et al., 2020).
25

Organizations that provide effective material resources and work processes are more
likely to have fewer performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). At the faculty level, material
resources such as classroom equipment and technology are a few of a multitude of tangible
supplies needed to achieve goals. Work processes in organizations are complex, as they involve
the system of interacting procedures, which informs how stakeholders produce a desired result
(Clark & Estes, 2008). The implications of misaligned work processes can significantly impair
work effectiveness. Within higher education, typical examples of prohibitive work processes—
often misaligned or in direct conflict with the organizational priorities—include a time-
prohibitive teaching load, lack of funding, and lack of institutional support for new initiatives
(Hardré, 2012). As a result, faculty may find organizational goals are irreconcilable with what
the organization provides to meet the goals. Cultural models and influences should be examined
to assess performance gaps at the organizational level.
There are statistically significant and high-level correlations between job satisfaction and
organizational trust and support for faculty (Sarikaya & Kara, 2020). Moreover, there is
complementary research demonstrating that public service professionals with high levels of job
satisfaction are more motivated to perform their jobs beyond the scope of the job description
prescribed by the organization (Sunaryo & Suyono, 2013). Such findings imply that faculty
motivation and their ability to succeed are somewhat dependent on the organizations.
Additionally, both internal and external factors influence self-efficacy, which presents
organizational implications. When faculty members are acknowledged for their work or
accomplishments through specific and timely private feedback, their self-efficacy and
performance improve (Bandura, 2012; Saks & Gruman, 2009). When faculty members
experience job dissatisfaction or lack of motivation, there is likely an external cause. Common
26

external factors may include a multitude of organizational barriers such as lack of promotion or
retention, inequitable tenure review process, lack of autonomy to make decisions; lack of
recognition or feedback, lack of meaningful training and professional development, and campus
climate (Jacobson, 2011; Sarikaya & Kara, 2020; Sunaryo & Suyono, 2013).
Organizational Value of Sexual and gender minority Inclusivity
The mission statement shapes organizational values, the administrators’ modeling and
actions, and the various stakeholders within the organization (Applebaum, 2019). Ideally, the
organizational priorities and initiatives then cascade from these values (Clark & Estes, 2008).
However, various studies found that mission statements often reference diversity but do not
translate to students’ and faculty’s lived experiences (Graham et al., 2017; Wilson et al., 2012).
Applebaum (2019) noted that no matter how comprehensive a mission or diversity statement
may be, it will not do anything to disrupt the dominant and exclusionary norms without
deliberate action. Sensoy and Angelo (2017) posited a profound question: “while most
universities have responded with declarations of ‘valuing diversity,’ and some with pledges and
specialized programs, why have they overwhelmingly still not achieved these goals?” (p. 558).
Consequently, the discussion herein is not whether higher institutions value diversity and
inclusivity but an examination of the disconnect between stated values and actual impacts on
campus climate and inclusivity.
Faculty have a variety of professional development opportunities. The majority of faculty
perceive the training offerings as of minimal value to their development (Darby & Newman,
2014; Hardré, 2012). Most higher education institutions offer some form of training that
addresses inclusivity for minority populations, implicit bias, or ally training (Woodford et al.,
2014). It is probable to assume that since the 2014 study, more higher education institutions have
27

incorporated diversity training on their campuses. Regarding sexual and gender minority
inclusivity and safe space training, very few institutions mandate such programs for faculty
(Woodford et al., 2014). While these training sessions are a worthy addition, researchers assert
they are either ineffective or not enough (Applebaum, 2019; Ballard et al., 2008; DeVita &
Anders, 2018). Emerging research shows that while there is value in the current safe space
training, more attention needs to be focused on the negative impact of microaggressions and how
to mitigate, prevent, or intervene when they occur in the classroom (Berk, 2017a; Casanova et
al., 2018; Ogunyemi et al., 2019; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015; M. T. Williams, 2020).
Studies found that the most common response from faculty members observing a
microaggression is to do nothing, otherwise known as the bystander bias (Berk, 2017c; Dessel et
al., 2017). To disrupt the current problem, scholars call for mandatory training for all faculty or
anyone who has regular contact with students to build awareness of microaggressions in both
verbal and nonverbal forms (Berk, 2017c; Ogunyemi et al., 2019). Suárez-Orozco et al. (2015)
asserted that this is essential because the most common aggressors are faculty members. The
emerging literature in microaggressions and microaggression awareness training indicates strong
promise in addressing campus climate and inclusivity, particularly for sexual and racial
minorities. However, Lilienfeld (2017) criticized microaggression research, considering it
underdeveloped and lacking conceptual and methodological validity.
Despite some scholarly opposition, the preponderance of literature finds that
microaggression intervention training improves campus climate (Applebaum, 2019; Ballard et
al., 2008; Berk, 2017a; DeVita & Anders, 2018; Kearns et al., 2014a; Woodford et al., 2014).
Awareness of microaggressions alone could have a significant impact on campus climate, as
faculty are often the aggressors (Berk, 2017a, 2017c). Such awareness allows faculty to be more
28

cognizant of microaggressions when they happen in the classroom in real-time so that an
appropriate response can occur (Ogunyemi et al., 2019).
It is essential to note that this attention to inclusivity for sexual and gender minority
students and the campus community expands beyond the faculty stakeholder group. It permeates
all facets of higher education institutions, including hiring practices, leadership, staff, facilities,
and curriculum (Berk, 2017c; Hughes & Hurtado, 2018; Pitcher et al., 2018). Organizations that
genuinely value inclusivity, diversity, and equity must expand beyond the written mission
statement and pursue specific and sustained initiatives that produce actionable results. No
individual faculty member can change the campus climate, but campus climate improves one
faculty member and one classroom at a time.
Organizational Resources for Inclusive Instruction
While the majority of empirical studies examine campus climate, academic achievement,
harassment and microaggressions, and the lived experiences of sexual and gender minority
college students, there is less research on where students turn to for support on campus. Learning
where students turn to for support may illuminate organizational resource options. Pitcher et al.
(2018) provide a detailed study that introduces new information regarding where sexual and
gender minority students seek support on their campus. All of the student support options are
organizational resources, and this section will highlight three promising options.
Access to Effective Faculty Training. Knowledge in the field(s) in which faculty are
hired to teach is typically not a gap to be addressed. However, knowledge in their fields differs
from knowledge in teaching and andragogy; the majority of faculty have little to no training in
effective teaching (Ahn, 2018). Lack of pedagogical training presents a call to organizations to
provide resources to address a knowledge gap present in most teachers. Lester et al. (2017)
29

outlined that many faculty members lack a fundamental understanding of classroom management
strategies, which is a factor in campus climate. The more training can focus on teaching practices
and andragogy, the more self-efficacious the faculty member will feel (Bandura, 2012; Darby &
Newman, 2014). Beyond general andragogical knowledge, faculty must be trained on
microaggressions and the specific needs and concerns of sexual and gender minority students.
Ideally, these training sessions must be part of a routine regimen and not an optional or elective
training option. When students are in a class taught by a capable, effective, and inclusive faculty
member, their achievement is more attainable, and campus climate improves (Berk, 2017b; Slate
et al., 2011; Thirolf, 2017).
Sexual and Gender Minority Resource Center for Students and Faculty. Pitcher et al.
(2018) examined differentiated support systems provided through sexual and gender minority
resource centers. Additional literature further emphasizes the need for resource centers to
significantly impact campus climate and achievement for sexual and gender minority students
(Fine, 2012; Garvey & Rankin, 2015). Some resource centers are entirely virtual, such as a
website, while others are a physical space on campus. These centers provide a variety of
resources such as advising, referrals to mental or sexual health programs, leadership
development for students and faculty, and training and advocacy for the broader campus
community about sexual and gender minority challenges. Sexual and gender minority resource
centers also help initiate self-organization, such as through clubs, social outings, on-campus
social or educational events, or advocacy.
For faculty, such centers could be a useful organizational resource to help them better
serve sexual and gender minority students. They may feel more comfortable and willing to help a
student if the faculty member knows where to seek further information or where to refer the
30

student for additional assistance (Effrig et al., 2011; Lester et al., 2016). Additionally, faculty
have a designated space on campus to refer to for assistance with sexual and gender minority
topics. As an anecdotal example, the coach of a women’s college team may not know how to
navigate a same-gender rooming policy for an overnight trip with a transgender teammate. A
specialized resource center could help faculty serve students more impactfully.
Despite the utility of sexual and gender minority resource centers, they are mostly absent
in the higher education landscape. In a 2018 study, there were 196 sexual and gender minority
resource centers (under various names and acronyms) out of 4,360 (4.58%) degree-granting
postsecondary institutions in the United States (Consortium of Higher Education LGBT
Resource Professionals, 2018). While there are a variety of factors that may influence whether or
not an institution decides to open a designated space for sexual and gender minority resources,
common factors may include financial restraints, political climate, and whether or not the
institution has a religious affiliation (Ecker et al., 2015).
Affirming Academic Policies for Sexual and Gender Minority Students. A definitive
way to ensure a better campus climate for sexual and gender minority students is to have
affirming policies such as nondiscrimination statements that include sexual orientation and
gender identity or expression (Pitcher et al., 2018). Like mission statements, the words alone do
not translate to action without leaders’ implementation that permeates the organization. While
inclusive nondiscrimination statements do not prevent discrimination or microaggressions, they
provide an avenue for recourse if necessary. Sexual and gender minority students who attend
college campuses with affirming policies and resource centers have a higher sense of belonging
and a positive association with campus climate (DeVita & Anders, 2018; Garvey & Rankin,
2015; Pitcher et al., 2018). Under federal law, there are nine protected classes: sex, race, age,
31

disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, and genetic information (U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, 2020). However, individual states or organizations may
choose to include other identity classes such as, for example, gender identity, pregnancy, sexual
orientation, ancestry, or marital status.
Table 3 provides a summary of the organizational influences that interact with the
assumed knowledge and motivation influences. The organizational influences impact faculty
members’ ability to better serve sexual and gender minority students and improve campus
climate.

Table 3
Organization Influences and Assessment
Stakeholder Global Goal
Higher education faculty will improve perceived campus climate and sense of
belonging for sexual and gender minority college students.
Assumed Organizational
Influences
Organizational Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1: The
organization needs to see the value in sexual
and gender minority inclusivity throughout
the campus community.
Interview: describe and discuss
personal experiences, along with the
experiences of other faculty, of
teaching sexual and gender minority
students on their campus.

Cultural Setting Influence 2: The
organization needs to provide effective
training to better support sexual and gender
minority college students.
Interview: describe and discuss
personal experiences, along with the
experiences of other faculty, of
teaching sexual and gender minority
students on their campus.

Cultural Setting Influence 1: The
organization needs to provide a sexual and
gender minority resource option for both
students and faculty.
Interview: describe and discuss
personal experiences, along with the
experiences of other faculty, of
teaching sexual and gender minority
students on their campus.

32

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Faculty Knowledge, Motivation and
Organizational Variables
The previous sections reviewed the literature to inform and contextualize the problem and
to outline Clark and Estes’s (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational variables
framework. However, it must be noted that knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources
continually influence each other and are not isolated variables. To guide this study, a conceptual
framework was developed based on the literature and theoretical framework. The conceptual
framework reflects the dynamic interactions between Clark and Estes’s variables, an
understanding of the problem, self-efficacy theory, and situated expectancy value theory.
According to Maxwell (2013), the conceptual framework is constructed based on the literature to
support and inform the research design. The conceptual framework may illustrate the
interconnectedness or interactions within the research findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Additionally, the development of a visual design framework early in the research process assists
with understanding the variables being studied.
This study examined the relationships between faculty and the perceived campus climate
and a sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority college students. The literature suggests
that faculty are the most influential stakeholders in student success, sense of belonging, and
campus climate (Ballard et al., 2008; DeVita & Anders, 2018; Lester et al., 2017; Linley et al.,
2016; Woodford et al., 2015). The research further suggests that faculty members lack the
organizational resources and knowledge necessary to serve sexual and gender minority college
students equitably (Applebaum, 2019; Berk, 2017b; DeVita & Anders, 2018; Kearns et al.,
2014a; Woodford et al., 2014).
33

This inquiry sought to understand how faculty view themselves and their role in campus
climate, student achievement, and sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority students.
An examination of faculty self-efficacy regarding microaggression intervention and other safe
space strategies provides additional information regarding knowledge and motivation. The study
also explored how organizational resources may help or hinder faculty in better serving these
students.
Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the conceptual framework that includes
possible influences, initial assumptions, and feasible relationships between the variables.

Figure 1
Faculty, Student, and College Variables: Conceptual Framework

34

Because there is limited research from the faculty perspective, the primary purpose was
to gain a better understanding of their lived experience as it relates to the instruction of sexual
and gender minority students. To make sense of their lived experience, the data were viewed
through a gap analysis lens informed by the theories of self-efficacy and situated expectancy
value theory. Guided by the conceptual framework, the study sought to learn more about faculty
self-efficacy and how their role contributes to the overall campus climate, thereby potentially
mitigating inequities for sexual and gender minority students. The literature states that faculty are
a significant stakeholder in campus climate, student achievement, and helping students feel they
belong on campus. The research also found that faculty may not be aware of how best to serve
sexual and gender minority students and are often unintentional aggressors. By examining
faculty knowledge and motivation gaps as well as the gaps in organizational resources, the study
sought to provide a better understanding of this phenomenon and unveil the essence of the
faculty experience. Doing so may yield solutions to make college campuses more welcoming for
sexual and gender minority students to ensure an equitable pathway for their success. The
findings may also provide further context for additional quantitative or qualitative research as
part of a systemic problem-solving solution. Chapter Three will describe the methodological
approach for this phenomenological study.

35

Chapter Three: Methodology
As discussed in the literature review, the majority of research focuses on student
experiences. Due to the lack of literature on the lived experience of faculty regarding
microaggressions, a qualitative phenomenological study is most appropriate to build a better
understanding based on what data analysis reveals (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This
exploratory study examined faculty perceptions, knowledge, and motivation as they relate to
their work with sexual and gender minority students and sought to understand their knowledge
and motivation regarding their contributions to campus climate. The conceptual framework
influencing this study references Clark and Estes’s (2008) broad categories of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational variables that influence faculty ability and performance. After a
comprehensive review of the literature and reconciliation with the conceptual framework, a
guiding research question and sub-question developed:
• Guiding Question: What are the lived experiences of faculty regarding campus climate
and microaggressions?
• Sub-Question: What knowledge, motivation, or organizational variables are involved
regarding how faculty are equipped to serve sexual and gender minority college students?
By considering these questions, this study’s desired outcome was to provide the essence
of the faculty experience as it relates to working with sexual and gender minority students. It was
also desired that the findings would complement current literature with added insight from the
lived experience of higher education faculty and provide possible systemic change to remedy
sexual and gender minority inequities on the college campus.

36

Faculty Sampling, Population, Strategy, and Rationale
The challenge with this study was that the stakeholder population exceeds 1.5 million
individuals (National Center for Education Statistics, 2018). With such a large population,
quantitative survey research may yield more participant data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
However, qualitative research is most appropriate to capture faculty members’ lived experiences
as there is nominal research to understand the problem through the faculty lens (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Therefore, interviews were the method of inquiry for this study. With data
collection design informed by the principles of phenomenological research, the goal was to
collect data to better understand the nature of the problem through the faculty experience
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Sampling criteria focused on specific faculty to learn from those who
may offer rich data. Interviews occurred until saturation, or redundancy point, was reached.
Fifteen interviews were conducted.
Given that this problem of practice is evident nationwide, I aimed to sample faculty from
various higher education institutions rather than focusing on one study site. Additionally, ideas
regarding inclusive curriculum may vary across disciplines. To ensure cross-section mindfulness
and diverse data, I recruited participants from various disciplines. However, discipline or
concentration area was not an established sampling criterion. Faculty sampling was based on
three criteria.
I leveraged a nationwide network of higher education administrators to assist in
identifying potential and willing participants. I was confident that this recruitment method alone
would yield enough participants. To protect individual privacy, I provided participants
information to encourage them to forward to others who may be interested or eligible to
participate in the study.
37

Criterion 1
The first criterion was employment status. While adjunct faculty are critical to our higher
education infrastructure, only full-time faculty were included in this study. According to the
National Center for Education Statistics (2018), of the 1.5 million faculty, 54% are full-time.
Full-time professors have more contact time with students, and time spent on campus provides
greater potentiality for campus climate influence. The literature considered in this study focused
solely on higher education institutions in the United States and, accordingly, participants were
full-time faculty working in said institutions.
Criterion 2
The second criterion was training and ally identity. This study included only full-time
faculty members who had not already completed a safe zone, safe space, ally, or similar sexual
and gender minority training programs. Faculty members who completed this training likely
create a stronger sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority students, even if just by
displaying a safe space sticker on their office door (Katz et al., 2016).
Criterion 3
The third criterion was geographic distribution. To ensure greater data credibility, there
was even geographic distribution among the four U.S. Census Bureau (2010) regions, which are
the West, Midwest, South, and Northeast. The literature suggests that campus climate and
political environment are correlated (Ballard et al., 2008; Craig et al., 2017; Dessel et al., 2017;
DeVita & Anders, 2018; Fine, 2012; Kearns et al., 2014a; Pitcher et al., 2018). To avoid ethical
implications, the sampling consisted of participants from various regions of the United States
rather than states anecdotally considered red or blue.

38

Data Collection and Instrumentation
Under ideal conditions, interviewing participants in person would be preferred. In-class
observations would also be preferred to bolster the interview data (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). However, due to the pandemic occurring at the time of this study, online video
conferencing interviews were the only data collection procedure. Additionally, with a sample
population across the United States, online interviews provided greater efficiency and mitigated
travel costs. As is familiar with qualitative research, the researcher serves as the key instrument
in data collection and interpretation (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). These in-depth one-on-one
interviews with faculty members occurred after thoughtful sampling, as outlined later in this
chapter.
Each participant was interviewed in one 60-minute session. Interviewees were
purposefully selected through a defined sampling and recruitment procedure, as described in this
chapter. Fifteen interviews were conducted. When incoming data no longer yields new insights,
the data are deemed saturated and the sample is considered adequate (Creswell & Creswell,
2018; Maxwell, 2013). Due to the online interview format, it was anticipated that recruitment
and availability would create greater accessibility for participants. Interviews were only
conducted with participants who met the sampling criteria and were not involved with my
current or past organizations to prevent compromising the data.
The interview questions are aligned with the guiding research questions of this study and
the conceptual framework. The interview questions were designed to arrive at the essence of the
faculty experience regarding sexual and gender minority student instruction through the gap
analysis lens of knowledge and motivation informed by the theories of self-efficacy and situated
expectancy value theory. The questions also explored some of the possible organizational
39

barriers faculty may face even if knowledgeable and motivated. The format was loosely
structured to allow rich data collection from the participants (Peoples, 2021). The interviews
followed a skeletal framework to collect the minimum amount of data necessary while allowing
space to curate other data for additional context and understanding (Maxwell, 2013). The
interview protocol framework included the following elements: (a) basic information about the
interview, (b) introduction and establishing rapport, (c) opening question, (d) designed content
questions, (e) follow-up probes and clarifying questions, and (f) closing instructions (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). A table connecting the designed content questions in alignment with the
research questions is listed in Appendix A. The interview protocol is provided in Appendix B.
To generate the interview protocol, pilot interviews were conducted to measure interview
duration, clarity of questions, and whether the questions yielded rich and relevant data. The
preliminary pilot helped formulate the questions presented in Appendix A and the protocols
outlined in Appendix B. An additional pilot was conducted with two participants to make final
revisions to the questions or protocol. The two participants were colleagues at the same worksite
as me; they were not a part of the sample population.
Data Analysis
Data analysis began during data collection. The simultaneous procedure of study
development, data collection, and analysis is common in qualitative research (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). After each interview, I documented reflective commentary prudent to the study,
such as initial conclusions, thoughts, and concerns. After the documentation of my post-
interview reflection memo, further data analyses occurred. Each interview was transcribed to
provide a written document to accompany the video recording. The interview recording,
transcript, and reflection memos were collected and stored in one folder identified only by the
40

interview participant’s pseudonym. These folders were stored on an encrypted, password-
protected, and two-factor authentication cloud server.
Phenomenological research guided the analysis procedures for this study. The ultimate
goal of phenomenological research is to arrive at the essence of experience as described by the
participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Detailed data analysis involves multiple levels of
examination and interpretation (Maxwell, 2013). First, I reviewed all of the data to gain a broad
understanding and take general notes on impressions, questions, and preliminary themes; coding
began henceforth. Coding includes assigning data into specific categories such as expected
codes, surprising codes, or unusual codes (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). As previously described,
the coding structure was informed by the gap analysis framework of Clark and Estes (2008),
though the data itself dictated the thematic clusters. Based on the codes from the interview data,
meaning and essence provided the participants’ interconnected narratives (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). After codes and themes were established, detailed descriptions of faculty experience
guide the findings. Remarkable statements from the participants, themes on meaning and value,
and other data points were aligned with theoretical codes informed by the conceptual framework.
In Chapter Two, the literature illuminated the problems facing sexual and gender
minority students and how faculty might contribute to the problem or solution. Similarly, the
analysis procedures for this study sought to underscore lived experience, meaning, and
commonalities amongst faculty. A phenomenological approach provided a more profound and
holistic understanding of the problem (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
While this study intended to investigate answers to the guiding research questions, there was the
potential for some to go unanswered. Nonetheless, the data provided a meaningful context for
further inquiry.
41

Data Credibility, Authenticity, and Trustworthiness
Presenting truthful and accurate findings was this study’s guiding principle. There were
various qualitative validity strategies to ensure credibility, authenticity, and trustworthiness:
triangulation, member checking, detailed description, reflexivity, peer debriefing, and the
presentation of discrepant information (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). For this particular study, three primary validity strategies were utilized:
triangulation, member checking, and reflexivity.
Triangulation is a multifaceted strategy that employs multiple data sources, utilizes
varying data collection methods, and considers multiple themes and theories (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I triangulated data by interviewing diverse
participants. Additionally, the nature of in-person open-ended interviews allowed for different
data collection methods through probing questions and follow-up discussions. After the
interviews, I also compared the interview data with the participant’s institutional documentation.
Examples of cross-checking documentation include the institution’s mission statement, values,
strategic plan, faculty ethical or policy guidelines, or academic policies related to sexual and
gender minority students.
Member checking is another validity procedure to ensure authenticity and trustworthiness
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). After the data collection, the interview participants received a
preliminary data report to ensure the data were captured authentically and accurately. The
preliminary data report included the major findings, themes, analyses, and descriptions based on
the interview data. All participants had the opportunity to provide feedback and comment on the
findings. Performing this respondent validation allowed me to identify misinterpretations and
biases (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
42

Reflexivity ensures data integrity and trustworthiness, especially when the researcher
serves as the primary data collection instrument (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). It is likely that the researcher will have some sort of influence or may be affected by the
data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I spent considerable time reflecting on assumptions,
positionality, experiences, and beliefs to ensure accuracy and trustworthiness. Constant
reflexivity awareness throughout the data collection and analysis process ensures that the
interpretations and thematic coding are absent of researcher bias (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Chapter Four. Furthermore, data authenticity, credibility, and trustworthiness rely on the
researcher's ethics and research design (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Notwithstanding, I discuss
assumptions, experiences, and beliefs concurrently with the presentation and data analysis in
Ethics
Ethical considerations have shaped the overall study design. Open-ended interviews are
most appropriate to capture the faculty members’ lived experiences and to study their influences
on campus climate and sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority students. The outlined
data collection method sought to curate meaningful data to understand the problem and identify
possible solutions. As is common in qualitative research, ethical implications are likely to
present themselves in the data collection phase (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I designed a study
that attempted to mitigate common ethical dilemmas such as researcher-participant relations,
research purpose disclosure, protection from harm, and privacy (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Stakeholder sampling ensured participants were not under any actual or perceived power
by me. Additionally, the study did not include participants in the same workplace as me. The
sampling process ensured that the interview participants could offer transparent and honest data
without fear of coercion, power dynamic, or retaliation. As a further layer of privacy to protect
43

them, the names of their institution was not disclosed. The participant selection process ensured
protection from harm and eliminated inappropriate researcher-participant relations, which may
call the results into question (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Due to the large sample population,
were not used. Doing so also eliminated indications of coercion.
All participants received an informed consent form. The informed consent form included
essential information, such as the research purpose and procedures. Most importantly, it
informed the participants that their involvement in the study was entirely voluntary and could be
discontinued. One of the ethical considerations in debate amongst researchers is determining
how detailed the disclosure should be, as it may prime the participant for bias (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The informed consent form included an abridged version of the
problem of practice and purpose of the study included in Chapter One. The informed consent
information sheet is included in Appendix C.
The interviews occurred on the Zoom internet video conferencing platform. The Zoom
platform provides secure and encrypted video conferencing features. The interviews’ audio and
video components were recorded and secured on the Zoom server, which was also under a
password-protected and encrypted cloud server. Recording permission was obtained through
written consent before the interview and verbal consent at the beginning of the interview. To
protect the participant’s identity, their name was removed from the Zoom display so that it was
not recorded in the video. Notes taken during the interview were documented in a password-
protected, two-factor authentication folder in Evernote. No handwritten notes, which are the least
secure form of research notes, were taken during the interviews. The data collection and storage
procedures ensured participant privacy and protection from harm.
Limitations and Delimitations
44

I made significant efforts to ensure credibility and reliability in the study design and
implementation. Interviews assist in credibility and reliability, as they represent the participants’
perspectives and experiences. While it was expected that the participants would respond
truthfully without reserve, this was beyond my control. Qualitative methods, such as member
checking, reflexivity, and triangulation were utilized to ensure data credibility. Through the
literature review and subsequent study design, multiple problem influencers were considered.
However, this study was nonetheless limited to the research questions.
Qualitative studies seldom aspire to present generalizable findings; qualitative studies
intend to offer rich descriptions of social phenomena (Maxwell, 2013). The stakeholder
population is immense, and it is not practical to interview a sample that would lead to credible
generalizability. Consequently, the data collected in this study were limited in generalizability to
other populations despite thoughtful participant sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Summary
This qualitative study aimed to understand the lived experience of faculty as it relates to
their instruction of sexual and gender minority students. Influences that lead to adverse campus
climate, academic achievement gaps, and a lack of sense of belonging for sexual and gender
minority college students were explored through the guiding conceptual framework. By
interviewing faculty, the goal was to arrive at the essence of the phenomenon to guide further
research or develop into a human performance improvement study. The research questions for
this study are based on a review of the literature that considers a multifaceted view of the
problem and the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that perpetuate
the problem. The corresponding research questions align with a qualitative approach using open-
ended interviews to generate pertinent data. The data were collected using in-depth, open-ended
45

interviews with 15 purposefully selected participants. Explication of the data through a
phenomenological research paradigm yielded meaningful understanding, context, and lived
experiences, which served to best address the findings comprehensively (Creswell & Creswell,
2018; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

46

Chapter Four: Findings
This study focused on faculty’s lived experiences as they relate to their work with sexual
and gender minority students through a gap analysis lens to understand how their perceived role
contributes to the overall campus climate. This study was informed by phenomenological
principles and had one primary guiding question: What are the lived experiences of faculty
regarding campus climate and microaggressions? From this guiding question, there is a sub-
question to frame findings in alignment with the conceptual framework to generate
recommendations or possible solutions: What knowledge, motivation, or organizational variables
are involved regarding how faculty are equipped to serve sexual and gender minority college
students? This chapter examines the participants' demographic information and outlines the
themes and notable findings that emerged from the study.
Participants
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all interviews were held virtually on a
videoconferencing platform. This allowed for broad reach across time zones and geographic
locations. Given the large study population, the purpose was to interview enough faculty
representing various demographic regions of the United States while also ensuring a broad
representation of disciplines. As part of the recruitment process, care was given to ensure equal
representation across all census-designated regions (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Additionally,
participants represent disciplines ranging from music to environmental science. In total, 15
interviews were completed. Table 4 outlines the demographics of the research participants in
more detail.

47

Table 4
Participants’ Demographic Characteristics
Census
Region
Discipline Institution
Type
Age
Participant 1 South Mathematics Public 61
Participant 2 Midwest Art History Public 47
Participant 3 Northeast Physics 2-Year 35
Participant 4 West Business
Administration
Private 38
Participant 5 Midwest English 2-Year 58
Participant 6 South Civil Engineering Public 52
Participant 7 West Music Public 41
Participant 8 Northeast Elementary Education Private 33
Participant 9 Midwest Biology 2-Year 29
Participant 10 Northeast Theology Private 64
Participant 11 Northeast Philosophy 2-Year 44
Participant 12 West Communications 2-Year 32
Participant 13 South Anthropology Private 63
Participant 14 Midwest Political Science Public 53
Participant 15 West Criminal Justice Public 49

Note. 2-Year is an umbrella term referring to junior colleges, community colleges, or other
transfer institutions.

48

Data Collection
As discussed in Chapter Three, there was no established set number of interview
participants at the outset of the study. Instead, the methodology was to continue recruiting
participants until data redundancy seemed apparent. For this study, that amounted to 15
participants, though data redundancy was reached sooner. However, to ensure both discipline
diversity and representation across institution types and regions, all interviews were conducted.
Interviews were held solely on video conferencing; there was no central physical location
where participant and I were together. In almost all cases, the interview took place in my and the
participant’s respective dwellings. As outlined in Chapter Three, the interviews were recorded
using the videoconferencing software in both audio and video form. The videoconferencing
software also generated artificial intelligence-generated transcripts, which have an approximately
70% accuracy rate, per the videoconferencing provider. After each interview, I reviewed the
automated transcript and audio recording to make edits for accuracy.
Not discussed in Chapter Three were the possible technical limitations or distracting
environments as inherent in a remote setting. For example, one participant lost internet
connection in the middle of responding to a question. It took nearly a half-hour to establish a new
connection. Other examples were children or pets interrupting the interview. These interruptions,
albeit brief, did seem to cause some participants to forget what they were saying or what they
had intended to say. In retrospect, I recognize these small interruptions are common in a remote
setting. Despite the unanticipated disruptions, rich data were collected to answer the study’s
guiding question and sub-question.

49

Guiding Question Findings
To cull the richest data possible, this study's guiding question sought to understand
faculty’s lived experience as it relates to microaggressions and campus climate. As discussed in
Chapter Two, this question is essential to ask, as the literature is abundant in capturing students'
lived experience, but few studies examine the faculty role. Interview questions asked participants
to reflect on their past, present, and future; doing so provides space to capture rich data regarding
lived experience (Peoples, 2021). Helping participants connect to their lived experience provided
illuminating data that may provide further context for the sub-question addressed later in this
chapter.
Four overall themes emerged from the data to address the study’s guiding question. The
first theme involved participants’ lived experience, as former students, connecting with a
particular class or instructor. The second theme centered on self-efficacy in the participants’
abilities to influence campus climate. The third theme involved their current or past experience
in responding to inappropriate behavior in the classroom. The fourth theme was how they might
respond if they heard the phrase “that’s so gay” in the classroom.
Reflecting as Former Students
Every participant discussed how a prior instructor helped them connect with or engage
more with the class materials. When participants were asked to recall a prior time when, as
students, they could more meaningfully connect with the class or materials, all looked back on a
particular instructor with fondness and gratitude. Participant 1, now a mathematics professor,
shared that it was one of their math professors that changed the course of their life. Participant 1
remarked, “It wasn’t until I had a math professor that really helped me believe that this was
50

something I could do that I decided to switch my major to math.” Participant 4, now a business
professor, shared how a professor inspired them to change majors:
It wasn’t until I took a business finance course and had a brilliant instructor, and she was
actually the first female professor I had had. She really took the time to connect with me
and mentor me, and I think, for that reason alone, I just decided to switch to a business
major because I wanted to be just like her. I wanted to learn more from her, and she
became a great role model and mentor for me—even to this day.
Other participants shared similar stories regarding the critical role an educator played in
their life trajectory, one saying, “My music professor saved my life.” These findings connect to
what other participants shared in response to this same question in that their instructors cultivated
a sense of community or belonging. Many participants shared how professors helped them feel
as though they belonged, felt safe, and felt welcomed. Participant 11 shared,
[The professor] held these after class kind of events like tutoring hours, and I was always
amazed how many people would show up. It was really fun and sometimes he would
provide pizza or do some sort of things outside the classroom just really to kind of feel
like it was some sort of like club almost that anyone could participate in. It just felt like
my family in many ways.
Other participants mentioned similar experiences of their former instructors’ cultivating a
community through clubs, events, or activities during class time. A participant shared that one of
their former professors would acknowledge every student’s birthdays and that it left a lasting
impression. This participant added, “It got to the point where we would all dress up when it was
our birthdays because we knew we would be celebrated. It was such a remarkable thing.”
Another participant shared the professor organized optional field trips. However, even though
51

they were optional, everyone attended and arranged carpooling: “When I look back, I am amazed
that at every optional field trip or event, 100% of the class would show up, and we’d all help
each other with rides to get there.”
The results were that, for all participants, there was one or multiple instructors in their
lives who profoundly impacted their sense of belonging and ability to connect more
meaningfully with the class material. Compared to other areas of the interview, these findings
contradict participants’ view that they have the same ability to influence their students’ sense of
belonging.
Self-Efficacy and Campus Climate
Despite recalling specific moments when a previous instructor positively influenced
campus climate, the participants did not believe they had the same agentive ability. The vast
majority of participants did not believe they had the ability to influence their campus climate in
positive ways.
Of the 15 participants, only two expressed views that they had agency and ability in
shaping campus climate for their students or institutions at large. Participant 7 remarked,
I absolutely shape the campus climate of my institution. It all starts in the classroom. It’s
for that reason that I believe that my role as a faculty member is so crucial in ensuring
students feel as though they belong here.
Another participant shared similar sentiments, adding that they view their role as “essential” in
contributing to the overall campus climate.
In contrast, the remaining 13 participants shared less than optimistic views regarding
their agency and ability to influence campus climate. The participant who shared the inspiring
story of switching to a math major and become a math professor shared, “I don’t think I can do
52

much to contribute to the overall campus climate.” Another participant shared, “I have very little
ability in impacting the overall campus climate in positive ways even though I certainly do try to
in my classroom.” Other participants remarked that faculty do not play any role in campus
climate and instead pointed to executive or senior leadership, with one expressing, “I can’t do
anything if we have a college president who doesn’t value a positive climate.”
The data demonstrate a disconnect between what the participants personally experienced
and their ability to recreate that same experience for their students. The contrast in the data is a
key item of discussion in Chapter Five's recommendations section. Additionally, a second theme
of addressing inappropriate behavior that emerged from the data analysis may provide additional
context.
Recalling Past Experience of Addressing Inappropriate Behavior
Every participant was able to recall a moment in their classrooms where inappropriate
language or behavior was exhibited. When asked how they responded to inappropriate behavior,
nine participants' most common response was to ignore the behavior selectively. When
participants were asked why they chose to ignore the behavior selectively, the most common
response shared by six participants was that addressing the behavior may create an even further
distraction in the class. The other three participants shared different rationales. One stated that
selective ignoring is almost always the preferred intervention unless there is clear harm being
done. Another participant shared, “Unless it’s something like cheating or plagiarism, I’ve
admittedly opted to do nothing.”
Only six participants indicated that they would do something other than selectively ignore
the behavior. Participant 5 recalled a specific example and shared how they responded:
53

For example, we were recently discussing Paul Laurence Dunbar, a Black poet and
author, and one of my students discussed how it was essential that is part of the analysis
of the literature. That those analyzing need to be aware of the strife of being Black during
that time. A student interjected, “Why do Black people have to make everything about
race?’ Now, this happened quite a few years ago before the [Black Lives Matter]
movement even existed and, of course, I found that incredibly inappropriate, and I told
that student that he needed to apologize and excuse himself from the class.
Another participant who taught art history shared how covering Greek art that depicts
same-sex intimacy often elicits inappropriate behavior, particularly from males in the class. The
participant remarked that words such as “faggot” and “gay propaganda” have been spoken in
class, and they addressed it firmly. Their rationale was that “it’s really for everyone else in the
room. They need to know that I do not tolerate that.” An anthropology professor shared a similar
story. This participant described that when the class has discussions on the anthropological
concepts of race or sexuality, it is not uncommon for there to be an outburst from a student.
When asked how this participant responds to such outbursts, they shared, “I shut it down
immediately and tell them they are welcome to drop the course if having academic discussions
on anthropology are uncomfortable for them.”
Overall, the majority of participants indicated that the default response is to do nothing.
Only a few participants indicated they would do something to intervene, depending on the
behavior. The theme of behavior intervention, or lack thereof, relates to the final theme that
emerged under this study's guiding question.
54

Hypothetical Response to Microaggressions
The majority of participants were unable to describe what they would do in a hypothetical
situation if they heard the phrase “that’s so gay” exclaimed in their classroom. Rather than
sharing what they would do in a hypothetical future incident, eight participants reflected on what
they have done in an actual incident, indicating hearing that the phrase “that’s so gay” is still
pervasive.
Asking participants what they might do if they heard the phrase caused some to feel
shame or guilt based on past experiences. One participant shared, “The hard truth is that I have
heard that in my class, and I did nothing. I pretended to not hear it. And I guess I’m a little
ashamed to look back now and say I didn’t do anything.” Another participant shared similar
sentiments: “I’ve heard that in my classroom before, and it does enter my headspace from time to
time. I wish I said or did something, but I didn’t.” Other participants shared that when they heard
the phrase “that’s so gay” in their classroom, they experienced debilitating uncertainty; words
such as “frozen,” “anxious,” “shocked,” and “numbed” were commonly used.
The other six participants who had not encountered the harmful phrase in their classes
previously unanimously shared that they would not know what to do. The participants provided a
hypothetical response and then admitted they would be unlikely to do that in a real situation. The
two participants who provided hypothetical responses shared common intervention strategies
taught by ally training programs, such as simply saying, “What you just said is not okay,” or “I
know you didn’t intend to use that word in a hurtful way. Could you please come up with
another way of expressing that?” One participant declined to discuss this question. The findings
regarding this theme connect to the other themes that emerged when seeking to better understand
faculty’s lived experiences regarding microaggressions.
55

Summary of Guiding Question Findings
This study yielded rich data from the 15 faculty participants. After the first few
interviews, the data started to converge into similar themes. As the study continued, these four
main findings solidified and are addressed here for discussion.
The first key finding was that there is a disconnect between personal experience of
campus climate and personal ability or agency to influence campus climate. The second key
finding underscored a lack of knowledge regarding microaggressions, what they are, and how to
intervene. Two additional key findings emerged. The first was that faculty want access to
training. They also expect training to be practical and germane to their discipline.
Sub-Question Findings
The study’s sub-question was informed by the conceptual framework and Clark and
Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework. The interview data were explicated and divided into the
three elements of knowledge, motivation, and organization. The elements of knowledge and
motivation are examined in depth in Chapter Two and are the focus of this study. However, the
participant’s perceived organizational barriers are included.
Faculty Knowledge of Microaggressions
The majority of interviewees did not demonstrate knowledge of microaggressions. Of the
15 participants, one declined to answer and asked to continue to the next question. The other 14
participants provided answers that demonstrated some general awareness or familiarity with the
term but struggled to recall or formulate a working definition. Participant 5 shared, “As an
English scholar, I’m not sure if that’s an actual word yet, but I do hear it often and believe it has
to do with unintentional acts of discrimination.” The research participants often used the word
“unintentionally.” For example, Participant 4 said, “I would say that a microaggression is an
56

unconscious slur that is said that unintentionally offends the other.” Table 5 provides each
participant’s response when asked to describe or define a microaggression.

Table 5
Faculty Responses to Definition of Microaggression
Microaggression Definition

Participant 1

“I've heard of the word, but I don't know if I have a satisfactory definition
in my arsenal. I can assume from context clues that micro aggression is
basically unintentional racism or saying something that's unintentionally
insensitive towards another person, but again I apologize. I really don't
think I can provide an accurate definition for that word but it's definitely
something I should look up because I hear it so often.”

Participant 2 “I guess I would define microaggression as the unintentional or
unconscious moments of subtle aggression. So, that could be racial that
could be sexual that could be really anything. It’s one of those words that
I hear and I've even used but I don't really know if I have a precise
definition.”

Participant 3 “I suppose I would define microaggression as unintentional comments or
actions or behaviors that unknowingly offend another person.”

Participant 4 “I would say that a microaggression is an unconscious slur that is said that
unintentionally offends the other.”

Participant 5 “As an English scholar, I’m not sure if that’s an actual word yet, but I do
hear it often and believe it has to do with unintentional acts of
discrimination.”

Participant 6 Participant asked to continue to the next question.

Participant 7 “What’s funny is that I hear that word so often, and have even used that
word a few times, but now that you ask, I’m not really sure how to
describe it. Yeah, I’m drawing a blank.”

Participant 8 “So, a microaggression from what I’m aware of is essentially small-scale
racism or discrimination.”

Participant 9 “I feel like I would be wasting your time if I tried to define that [laughter].
I really don’t know, and that’s not good.”
57

Microaggression Definition
Participant 10 “I don’t know if I can define it but I think I would be able to point it out if
I heard it. But then again, maybe I wouldn’t if I don’t even know what it
is. Wow, this is interesting.”

Participant 11 “I would define a microaggression as an ingrained belief or bias that
surfaces in everyday life and is applied unjustly towards another.”

Participant 12 “A microaggression is a form of discrimination but it’s small-scale. So,
while it may be unintentional or small-scale, over time it builds and builds
and turns into macro-aggression. It’s something that happens every day
for marginalized individuals like Black people.”

Participant 13 “I don’t think I could provide a definition that will do the word justice, to
be honest.”

Participant 14 “This term is emerging more and more often in the political sphere and
it’s becoming its own area of strategy for better or for worse. Basically, a
microaggression is like a casual thing that people spew out often with
very little awareness that directly targets marginalized people. It happens
every day, but we just don’t notice it I guess.”

Participant 15 “That is a good question. I do not know.”

The responses indicate that knowledge surrounding microaggressions is limited. The
findings illustrate that the faculty participants lack the most fundamental declarative knowledge
of microaggressions. Under the global goal and knowledge influences outlined in Table 2,
faculty need increased awareness of microaggressions they may unintentionally perpetuate in the
classroom. Based on the findings of this study, this knowledge influence may be unaddressed
because faculty lacked a basic factual understanding of microaggressions. One participant
reflected, “I really am left unsure whether or not I have brought microaggressions into my
class… it’s almost as If I would need someone to tell me.” Another participated expressed
difficulty knowing whether or not microaggressions occur: “I again struggle to even know what
microaggressions are, so I can’t say with any degree of confidence whether or not I’ve used them
58

in my classes. I hope not.” These findings relate to the next theme regarding the perceived value
of participating in ally or safe space training.
Faculty Motivation and Expectancy of Ally Training
All but two participants indicated that participating in an ally or safe zone training
program would be valuable for them. When asked how so, 12 indicated that it would provide
them with a definition of microaggressions to identify them better when they occur in the
classroom. One participant remarked, “It’s difficult to identify a problem if you can’t even name
the problem.” Another participant added, “For starters, it would make me feel more confident
just knowing what a microaggression is. I think professors are hesitant to admit when they don’t
know something.” One of the two participants who did not perceive value in training shared, “I
consider myself an ally of the LGBT community, and I guess that’s why I haven’t taken the
training here.” The other participant, a theology professor, cited religious opposition.
Referencing the findings discussed earlier in this chapter regarding the phrase “that’s so
gay,” the participants who perceived value in training were unanimous that they expected the
training would help them feel more efficacious responding to harmful rhetoric in the classroom.
Of the 13 participants who did perceived value in such training, some shared additional
expectancies beyond learning how to respond to discriminatory or hurtful behaviors. Table 6
outlines expectancies related to motivation.

59

Table 6
Motivation and Expectancies of Ally or Safe Zone Training
Motivation and Expectancy Variables

Participant 1

“Maybe it would help me understand what microaggressions are as well as all of
the new terms which I have no idea about. I just learned what preferred pronouns
were, for example.”

Participant 2 “I believe it would help me a lot. Especially with the subject matter I cover as an
art historian, even just having modern day context of the appropriate language
and all of these things that I’m probably not aware of.”

Participant 3 “It would make me an even better teacher for all of my students. I know there’s
more I can do to make gay and lesbian students feel welcome, and I also know
I’ve probably done things counter to that intention.”

Participant 5 “I’m sure it would help me to be more sensitive and aware of the unique needs
of our LGBT student community, and for that reason, I should probably do a
training like this soon.”

Participant 6 “It would definitely help me just be more comfortable. And that’s not to say I’m
uncomfortable around LGBT students, but I’m uncomfortable with my own lack
of knowledge, like saying or doing the wrong thing, and I’m sure a training
would help me with that.”
Participant 7 “I’m thinking particularly with vocal musicians, the topic of transgender singers
in particular is something that I know I really need to gain a better understanding
of or just the whole concept of gender identity as it relates to the music
discipline… I know there’s a lot that [a training] could help me with.”

Participant 8 “From an educational equity perspective, I believe a training like this is
essential. Unfortunately, my university does not provide such training. But, I do
think it would be so useful.”

Participant 9 “I think it would be helpful for me just to be a better educator to students,
especially those that are in need of support like all of our marginalized students.
I also think as a biologist, understanding more information regarding gender is
something that would only be beneficial for me.”

Participant 11 “I do believe it would help me navigate particularly topics surrounding
transgender students. That’s just something I’ve only done a little bit of casual
Google research on, but it’s definitely something that kind of goes way over my
head.”

60

Motivation and Expectancy Variables
Participant 12 “Considering the essential role that gender and sexual orientation plays out in
our communication, I can only imagine how useful it would be for me.”

Participant 13 “I’m sure a training program would help me with all of the things we already
discussed (referencing intervention to microaggressions), it would help me
contextualize concepts of sexuality and gender identity on an even more useful
level, especially as an anthropologist.”

Participant 14 “Aside from the political ramifications of being ignorant about anything, a
training like this would help me, in some ways, help all of my students to also be
allies, and that sounds like a pretty rewarding outcome for me.”

Participant 15 “Sensitivity surrounding these areas is an ongoing training block for law
enforcement, and so it only makes sense that I can also participate in one of
these trainings. It’s our duty to treat everyone fairly and with respect, but it’s
difficult to do that if you don’t understand them. So, I think this training could
help me with that.”

Note. Responses from Participant 4 and Participant 10 were omitted as they did not indicate
value in participating in a training.

Many of the motivational elements detailed in Table 6 demonstrate how participants
hoped to incorporate the knowledge they would gain from an ally or safe zone training into their
discipline expertise. For example, Participant 7 shared that gaining a better understanding of
transgender topics might help them better serve transgender vocal musicians bound by gender
stereotyping. Participant 13 discussed how anthropology and sexuality are so intertwined and, at
many institutions, are an actual course. Participant 9, a biologist, mentioned that understanding
of sex and gender would only make them a better biologist. This domain-specific expectancy is
critical to note in creating, developing, and implementing any training, as will be discussed in
more detail in Chapter Five.
61

Perceived Organizational Barriers for Faculty
The third element to explicate with the study’s sub-question is the perceived
organizational barriers. While personal value appeared to be apparent among the participants
overall, organizational value was perceived as deficient. All 15 participants indicated that safe
zone training was not required at their institutions, thereby communicating a level of
unimportance at the organizational level. One participant shared, “We all know that unless a
training is required by our university, it’s not important.” Other participants offered similar
insights regarding time management and priorities: “Obviously the required trainings get the
priority. Anything that’s ‘optional’ never really happens because we are all overworked.”
Various responses from the research participants soon saturated the six commonly
perceived barriers presented in Table 7. An organizational barrier cited by all but two
participants was the resource of time. Frequent sentiments were that interviewees were already
overworked and did not have time to spend in training or time to learn about sexual and gender
minority allyship independently.
62

Table 7
Organizational Barriers Perceived by Faculty
Time Training
not Offered
No
Funding for
Training
(off-site)
No LGBT-
Affirming
Policies
Not a
Cultural
Value
Training
not
Required
Participant 1 X X X X
Participant 2 X X
Participant 3 X X X X
Participant 4 X X
Participant 5 X X X X X
Participant 6 X X X X X X
Participant 7 X X
Participant 8 X X
Participant 9 X X X X X
Participant 10 X X X X X
Participant 11 X X
Participant 12 X X
Participant 13 X X X X X
Participant 14 X X X
Participant 15 X X

The perceived barriers that participants shared were compared against publicly available
documentation at each participant’s institution, as detailed in Chapter Three. Doing this
triangulation process ensured the interview data were credible (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). There was only one instance where the institution’s documents contradicted the
participant’s interview data. In this instance, the participant stated that the institution had no
63

formal LGBT-affirming policy. However, the institution had a written policy on several pages of
its website, sample syllabi, and other digital and printed content. Seven participants discussed
perceived cultural values at their respective institutions. They mentioned that their institution did
not value sexual and gender minority inclusion among their campuses and believed that to be a
significant organizational barrier.
Summary of Sub-Question Findings
The data indicated a collective belief that faculty plays a significant role in shaping
campus climate and sense of belonging. Each of the participants recalled inspiring stories of how
an instructor changed the course of their academic life, inspired them to forge a new path, or
helped them feel welcomed and supported. However, when the participants were asked how they
view themselves as contributing to campus climate, the answers contradicted their lived
experiences. When examining knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements, this study
demonstrated that both factual knowledge and motivation were the variables in need of more
attention, though they did perceive organizational barriers. None of the participants demonstrated
knowledge and skill in defining and identifying microaggressions.
Findings Summary
This study culled rich data from 15 participants who shared their lived experience related
to microaggressions, sense of belonging, and teaching sexual and gender minority students. The
data yielded saturation in four key theme areas: participants can recall specific moments in their
education when faculty provided a sense of belonging, they do not believe they have the ability
to cultivate a sense of belonging at a campus level, they have experience responding to
inappropriate behavior, and they either regret the way they responded to the phrase “that’s so
gay” or did not know how they would respond. The sub-question helped to codify lived
64

experiences into a gap analysis framework that provided key insights regarding knowledge
deficits, motivation challenges, and organizational barriers. Findings from this study, along with
recommendations and suggestions for future research, are presented in Chapter Five.

65

Chapter Five: Discussion
Through qualitative phenomenology, this study examined faculty members’ lived
experience as it relates to their work with sexual and gender minority students through a gap
analysis lens. The study sought to answer one guiding question: What are the lived experiences
of faculty regarding campus climate and microaggressions? From there, a sub-question was
posed: What knowledge, motivation, or organizational variables are involved regarding how
faculty are equipped to serve sexual and gender minority college students?
To answer these questions, data were collected from 15 faculty members representing 15
disciplines and 15 higher education institutions equally dispersed throughout the United States.
In addition to the interview data, documents from the participants’ intuitions were reviewed as
part of triangulation to ensure credibility (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Peoples,
2021). Participants were simply referred to by a participant number to ensure that identities were
protected. All recorded interviews took place over videoconferencing software. Transcripts were
then edited for clarity, and I notated initial impressions or reflections in a journal. Themes
quickly emerged from the interview data analysis, as each participant shared similar lived
experiences.
This final chapter converges on the lived experiences of the study’s 15 participants and
provides a culminating reflection. The sections of this chapter provide a summary of the study’s
findings, address the implications for practice, and discuss the salient findings. The chapter
concludes with recommendations for further research.
Guiding Question Discussion
The findings related to the study’s guiding question provide insight into the faculty’s
lived experience as it relates to their work with sexual and gender minority students. Participants
66

were asked to examine the past, present, and future, which elicited rich responses that affirmed
the existing research and underscored a dearth of research examining campus climate and
microaggressions from the faculty perspective. Despite broad representation in demographic
factors such as age, location, institution type, and discipline, the responses from the research
participants were homogenized in four key areas:
1. Participants can recall specific moments in their education when faculty provided a sense
of belonging;
2. Participants do not believe they have the ability to cultivate a sense of belonging at a
campus level;
3. Participants have experience responding to inappropriate behavior;
4. Participants either regretted the way they responded to the phrase “that’s so gay” or did
not know how they would respond.
The literature asserts that the faculty role is influential in creating a positive campus
climate (Applebaum, 2019; Garvey et al., 2015; Pitcher et al., 2018). The literature also details
that faculty are unlikely to intervene if microaggressions or other behaviors that negatively
influence campus climate or sense of belonging present themselves in the classroom (Dessel et
al., 2017; Woodford et al., 2012, 2019). The literature inherently creates a disconnect between
their individual experience of sense of belonging and ability to create a sense of belonging for
their current students. Faculty are essential in creating a sense of belonging, especially for sexual
and gender minority students (Applebaum, 2019; Campbell-Whatley et al., 2015; Hughes &
Hurtado, 2018; Linley et al., 2016; Ogunyemi et al., 2019; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020) .
However, the vast majority of sexual and gender minority students do not experience a sense of
belonging at the college campus (Dessel et al., 2017; Garvey et al., 2017; Hirsch et al., 2017;
67

Pitcher et al., 2018; Woodford et al., 2019). Faculty participants in this study bolstered the same
disconnect. They recalled experiences during their time as students of a faculty member
positively influencing campus climate, but they did not believe they have that same ability as
faculty members. That is, faculty can and do influence campus climate and cultivate sense of
belonging for students. However, the belief in their ability to do so is absent.
Similarly, faculty responses indicate they lack self-efficacy in their ability to intervene
during moments of microaggressions or harmful phrases, such as, “that’s so gay.” I remarked in
research memos how poignant it was to see established higher education professionals remark
how much shame or regret they felt for not intervening in the past, yet still left feeling unsure of
what they would do if it happened again. The literature details the psychological harms of those
on the receiving end of microaggressions (Applebaum, 2019; Berk, 2017c; M. T. Williams,
2020). Not studied, however, is the psychological harm of those who witness microaggressions
and do nothing about it.
Overall, the guiding question's findings indicate that these problems can be addressed and
remedied. Some of these remedies may extend beyond the purview of this study and warrant
further research. However, there are ways to help faculty bridge the gap regarding their agentive
ability to influence campus climate and provide practical ways to respond to microaggressions
through factual awareness and rehearsal.
Disconnect Between Lived Experience and Agency
All participants shared inspiring stories of how a particular faculty member positively
influenced campus climate and sense of belonging. Some participants shared this faculty member
changed the course of their life. These findings are consistent with the literature (Campbell-
Whatley et al., 2015; Meyers, 2009; Pitcher et al., 2018).
68

Later in the interview, when the participants were asked if they believed they serve an
important role in positively influencing campus climate, the majority indicated they did not
believe they have the agency or ability. Only one participant shared that they believed they made
a difference in campus climate. At the time of this study, I was unable to locate literature on this
same disconnect. Nonetheless, the research continues to assert that faculty members can and do
serve as a significant influencer in student perception of positive campus climate and sense of
belonging (Applebaum, 2019; Berk, 2017c; Campbell-Whatley et al., 2015; Casanova et al.,
2018; Garvey et al., 2015, 2017; Hardré, 2012; Lester et al., 2017; Linley et al., 2016; Miller &
Mills, 2019). The disconnect between faculty's lived experience and what they believe they are
capable of might be a matter of self-efficacy. If faculty receive feedback and evidence that their
actions can positively or negatively influence overall campus climate and sense of belonging for
students, they may feel more encouraged and self-efficacious (Bandura, 2012; Eccles &
Wigfield, 2020).
One participant strongly believed they had the ability to positively influence campus
climate and sense of belonging. This finding may have emerged due to the sample population.
Examining whether faculty believe in their ability to positively influence campus climate and
sense of belonging for students may be studied more accurately through a nationwide survey.
Knowledge and Skills to Identify Microaggressions and Intervene
When asked to define or describe a microaggression, one opted to continue to the next
question; the other 14 participants demonstrated little to no knowledge. Some participants
provided answers that demonstrated general awareness or familiarity with the term but struggled
to provide a working definition. As the participants’ ages ranged from 29 to 64, this lack of
knowledge regarding microaggressions is unlikely to be generational.
69

Even among leading scholars in the study of microaggressions, there are disagreements in
defining microaggressions, with some scholars calling for an end to the term entirely (Berk,
2017b, 2017c; Lilienfeld, 2017; M. T. Williams, 2020). Regardless of scholarly debate, most of
the literature adopts the following definition: “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral,
or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile,
derogatory, or negative…slights or insults” (Sue et al., 2007, p. 271).
Providing faculty members with the knowledge to define and the skills to identify
microaggression could significantly improve results for students. It is essential to note that
microaggressions are not isolated or single incidents but are a pattern of additive behaviors and
events tied to the broader systemic issues of discrimination (Applebaum, 2019). Consequently,
intervening during any microaggression event in the classroom is essential. The data suggest that
faculty are motivated to do better for sexual and gender minority students but do not feel
efficacious doing so. In an attempt to turn findings into useful practice, the sub-question of the
study frames the findings in action-oriented ways.
Sub-Question Discussion
Drawing on the literature in self-efficacy (Bandura, 2012) and situated expectancy value
theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020) and guided by the conceptual framework informed by Clark
and Estes (2008), the findings pertaining to the sub-question reveal context and perspectives
currently lacking in the research. The literature review found that faculty do not intervene during
harmful or discriminatory actions against sexual and gender minority students (Berk, 2017c;
Dessel et al., 2017; M. T. Williams, 2020; Woodford et al., 2014, 2019). Absent from the
literature, however, is the essential examination: why?
70

The data in this study indicate that inaction is not deliberate discrimination or hate. All
participants (except for one citing religious conflict) wanted to be better supporters of sexual and
gender minority students, but they did not know how. The findings provide evidence that
participants did not possess knowledge regarding microaggressions, which provides context for
the existing literature and a viable reason for faculty tending not to intervene. Helping faculty
members become more knowledgeable about microaggressions does not necessarily require
training; it could be instilled in other ways that require less time and resources. Possible
strategies for increasing knowledge of microaggressions will be discussed further in Chapter
Five.
The majority of participants shared multiple ways that ally or safe zone type training
would benefit and motivate them. A distinct finding from this study was that participants wanted
to connect the training to their discipline. This could inform how training is delivered so that it
provides both general and content-specific information that helps faculty apply their knowledge
directly into their teaching practice.
As part of the interviews, participants shared perceived organizational barriers that may
obstruct sexual and gender minority inclusion efforts. The participants discussed six common
barriers. The two most common barriers were that there is not enough time to complete another
training, and if there were time, ally training is not required, which means it would be less
prioritized than required training. However, the literature establishes that ally or safe zone
training is only effective at positively influencing campus climate when there are also
administrative support and resources (Applebaum, 2019; Ballard et al., 2008; DeVita & Anders,
2018; Kearns et al., 2014a; Woodford et al., 2014). While participants had the motivation and
perceived value to participate in training, training is not the only solution.
71

Implications for Practice
It is abundantly established in the literature that sexual and gender minority students do
not experience similar levels of belonging on the college campus when compared to their
heterosexual peers (Berk, 2017a; Craig et al., 2017; Dessel et al., 2017; Effrig et al., 2011;
Garvey et al., 2015; Hughes & Hurtado, 2018; Ogunyemi et al., 2019; Oswalt & Wyatt, 2011;
Woodford et al., 2019). The majority of existing literature studied the student experience. Sexual
and gender minority students cited microaggressions, some perpetuated by faculty members, as
well as bystander effect as two areas of recurring concern (Berk, 2017c; Dessel et al., 2017; M.
T. Williams, 2020).
This study provided a missing element in the current research by examining the faculty
perspective. The results provide implications for both organizations and individual faculty
members. However, it ideally requires faculty in partnership with their organizations to generate
more meaningful change.
Implications for Higher Education Institutions
Among the research participants, all but one expressed motivation and value in
participating in a safe zone or ally training. However, all perceived a variety of barriers that
precluded them from participating. The most common barriers were the availability of time and
that the training was optional, thereby being less of a priority. The most obvious implication is a
need to offer safe zone or ally training as a core professional development offering. To say there
is no time to offer such training is not entirely accurate; organizations can and should dedicate
time for ally or safe zone training. Making said training an organizational value may cultivate
cascading values among faculty (Clark & Estes, 2008).
72

Even in situations where providing the time for safe zone or ally training is truly not
possible, there are other ways to increase knowledge and skill regarding microaggression
identification and intervention. This could likely be done in other required training or through a
resource aid distributed and discussed in local department or program meetings. Doing so would
address the most crucial gap discovered in this study, which was a fundamental lack of
knowledge regarding microaggressions. Increasing factual knowledge regarding
microaggressions will lead to procedural knowledge to allow for faculty to better identify their
own microaggressions. Additionally, offering general guidance at the program or department
level may provide faculty with another common expectation shared during the study: ensuring
the materials are specific and applicable to their domain or content. Research in organizational
change and psychology informs us that providing employees with knowledge and skill is not
enough (Clark & Estes, 2008). Assuming faculty are motivated and have knowledge, they will
still need the opportunity to envision or rehearse how they would respond in the inevitable event
microaggressions occur in their classrooms. Providing time in department or program meetings
could be a way to do this.
Implications for Higher Education Faculty
This study provided one demonstrable finding regarding implications for higher
education faculty. First, participants were motivated to learn more and recognize the value of
participating in training. Second, many felt as though they did not have the time, funding, or
access to participate in such training.
As discussed in the previous section, higher education institutions can improve
knowledge regarding microaggressions among their employees, especially when there is a
demonstrated motivation and value from faculty. If training is truly not an option, faculty may
73

turn to other resources. At institutions that have LGBT resource centers (or similar), faculty may
not be aware of its existence for help or resources. Faculty could also conduct independent online
research to discover best practices or learn more about becoming a better sexual and gender
minority ally. These options are not optimal but can be a starting point.
Depending on the structure of the institution, training may be provided if there is enough
faculty endorsement. The results of this study do caution against relying on training as time and
non-required training were barriers commonly cited in the interviews. Nonetheless, training may
be more tenable if done at the department or program level rather than at the systemwide
institution level. Additionally, department-level training will provide greater opportunity for
domain-specific practice, which faculty expect, based on the interviews. Some participants who
work at institutions where the safe zone or ally training does not exist said they would go to an
external provider, but there was the element of financial cost. Participants were generally
unwilling to participate in training if they had to pay for that training out of personal funds.
However, they seem to be reliant on their institutions to lead the effort to provide time and
funding for training, and this puts them in a place of minimal agency. This could explain one of
the main findings in that participants did not believe they had the ability to positively influence
campus climate. Notwithstanding, training does not appear to be the primary remedy based on
the results of this study. Rather, other means of knowledge and skill improvement can be
explored.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Outline
Based on this study's findings, a recommended implementation and evaluation plan was
created for consideration. As a phenomenological study, training implementation is not the
purpose of this study. However, the interview data did provide insights into optimizing training
74

concepts that might further motivate faculty to increase sense of belonging for sexual and gender
minority college students. This implementation outline draws significantly from the New World
Kirkpatrick Model and the Kirkpatrick Four Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016, 2019).
The four evaluation levels of reaction, learning, behavior, and results remain unchanged.
However, the sequence has been revised under the Kirkpatrick Model to emphasize the
evaluation of achievement: desired results, behavior, learning, and reaction (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Despite offering four levels, each level is to be viewed as systematic and
integrated rather than separate steps.
Under the Kirkpatrick Model, the first phase is outlined in Level 4, which focuses on
evaluating the achievements of the institution's goals. Such evaluation occurs through
measurement and evaluation of indicators that could suggest that critical behaviors positively
impact and contribute to desired outcomes. Level 4 is perhaps most essential in that it asks
whether the intervention was successful. Under Level 3, behavioral traits such as applying
knowledge, motivational elements that influence behavior, and the drivers and systems to
reinforce behavior are assessed. Level 2 and Level 1 involve learning and reaction, respectively,
and evaluate motivation and learning outcomes. Overall, the Kirkpatrick Model may provide a
change implementation mechanism for higher education institutions to provide more effective
resources to meet the global stakeholder goal created for this study. Figure 2 illustrates the four
levels based on this study.

75

Figure 2
Four Levels Model

Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
This study aimed to understand faculty's lived experience regarding microaggressions
and teaching sexual and gender minority college students. Framed by Clark and Estes’s (2008)
gap analysis approach, this study's sub-question codified findings into areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organization. This study was formed with the global stakeholder goal of
improving sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority college students. The ensuing
research identified key influences that inform the implementation plan outline below through
literature review, data collection, and analysis.
Level 4: Increased Sense of Belonging
Results and leading indicators for Level 4 would increase the sense of belonging for
sexual and gender minority college students. This increased sense of belonging could be
measured by reducing perceived microaggressions and increased allyship among faculty.
76

Measuring sense of belonging is already a standard measurement in campus climate survey
instruments; adding additional data regarding sexual or gender identity could provide more
precise information for results and indicators.
Level 3: Different Faculty Behaviors
Higher education faculty were the primary stakeholders for this study. Based on the
literature review and data collection, two essential behaviors are necessary:
1. Faculty must intervene when microaggressions occur in the classroom.
2. Faculty must be mindful and knowledgeable enough to prevent microaggressions
perpetuated by themselves or their curriculum.
Measurement and assessment of these behaviors could be facilitated through existing observation
or evaluation protocols as established by the institution. This could be an additional classroom
climate or teaching effectiveness survey instrument commonly administered in higher education
courses. Pertaining to required drivers, formalized faculty evaluation processes could require
additional criteria regarding classroom climate. In conjunction with faculty evaluations, student
climate surveys administered at the conclusion of a course could address sense of belonging or
curriculum diversification.
Aside from evaluations and surveys, an essential driver would be consistent
reinforcement, encouragement, and monitoring of anti-microaggression and affirming sexual and
gender minority behaviors to sustain motivation.
Level 2: Improved Motivation and Self-Efficacy
The results of this study were that participants lacked the self-efficacy to foster a sense of
belonging among their students. While they seem motivated to help students in general, self-
efficacy influences overall motivation levels (Bandura, 2012; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020).
77

Low self-efficacy findings extend from other aspects of the data, which indicated that faculty do
not feel comfortable or efficacious in their ability to intervene during moments of
microaggressions or discriminatory slurs. Methods to improve self-efficacy and motivation
involve feedback and assure faculty that they can positively influence campus climate through
demonstrable and credible examples (Bandura, 2000; Darby & Newman, 2014). Likert scales
could be distributed among faculty to measure motivation and self-efficacy trends over time
(Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). A survey instrument could be particularly informative if done
before and after any safe zone or ally training.
Level 1: Increased Knowledge, Awareness, and Engagement
Common among all participants was a lack of knowledge or awareness regarding
microaggressions. Because of this lack of factual knowledge, procedural knowledge and
awareness were also lacking among the participants. Specifically, the participants were unaware
of any microaggressions they themselves might have perpetuated in the classroom due to the
inability to generate a working definition. Knowledge deficiencies can be remedied through
effective training. However, all 15 participants indicated that safe zone or ally training was not
required, and all but three participants stated they would not have time to participate in any
training. Based on the research participants' lived experiences, training is not the recommended
remedy for increasing knowledge, awareness, and engagement. Instead, providing resources for
faculty through information portals, department meeting agenda items, or job aids could provide
them with factual knowledge and awareness of microaggressions. According to the research
participants, there appears to be a situated expectancy and self-efficacy implementation: If
faculty knew more about microaggressions, they might be more motivated and engaged in
further training or doing their independent research to serve as better sexual and gender minority
78

allies. Microaggression knowledge assessment could be facilitated in formal or informal
measurements, including surveys, evaluations, or informal discussions.
Future Research
This study's findings emphasize an increasing need for further research that examines the
student perspective more holistically. I am currently unaware of any study that examines
problems related to campus climate by using both students and faculty as research participants.
However, such a study may yield important results that create a pathway towards systemic
change. If the research community widely accepts that campus climate and sense of belonging
are essential for student success and wellbeing, the question should then be how that is cultivated
among college campuses. While this study did obtain useful results, it is a preliminary inquiry; it
is my hope that additional studies occur.
One of the participants was a professor of theology and worked at a religious institution.
This study did not account for the conflicts that may surface when discussing how sexual and
gender minority college students and religious doctrine. However, sexual and gender minority
students are in colleges and universities everywhere, whether religious or secular (Craig et al.,
2017). While there is some research studying sexual and gender minority students in the
religious college setting, more research is needed in this specific area.
Conclusion
The findings from this study complement the literature reviewed in Chapter Two in many
helpful ways. The study’s findings provided missing elements of context from previous studies
by focusing on the faculty’s lived experience rather than the students’. By examining the faculty
perspective, recommendations for lasting and systemic change may be more attainable. While
these results encourage further research from the faculty perspective, I believe enough data were
79

collected to generate some possible recommendations to address the gaps illuminated in this
study.
Four salient findings emerged from this study. First, participants recalled moments where
a faculty member had positively influenced campus climate. Second, and seemingly in contrast,
they did not believe they had that same ability to positively influence campus climate. Third,
they have experience responding to inappropriate behavior. Finally, they either regretted how
they have responded to the phrase “that’s so gay” or did not know how they would respond if it
happened in the future.
When explicating the data to codify into the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational elements, it was clear that participants had the motivation to serve sexual and
gender minority students better but lacked efficacy in their ability to do so. Additionally, there
were fundamental knowledge elements missing. One might then turn to training, but participants
listed numerous organizational barriers which may prevent them from participating in training.
This dissertation served as a novel study to examine campus climate and sense of
belonging from the faculty perspective. It is increasingly important to note that the literature
points to the challenges that sexual and gender minority students face. However, it is also
increasingly important for higher education institutions to begin systemic change efforts. Since
initiating the study for this dissertation 11 months ago, dozens of new empirical studies were
published. Scholars explain that data and research in this area emerge in droves because higher
education survey instruments only started collecting sexual and gender identity information in
2015 (Rankin et al., 2019). Despite the recency of this scholarly trend, the call to action is ever-
pressing.
80

Some higher education intuitions may ponder whether such attention is necessary from an
economic sense as there are other student populations indeed worthy of attention and resources.
However, one need only refer to the latest findings that 1 in 6 adults born between 1997 and
2002 identify as something other than heterosexual, and that number is expected to continue to
rise (Jones, 2021). The literature establishes that students who perceive a positive campus
climate and sense of belonging persist longer, achieve higher, and experience better physical and
emotional health (Bruffaerts et al., 2018; Casanova et al., 2018; DeVita & Anders, 2018; Hughes
& Hurtado, 2018; Kulick et al., 2017; Miller & Mills, 2019; Oswalt & Wyatt, 2011; Pitcher et
al., 2018; Woodford et al., 2012).
Knowing that there is ongoing work to be done in both the higher education and research
communities, this dissertation provides preliminary insights from the faculty perspective, which
will be necessary to instigate systemic change for sexual and gender minority students. Based on
the themes that emerged in this study, organizations can take interim steps to quickly address the
knowledge gap regarding microaggressions and begin to facilitate that knowledge through
training, job or resource aids, or other means. Doing this will allow more sexual and gender
minority students to experience a sense of belonging during one of the most formative periods of
their lives in college.

81

References
Ahn, R. (2018). Balancing the Equation: Does a Ph.D. equal expertise in teaching? International
Journal of Teacher Leadership, 9(2), 1–4.
American Association of Community Colleges. (2016). 2016 Fact Sheet.
https://www.napicaacc.com/docs/AACC_Fact_Sheet_2016.pdf
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (7th ed.). American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000
Applebaum, B. (2019). Remediating campus climate: Implicit bias training is not enough.
Studies in Philosophy and Education, 38(2), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-
018-9644-1
Ballard, S., Bartle, E., & Masequesmay, G. (2008). Finding queer allies: The impact of ally
training and safe zone stickers on campus climate. Online Submission, 1–32.
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of
Management, 38(1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606
Bandura, A. (2018). Toward a Psychology of Human Agency: Pathways and Reflections.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 130–136.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617699280
Berk, R. (2017a). Microaggressions trilogy: Part 1. Why do microaggressions matter? Journal of
Faculty Development, 31(1), 63–73.
Berk, R. (2017b). Microaggressions trilogy: Part 2. Microaggressions in the academic workplace.
Journal of Faculty Development, 31(2), 69–81.
82

Berk, R. (2017c). Microaggressions trilogy: Part 3. Microaggressions in the classroom. Journal
of Faculty Development, 31(3), 95–110.
Brown, R. D., Clarke, B., Gortmaker, V., & Robinson-Keilig, R. (2004). Assessing the campus
climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) students using a multiple
perspectives approach. Journal of College Student Development 45(1), 8–26.
doi:10.1353/csd.2004.0003
Bruffaerts, R., Mortier, P., Kiekens, G., Auerbach, R. P., Cuijpers, P., Demyttenaere, K., Green,
J. G., Nock, M. K., & Kessler, R. C. (2018). Mental health problems in college freshmen:
Prevalence and academic functioning. Journal of Affective Disorders, 225(December
2016), 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.07.044
Campbell-Whatley, G., Wang, C., Toms, O., & Williams, N. (2015). Factors Affecting Campus
Climate: Creating a Welcoming Environment. New Waves-Educational Research and
Development Journal, 18(2), 40–52.
Casanova, S., Mcguire, K. M., & Martin, M. (2018). “Why you throwing subs?”: An exploration
of community college students’ immediate responses to microaggressions. Teachers
College Record, 120(9).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). Leading Causes of Death Reports, 1981-
2019. Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results. Information Age.
Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals. (2018). 2018 Self-Study Report.
https://lgbtcampus.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/Self%20Study%20Report%202018.pdf
83

Craig, S. L., Austin, A., Rashidi, M., & Adams, M. (2017). Fighting for survival : The
experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning students in religious
colleges and universities. 8720. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720.2016.1260512
Crawford, P. T. (2012). Educational transitions in the United States: Reflections on the American
dream. Research in Comparative and International Education, 7(4), 465–479.
https://doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2012.7.4.465
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
Darby, A., & Newman, G. (2014). Exploring faculty members’ motivation and persistence in
academic service-learning pedagogy. Journal of Higher Education Outreach &
Engagement, 18(2), 91–119.
De Luca, S. M., Franklin, C., Yueqi, Y., Johnson, S., & Brownson, C. (2016). The relationship
between suicide ideation, behavioral health, and college academic performance.
Community Mental Health Journal, 52(5), 534–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-016-
9987-4
Dessel, A. B., Goodman, K. D., & Woodford, M. R. (2017). LGBT discrimination on campus
and heterosexual bystanders: Understanding intentions to intervene. Journal of Diversity
in Higher Education, 10(2), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000015
DeVita, J., & Anders, A. (2018). LGTQ faculty and professionals in higher education: Defining
allies, identifying support. The College Student Affairs Journal, 36(2), 63–80.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csj.2018.0016

84

Eccles, J., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J., and Midgley, C.
(1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In Spence, J. T. (ed.)Achievement
and Achievement Motives, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value
theory: A development, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101859. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859
Ecker, J., Rae, J., & Bassi, A. (2015). Showing your pride: A national survey of queer student
centres in Canadian colleges and universities. Higher Education, 70(5), 881–898.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9874-x
Effrig, J., Bieschke, K., & Locke, B. (2011). Examining victimization and psychological distress
in transgender college students. Journal of College Counseling, 14(2), 143–157.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2011.tb00269.x
Fine, L. E. (2012). The context of creating space: Assessing the likelihood of college LGBT
center presence. Journal of College Student Development, 53(2), 285–299.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2012.0017
Formby, E. (2017). How should we ‘care’ for LGBT+ students within higher education?
Pastoral Care in Education, 35(3), 203–220.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02643944.2017.1363811
Frank, D. A., II, & Cannon, E. P. (2010). Queer theory as pedagogy in counselor education: A
framework for diversity training. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 4(1), 18–31.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15538600903552731
85

Garvey, J. C., & Inkelas, K. K. (2012). Exploring Relationships Between Sexual Orientation and
Satisfaction with Faculty and Staff Interactions. Journal of Homosexuality, 59(8), 1167–
1190. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2012.712846
Garvey, J. C., & Rankin, S. R. (2015). Making the grade? Classroom climate for LGBTQ
students across gender conformity. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice,
52(2), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2015.1019764
Garvey, J. C., Sanders, L. A., & Flint, M. A. (2017). Generational perceptions of campus climate
among LGBTQ undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 58(6), 795–
817. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0065
Garvey, J. C., Taylor, J. L., & Rankin, S. (2015). An examination of campus climate for LGBTQ
community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,
39(6), 527–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2013.861374
Graham, P. A., Ribera, A., BrckaLorenz, A., & Broderick, C. (2017). Exceeding statements:
How students and faculty experience institutional missions. Journal of College and
Character, 18(4), 246–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/2194587X.2017.1371041
Hardré, P. L. (2012). Community college faculty motivation for basic research, teaching
research, and professional development. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 36(8), 539–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920902973362
Hirsch, J. K., Cohn, T. J., Rowe, C. A., & Rimmer, S. E. (2017). Minority sexual orientation,
Gender identity status and suicidal behavior : Serial indirect effects of hope, hopelessness
and depressive symptoms. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 15,
260–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-016-9723-x
86

Hughes, B. E., & Hurtado, S. (2018). Thinking about sexual orientation: College experiences that
predict identity salience. Journal of College Student Development, 59(3), 309–326.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2018.0029
Jackson, N., & Perez, A. B. (2012). Minority access to higher education. Journal of College
Admission, 214, 56–63.
Jacobson, W. S. (2011). Creating a motivated workforce: How organizations can enhance and
develop public service motivation (PSM). Public Personnel Management, 40(3), 215–
238. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102601104000303
Jones, J. (2021, February 24). LGBT identification rises to 5.6% in latest U.S. estimate. Gallup.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/329708/lgbt-identification-rises-latest-estimate.aspx
Katz, J., Federici, D., Ciovacco, M., & Cropsey, A. (2016). Effect of exposure to a Safe Zone
symbol on perceptions of campus climate for sexual minority students. Psychology of
Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3(3), 367–373.
https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000186
Kearns, L.-L., Mitton-Kukner, J., & Tompkins, J. (2014a). Building LGBTQ awareness and
allies in our teacher education community and beyond. Collected Essays on Learning and
Teaching, 7(1), 62. https://doi.org/10.22329/celt.v7i1.3980
Kearns, L.-L., Mitton-Kukner, J., & Tompkins, J. (2014b). LGBTQ awareness and allies:
Building capacity in a bachelor of education program. Canadian Journal of Education,
37(4), 1–26.

87

Keyes, C. L. M., Eisenberg, D., Perry, G. S., Dube, S. R., Kroenke, K., & Dhingra, S. S. (2012).
The relationship of level of positive mental health with current mental disorders in
predicting suicidal behavior and academic impairment in college students. Journal of
American College Health, 60(2), 126–133.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2011.608393
Kirkpatrick, J., & Kirkpatrick, W. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation. ATD
Press.
Kirkpatrick, J., & Kirkpatrick, W. (2019). An Introduction to the New World Kirkpatrick Model.
Kirkpatrick Partners.
Kisch, J., Leino, V., & Silverman, M. (2005). Aspects of suicidal behavior, depression, and
treatment in college. The American Association of Suicidology, 35(1), 3–13.
Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kulick, A., Wernick, L. J., Woodford, M. R., & Renn, K. (2017). Heterosexism, depression, and
campus engagement among LGBTQ college students: Intersectional differences and
opportunities for healing. Journal of Homosexuality, 64(8), 1125–1141.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1242333
Lester, J., Struthers, B., & Yamanaka, A. (2017). Unwelcoming classroom climates: The role of
gender microaggressions in CTE. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2017(178),
67–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20254

88

Lester, J., Yamanaka, A., & Struthers, B. (2016). Gender microaggressions and learning
environments: The role of physical space in teaching pedagogy and communication.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 40(11), 909–926.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2015.1133333
Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). Microaggressions: Strong claims, inadequate evidence. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 12(1), 138–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616659391
Linley, J. L., Nguyen, D., Brazelton, G. B., Becker, B., Renn, K., & Woodford, M. (2016).
Faculty as sources of support for LGBTQ College Students. College Teaching, 64(2), 55–
63. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2015.1078275
Marx, R. D., Garcia, J. E., Butterfield, D. A., Kappen, J. A., & Baldwin, T. T. (2016). Isn’t it
time we did something about the lack of teaching preparation in business doctoral
programs? Journal of Management Education, 40(5), 489–515.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562915616430
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Meyers, S. A. (2009). Do your students care whether you care about them? College Teaching,
57(4), 205–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550903218620
Miller, A. C., & Mills, B. (2019). ‘If they don’t care, I don’t care’: Millennial and Generation Z
students and the impact of faculty caring. The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, 19(4), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v19i4.24167
National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Characteristics of Postsecondary Faculty.
89

Ogunyemi, D., Clare, C., Astudillo, Y. M., Marseille, M., Manu, E., & Kim, S. (2019).
Microaggressions in the learning environment: A systematic review. Journal of Diversity
in Higher Education, 13(2), 97–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000107
Oseguera, L., & Rhee, B. S. (2009). The influence of institutional retention climates on student
persistence to degree completion: A multilevel approach. Research in Higher Education,
50(6), 546–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9134-y
Oswalt, S., & Wyatt, T. (2011). Sexual orientation and differences in mental health, stress, and
academic performance in a national sample of U. S. college students. Journal of
Homosexuality, 58(9), 1255–1280. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2011.605738
Peoples, K. (2021). How to write a phenomenological dissertation: A step-by-step guide. SAGE
Publications.
Pitcher, E. N., Camacho, T. P., Renn, K. A., & Woodford, M. R. (2018). Affirming policies,
programs, and supportive services: Using an organizational perspective to understand
LGBTQ + college student success. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11(2), 117–
132. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000048
Rankin, S., Garvey, J. C., & Duran, A. (2019). A retrospective of LGBT issues on US college
campuses: 1990–2020. International Sociology, 34(4), 435–454.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580919851429
Rein, B. A., Mcneil, D. W., Hayes, A. R., Hawkins, T. A., Ng, M., & Yura, C. A. (2018).
Evaluation of an avatar-based training program to promote suicide prevention awareness
in a college setting. Journal of American College Health, 66(5), 401–411.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1432626
90

Ripley, M., Anderson, E., McCormack, M., & Rockett, B. (2012). Heteronormativity in the
university classroom: Novelty attachment and content substitution among gay-friendly
students. American Sociological Association, 85(2), 121–130.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040711427315
Robinson, J. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2011). Inequities in educational and psychological Outcomes
between LGBTQ and straight students in middle and high school. Educational
Researcher, 40(7), 315–330. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11422112
Rosenbaum, J. E., Ahearn, C. E., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (2017). Bridging the gaps: College
pathways to career success. Russell Sage Foundation.
https://doi.org/10.7758/9781610448680
Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What do we really know about employee engagement?
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 155-182.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21187
Sarikaya, Ş., & Kara, S. B. K. (2020). Organizational trust and organizational support as a
predictor of job satisfaction. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction,
12(February), 435–466.
Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101832.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832
Sensoy, O., & Angelo, R. D. (2017). Reproduce Whiteness and Practical Change. Harvard
Educational Review, 87(4), 557–581.
91

Sezen-Gültekin, G., Argon, T., & Abant, B. (2020). Examination of the relationship between
organizational resilience and organizational sustainability at higher education institution*
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY-NC-ND). International
Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 12, 329–343.
Slate, J. R., LaPrairie, K. N., Schulte, D. P., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2011). Views of effective
college faculty: A mixed analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(3),
331–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903428684
Suárez-Orozco, C., Casanova, S., Martin, M., Katsiaficas, D., Cuellar, V., Smith, N. A., & Dias,
S. I. (2015). Toxic rain in class: Classroom interpersonal microaggressions. Educational
Researcher, 44(3), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15580314
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., &
Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical
practice. The American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.62.4.271
Sunaryo, S., & Suyono, J. (2013). A test of model of the relationship between public service
motivation, job satisfaction and organization citizenship behavior. Review of Integrative
Business & Economics Research, 2(1), 384–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12423.This
Thirolf, K. Q. (2017). Reconceptualizing a more inclusive faculty engagement model: Including
and engaging part-time faculty at community colleges. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 41(4–5), 303–310.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1251357

92

Tillapaugh, D. (2016). Understanding sexual minority male students’ meaning-making about
their multiple identities: An exploratory comparative study. Tillapaugh Canadian Journal
of Higher Education Revue Canadienne, 46(1), 91–108.
https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v46i1.185604
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Census regions and divisions of the United States. 1–2.
https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf
U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2020). Who is protected from employment
discrimination? https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-
employment-discrimination
Wade, C. H., Cimbricz, S. K., Sonnert, G., Gruver, M., & Sadler, P. M. (2016). A comparison of
mathematics teachers’ and professors’ views on secondary preparation for tertiary
calculus. Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College, 7(1), 7–16.
https://doi.org/10.7916/jmetc.v7i1.782
Williams, M. T. (2020). Psychology cannot afford to ignore the many harms caused by
microaggressions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 38–43.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619893362
Williams, S. M., Frey, L. M., Stage, D. L., & Cerel, J. (2018). Exploring lived experience in
gender and sexual minority suicide attempt survivors. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 88(6), 691–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000334
Wilson, J. L., Meyer, K. A., & McNeal, L. (2012). Mission and diversity statements: What they
do and do not say. Innovative Higher Education, 37(2), 125–139.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-011-9194-8
93

Woodford, M. R., Howell, M. L., Silverschanz, P., & Yu, L. (2012). That’s so gay!: Examining
the covariates of hearing this expression among gay, lesbian, and bisexual college
students. Journal of American College Health, 60(6), 429–434.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2012.673519
Woodford, M. R., Kolb, C. L., Durocher-Radeka, G., & Javier, G. (2014). Lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender ally training programs on campus: Current variations and future
directions. Journal of College Student Development, 55(3), 317–322.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0022
Woodford, M. R., Kulick, A., & Atteberry, B. (2015). Protective factors, campus climate, and
health outcomes among sexual minority college students. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 8(2), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038552
Woodford, M. R., Weber, G., Nicolazzo, Z., Hunt, R., Kulick, A., Coleman, T., Coulombe, S.,
Renn, K. A., Woodford, M. R., & Weber, G. (2019). Depression and attempted suicide
among LGBTQ college students: Fostering resilience to the effects of heterosexism and
cisgenderism on campus depression and attempted suicide among LGBTQ college
students. Fostering Resilience to the Effects of Heterosex., 59(4), 421–438.

94

Appendix A: Research Question Alignment With Conceptual Framework
Research Questions
• What are the lived experiences of faculty regarding campus climate and
microaggressions?

• What knowledge, motivation, and organizational variables are involved regarding
how faculty are equipped to serve sexual and gender minority college students?

Research Question Theoretical and
Conceptual Alignment
1. When you hear the word inclusivity, what kinds of
students come to mind?
Knowledge
2. In your own words, how would you define the word
microaggression?
Knowledge
3. What does diversity and inclusivity mean to you in the
classroom setting?
Knowledge; Situated-
Expectancy Value Theory
4. Could you please describe a time as a student when you
were able to connect and engage more with the class
material?
Knowledge; Motivation;
Situated-Expectancy Value
Theory
5. How does your college encourage inclusive practices on
your campus?
Organization; Situated-
Expectancy Value Theory
6. To the best of your recollection, could you outline what
your diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statement is
for your institution?
Organization
7. Describe a time where you heard inappropriate
language, conduct, or microaggressions in your
classroom?
Knowledge
8. Walk me through how you would respond if you heard a
microaggression phrase like “that’s so gay” in your
classroom.
Motivation; Self-Efficacy
9. If provided with Safe Zone (insert campus-specific
training program, if applicable) training, how do you
believe it would help you?
Motivation; Organization;
Self-Efficacy; Situated-
Expectancy Value Theory
10. Could you describe some ways to foster more sexual
and gender minority inclusion in your curriculum
specific to your discipline?
Motivation; Self-Efficacy;
Situated-Expectancy Value
Theory
11. What would you say to a colleague if they told you that
diversity and inclusion don’t matter?
Motivation; Self-Efficacy
12. What do you think the implications might be for a
student who regularly encounters microaggressions in
the classroom?
Knowledge; Situated-
Expectancy Value Theory
13. How important do you view yourself in contributing to
the overall campus climate at your institution?
Motivation; Self-Efficacy
95

14. What are some of the ways faculty can ensure a sense of
belonging on campus?
Motivation; Self-Efficacy
15. In what ways can a faculty member positively
contribute to campus climate to be more inclusive for
sexual and gender minority students?
Motivation; Self-Efficacy;
Situated Expectancy Value
Theory
16. Is there a place or person you could go to for resources
to better serve sexual and gender minority students?
Organization
17. Can you describe a time as a student when a faculty
member said or did something to you or someone you
know that deeply offended you?
Knowledge
18. What do you believe the barriers are at your institution
that prevent further progress in diversity and equity for
sexual and gender minority students?
Organization
19. Are there things that make you hesitant or
uncomfortable when teaching sexual and gender
minority students?
Motivation; Situated-
Expectancy Value Theory
20. What would you say to someone that says fostering
diversity and inclusion is an impossible task and takes
too much work?
Motivation; Situated-
Expectancy Value Theory;
Self-Efficacy

96

Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Context
The purpose of this interview is to collect information from the faculty regarding their work with
sexual and gender minority students as it relates to a student’s perception of campus climate and
sense of belonging. The study design follows a purposeful sampling method in which participant
selection was based. This information will assist the interviewer in identifying emerging
conceptual themes around the lived experience(s) and perception(s) of participants to generate
meaningful data and recommendations.

Procedure (Internal Protocol)
The interviewer will use the interview questions to guide the conversation with the participant.
The interviewer will actively listen and respect the interviewee while he or she is addressing the
questions. At times, the interviewer may be taking notes while the participant is speaking.
Clarifying questions may be asked so as to generate richer data. If at any time the participant is
uncomfortable, does not want to answer a particular question, would like to redact certain
information from the data collection, or discontinue the interview, the participant has the right to
notify the interviewer. The interview will be recorded on audio and video on the Zoom platform.

Procedure (Script to Read to Participant)
During this interview, I will ask a series of questions to guide the conversation with you. I will
be actively listening and while you respond, and I may occasionally look down to write notes.
The goal of this interview is to truly understand your experiences, so I may ask follow up
questions based on your responses. If at any time you are uncomfortable, don’t want to answer a
particularly question, would like to redact certain information, or would like to discontinue the
interview, just let me know. As a reminder, this interview is being recorded on Zoom which
includes both audio and video.

Directions
The interviewer will ask the participant 18 questions outlined below. The interviewer may ask
probing questions to solicit additional data or clarify participant remarks. or additional
explanation. Each interview will take approximately one hour to complete.

Participant Background and Rapport Building Questions:

1. How long have you been working at your current institution?
2. How many years have you been a full-time faculty member?
3. Is the state in which you currently work your home state, or did you relocate there for
work?
4. Have you participated in a research interview before?

97

Interview Questions:

1. When you hear the word inclusivity, what kinds of students come to mind? (K)

2. In your own words, how would you define the word microaggression? (K)

3. What does diversity mean to you in the classroom setting? (K; SEVT)

4. Could you please describe a time as a student when you were able to connect and engage
more with the class material? (K; M; SEVT)

5. How does your college encourage inclusive practices on your campus? (O; SEVT)

6. To the best of your recollection, could you outline what your diversity, equity, and
inclusion (DEI) statement is for your institution? (O)

7. Describe a time where you heard inappropriate language, conduct, or microaggressions in
your classroom? (K)

8. Walk me through how you would respond if you heard a microaggression phrase like
“that’s so gay” in your classroom. (M; S-E)

9. If provided with Safe Zone (insert campus-specific training program, if applicable)
training, how do you believe it would help you? (M; O; S-E; SEVT)

10. Could you describe some ways to foster more sexual and gender minority inclusion in
your curriculum specific to your discipline? (M; S-E; SEVT)

11. What would you say to a colleague if they told you that diversity and inclusion don’t
matter? (M; S-E)

12. What do you think the implications might be for a student who regularly encounters
microaggressions in the classroom? (K; SEVT)

13. How important do you view yourself in contributing to the overall campus climate at
your institution? (M; S-E)

14. What are some of the ways faculty can ensure a sense of belonging on campus? (M; S-E)

15. In what ways can a faculty member positively contribute to campus climate to be more
inclusive for sexual and gender minority students? (M; S-E; SEVT)

16. Is there a place or person you could go to for resources to better serve sexual and gender
minority students? (O)

98

17. Can you describe a time as a student when a faculty member said or did something to you
or someone you know that deeply offended you? (K)

18. What do you believe the barriers are at your institution that prevent further progress in
diversity and equity for sexual and gender minority students? (O)

19. Are there things that make you hesitant or uncomfortable when teaching sexual and
gender minority students? (M; SEVT)

20. What would you say to someone that says fostering diversity and inclusion is an
impossible task and takes too much work? (M; S-E; SEVT)

99

Appendix C: Informed Consent

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Informed Consent and Information Sheet for Research

Study Title: Faculty Influence on Campus Climate and Sense of Belonging for Sexual and
Gender Minority Students: A Phenomenological Study
Principal Investigator: Brandon Elliott
Faculty Advisor: Patricia Tobey, PhD
Department: Rossier School of Education – Organizational Change and Leadership

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.

Purpose
The purpose of this study is to learn more about faculty self-efficacy regarding sexual and gender
minority student topics, and how their role contributes to the overall campus climate and sense of
belonging. We hope to learn about the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
which may help or hinder faculty in serving sexual and gender minority students equitably. You
are invited as a possible participant because you are a full-time faculty member at a higher
education institution in the United States.

Participant Involvement
If you decide to take part, you will be asked to participate in an approximately one-hour
interview. This interview will take place on Zoom. The interview will be recorded on audio and
video. Participants who are not willing to be recorded cannot participate in this study. After the
initial 60-minute interview, participants may receive a follow-up interview of up to 30 minutes to
confirm accuracy and authenticity of the interview data.

This protocol contains no foreseeable risk and offers no direct benefit to you for participating in
this study.

Confidentiality
The University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) may access the data
collected during the interview, but it will not include any personally identifying information. The
IRB reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

The interview data is used solely for academic research purposes, and all information you
provide will be strictly confidential. Any data presented in publications or documents will be
anonymous with no personally identifying information associated. If referencing a direct quote, a
pseudonym will be used.

100

The interview(s) will be recorded on audio and video. The audio will be professionally
transcribed, and that transcriber will also be bound by confidentiality. The recording will be
erased after the transcription is completed. The recording will not include your name, but it will
include your general visage, as is the nature of video conferencing. You will have the right to
review a preliminary summary of the research findings to ensure accuracy and authenticity and
you will have the opportunity to provide comments or corrections.

Research Results
You are welcome to receive a copy of the results of the study. You may request a copy of the
results on this form.

Concerns
If you have any concerns about the nature or conduct of the study, please notify the researcher to
have your concerns properly addressed. During the interview(s) you may choose not to answer
questions and may end your voluntary participation at any time.

Investigator Contact Information
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Brandon Elliott, Principal Investigator,
at brandon.elliott@usc.edu or (310) 766-7566. You may also contact Patricia Tobey, PhD,
Faculty Advisor, at ptobey@usc.edu.

IRB Contact Information
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

If you agree to participate in this study, please review the following page.

101

Statement of Consent
I have read and/or I have had the terms used in this consent form and their significance explained
to me. By signing below, I affirm that I am a full-time faculty member at a higher education
institution in the United States. I voluntarily agree to participate in an interview that will be
audio/video recorded.

Name of Participant (please print) ___________________________

Faculty Rank: Full Professor | Associate Professor | Assistant Professor | Instructor

Other (write in): ________________________

Signature of Participant ___________________________ Date ___________

Signature of Investigator ___________________________ Date____________

Your signature below indicates that you are giving permission to audio/video tape your
responses.

Signature of Participant ___________________________ Date__________

Thank you for your participation!

You will be given a copy of this signed and dated consent form to keep.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Black male experience on a community college campus: a study on sense of belonging

PDF

Students’ sense of belonging: college student and staff perspectives during COVID-19

PDF

Improving first-generation students' sense of belonging at university

PDF

Ethnic identity development, ethnic student organizations, campus racial climate, cultural integrity, and sense of belonging for Filipino American undergraduate students at a selective predominan...

PDF

Faculty perceptions of barriers: gender and ethnicity differences among tenured and tenure-track faculty in the University of California system

PDF

“Black” workplace belonging: an examination of the lived experiences of Black faculty sense of belonging factors in community colleges

PDF

Institutional diversity's impact on Latinx students' self-efficacy and sense of belonging

PDF

Perceptions of campus racial climate and sense of belonging at faith-based institutions: differences by ethnicity, religiosity, and faith fit

PDF

Inclusion of adjunct faculty in the community college culture

PDF

The impact of faculty interactions on online student sense of belonging: an evaluation study

PDF

Perceptions of campus racial climate as predictors for cross-race interaction at Christian colleges and universities: differences by race/ethnicity, sex, and religiosity

PDF

Post-secondary distance education: cultivating a sense of belonging through teaching presence

PDF

The relationship of college climate and policy to transgender student belonging

PDF

Belonging: interplay of race and sexuality with Black gay undergraduate male students

PDF

Sense of belonging in an online high school: looking to connect

PDF

Exploring faculty-student interactions in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income and first-generation college students

PDF

The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities

PDF

U.S. Filipinos in higher education: sense of belonging, validation, well-being, and campus culture as predictors of GPA and intent to persist

PDF

What makes a house a home: factors of influence for Black students' sense of belonging at a predominately White institution

PDF

Non-academic factors affecting sense of belonging in first year commuter students at a four-year Hispanic serving institution

Asset Metadata

Creator Elliott, Brandon Michael (author)

Core Title Faculty experiences: sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority college students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 04/24/2021

Defense Date 04/14/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag campus climate,faculty,Higher education,LGBT,microaggression,OAI-PMH Harvest,sense of belonging,sexual and gender minority

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Datta, Monique (committee member), Muraszewski, Alison (committee member)

Creator Email be70106@usc.edu,belliott1089@me.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-451272

Unique identifier UC11668589

Identifier etd-ElliottBra-9520.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-451272 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ElliottBra-9520.pdf

Dmrecord 451272

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Elliott, Brandon Michael

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA