University Libraries

Social Justice and Diversity Training Needs Assessment

Justin Beauchamp, Erika Behrmann, Megan Bolger, Keenan Colquitt, Ardy Gonyer, Rich
Green, Kristin Helms, Michael Mastalski, JoAnna R. Murphy, Leanne Soter, Kathrine Stygles,
Christopher Venable


Bowling Green State University

April 18, 2014

ii
Executive Summary
The purpose of this multi-faceted assessment was to gain insight into the training needs
of the classified, administrative, and faculty staff members of the Bowling Green State
University Libraries regarding topics of diversity and social justice. Four individual needs
assessments were conducted, one with classified staff members of the Libraries, one with the
undergraduate student staff, one with faculty and administrative staff, and one with a variety of
documents created by the University libraries related to the functioning of the organization.
While each assessment had a unique set of findings, as a whole it became evident that there isa a
need for training that addresses disability issues as well as more general concepts of social
justice. Synthesizing the recommendations from the four aspects of the needs assessment, we
recommend that the following learning outcomes guide the University Libraries staff training.
As a consequence of participating in this training, the University Libraries staff will enhance
their ability to:
define social justice;
articulate how disability is an aspect of social justice;
define and differentiate between medical, minority, and social models of disability;
relate concepts of social justice and disability to the environment of the library and
generate strategies to create a more inclusive climate in the library for people with
disabilities.

iii
Table of Contents
Peiception of Stuuent Staff ............................................................................................................................................ 1
Puipose of Assessment .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Nethous .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Finuings anu Implications .............................................................................................................................................. S
Leaining 0utcomes anu Recommenuations ........................................................................................................... 6
Peiceptions of the Classifieu Staff ............................................................................................................................... 6
Puipose of the Neeus Assessment .............................................................................................................................. 6
Reseaich Questions ........................................................................................................................................................... 7
Nethous .................................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Results anu Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Limitations ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1S
Recommenuations .......................................................................................................................................................... 14
Leaining 0utcomes ........................................................................................................................................................ 14
Libiaiy Faculty anu Auministiatois Biveisity Issues Assessment ............................................................ 1S
Puipose ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1S
Specific 0bjectives .......................................................................................................................................................... 1S
Nethous ............................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Limitations ......................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Results anu Biscussion ................................................................................................................................................. 18
Recommenuations anu Suggesteu Leaining 0utcomes ................................................................................. 24
Bocument Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 24
Puipose of Assessment ................................................................................................................................................. 24
Nethous ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2S
Finuings anu Implications ........................................................................................................................................... 2S
iv
Leaining 0bjectives ........................................................................................................................................................ 28
Bata Souices ...................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Appenuix A: Stuuent Staff Suivey ........................................................................................................................... S2
Appenuix B: Classifieu Staff Suivey ........................................................................................................................ S8
Appenuix C: Paiticipant Reciuitment Email ...................................................................................................... 41
Appenuix B: Libiaiy Faculty anu Auministiation Biveisity Issues Assessment Suivey ................ 42
Appenuix E: Libiaiy Faculty anu Auministiation views about Biveisity at Woik ............................ 47
Appenuix F: Libiaiy Faculty anu Auministiatoi Peiceptions of the Fiequency of Libiaiy
Employees' Biscussions about theii Iuentity oi Expeiience as a Nembei of an Iuentifieu
uioup ............................................................................................................................................................................ 48
Appenuix u: Libiaiy Faculty anu Auministiatoi Self-Repoiteu Competence in Auuiessing Neeus
of Nembeis of an Iuentifieu uioup ................................................................................................................. 49
Appenuix B: Libiaiy Faculty anu Auministiatois Who Peiceive They Bave Been the Taiget of
Bias oi Baiassment Bue to Theii Nembeiship of an Iuentifieu uioup ........................................... Su
Appenuix I: Libiaiy Faculty anu Auministiatois Who Bave Witnesseu Bias oi Baiassment Bue
to What They Peiceiveu to be Anothei Peison's uioup Nembeiship ............................................. S1

1
Perception of Student Staff
Purpose of Assessment
In the original meetings between students in the Social Justice Education and Training
class and the University Libraries senior staff members, it became clear that UL senior staff
viewed the student staff of the library as more diverse than the professional staff. Likewise, the
student staff have more contact with library patrons on a daily basis. As such, it is important to
assess these students experiences in the library. The following research questions were
addressed:
1. What are the students staffs comfort level in expressing personal diversity in the
workplace?
2. How does the student staff perceive the diversity climate within the University Library?
Methods
Medium. An online survey utilizing the Qualtrics Survey Software was used (See
Appendix A for survey questions). The survey contained 21 questions. Likert scales or
yes/no/unsure options were used for a majority of items; open-ended questions were available to
provide an explanation for each question. The survey took 5-10 minutes to complete.
Participants. Participants included the student staff of the University Libraries whose
email addresses were provided. We do not know how the Library contact collected the email
addresses and which departments students represented.
Timeline. Originally, the surveys were to be sent out on February 27, 2014, and the
survey would close on March 7, 2014. However, emails were not available until March 6, 2014.
The timeline was adjusted, and surveys were sent out on March 7, 2014. As this coincided with
2
the institutions spring break, the survey remained open until March 19, 2014. A reminder email
was sent out on March 17, 2014. Data analysis occurred from March 17-22, 2014.
Data Collection. Students were informed that the survey results were part of a class
project and would assess diversity issues within the University Library. Responses to the survey
would serve as a needs assessment for upcoming diversity trainings for the Librarys faculty and
staff. At the end of the survey, students were asked if their responses to open-ended questions
could be used anonymously during the training sessions.
Data Analysis. Ten students filled out the survey although only nine completed all
questions. This reveals that there are limitations to the generalizability of the data which will be
addressed below. The data were analyzed using means and frequencies. Qualitative data
collected through the open-ended questions provided more detail into the student staffs thoughts
and beliefs. These responses are shared throughout the Findings and Implications.
Limitations. The student staff was the largest group assessed for the social justice
trainings. However, a number of issues led to the smallest response rate. First, the email
addresses were not available for all student staff members which means that not all student staff
had the opportunity to take the survey. It is known that the University Libraries employs over
100 student staff; however, only 75 emails were available. Second, the survey was released a
few days before the institutions spring break. This was poor timing as this was an atypical week
for students when they may not have been checking email and may not have gone to work during
this time. No respondents took the survey over the spring break period, and although the survey
remained open for a few days after spring break, only one respondent took the survey at that
time. Third, unlike the professional staff members, student staff were not required to take the
survey by their supervisors. Therefore, the responses received were only completed by the
S
student staff who were willing to take it with no incentive. Together, these three issues led to a
the very low response rate of 10 surveys completed out of the 75 who were sent the survey.
Findings and Implications
Although seven of the ten respondents indicated that no diversity issues were evident in
complaints from patrons, three indicated that race/ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status
respectively are aspects of diversity evident in the complaints and comments of
patrons. Similarly when asked if student staff felt that the Libraries staff has been biased
towards a particular population, most respondents responded no. However, one respondent
chose that yes the Libraries staff has expressed positive biased towards a student population; this
respondent stated, Some students point out how many gay students work at the library (in a
positive way). Another respondent expressed that ze
1
felt the Library staff expressed negative
bias and explained, Occasionally my supervisors will make comments about people with strong
religious ties and as a devout Catholic that makes me uncomfortable. None of the respondents
affirmed that there are reasons related to diversity that their peers do not use the library.
As far as changes related to diversity issues or additional comments, most respondents did
not provide any additional information. However, one respondent said, I would like to see more
staff that are people of color. There are plenty of students it seems but the staff is lacking. It is
overwhelmingly white female and as I am sure this may be what that specific demographic is
interested in more than others, there should be more people of color and even men to really get
that diversity that is so important. Clearly, this student staff member believed that diversity is
important, but ze does not view the professional staff as diverse even though the student staff is
diverse. This was consistent with the senior staff members beliefs shared in the initial

1
"Ze" is a genuei-neutial nominative S
iu
peison singulai pionoun ieplacing "he" oi
"she."
4
meeting. These sentiments also imply that diversity is defined by race and gender, two visible
aspects of diversity, without considering other non-visible aspects of diversity.
Concerning diversity among staff and students, 70% of respondents answered yes when
asked Do you consider the library staff (both student and staff) to be diverse? However, when
asked questions about whether or not the library hires, promotes, supports, and responds to a
diverse student population, a majority of respondent chose agree over strongly agree. This
could suggest that the library needs to work on hiring, promoting, supporting, and responding to
a more diverse population making it clear that the library strongly supports diversity.
Concerning a diverse staff respondents comments included: There are many LGBT and women
employees, Racial make-up of the employees, and I visit the library frequently and interact
with both student and staff of all races, majors, religions etc.
With regards to discussing issues with their supervisors concerning various categories, a
majority of students felt comfortable or very comfortable talking to their supervisor about
numerous issues. However, one student responded neither comfortable nor uncomfortable
concerning discussing religion, three responded neither comfortable nor uncomfortable
concerning discussing sexual orientation and one responded neither comfortable nor
uncomfortable concerning discussing ability/disability. Concerning comfort level when
speaking with supervisors, one respondent stated, I don't express freely about my sexual
orientation to the job because I am cautious and may get penalties. This is obviously
problematic. Another respondent said Being that my supervisor is also a woman of color, it
would be easier to discuss these issues with her as she would have a better understanding. The
remainder of respondents were either comfortable or very comfortable talking to their
supervisor about various identity issues.
S
Another comfort level question was sharing aspects of identity while working at the
library. Again, most respondents felt either comfortable or very comfortable concerning
sharing various aspects of their identity. However, there was one respondent who answered
neither comfortable nor uncomfortable concerning sexual orientation, and two respondents
who answered neither comfortable nor uncomfortable concerning religion.
Upon asking respondents to expand, one student wrote: i don't care about anything else,
but i'm an athiest. not a diehard athiest. i just don't care and can sometimes get uncomfortable
when people bring up religion because "athiest" is often looked at as a synonym to "satan
worshiper," which is really silly because we aren't worshiping anything. trust me. This
comment hints towards this particular individual feeling like hir
2
worldview expression is not
valued as much as other religions, or that they are an outsider because of their particular religious
affiliation (or lack thereof).
All respondents who answered the question Have you ever experienced a conflict or
concern at a library facility regarding your age, race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, religion
socioeconomic status, etc? answered with No. One respondent stated that everythings
pretty great. These responses show the positive work being done by the university library staff
to create an inclusive environment around the working environment. On the other hand, one out
of the nine respondents stated that ze has concerns about diversity in the workplace. This
information proves to be inconclusive based on the amount of responses.
Three respondents stated that patrons have come to them with concerns around
race/ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status. Seven respondents stated there were no
aspects of diversity evident. While these concerns are not statistically significant, the areas of

2
"Bii" is the genuei-neutial, S
iu
peison, singulai, objective alteinative to "his" oi "heis."
6
identity listed could be further explored by the University Libraries staff through another survey
of the student staff or discussions during meetings with student staff.
When asked if any BGSU students have seen bias, positive or negative, by University
Libraries staff toward a specific population, six respondents stated No. One respondent stated
there was a positive bias and one stated there was a negative bias. One respondent was unsure.
Two respondents went further with their response. Occasionally my supervisors will make
comments about people with strong religious ties and as a devout Catholic that makes me
uncomfortable. Another stated, Some students point out how many gay students work at the
library (in a positive way).
Learning Outcomes and Recommendations
Although no participants stated that they have experienced a conflict or concern based on
their individual identities, it is important to note that some student staff members have seen or
experienced issues around diversity. Our recommendations include the following learning
outcomes for the all staff training.
University Libraries staff members who attend the social justice training will be able to
Develop techniques to have conversations with student staff on various issues of diversity
including sexual orientation, religion, and ability/disability.
Communicate with staff about various types of identities and how to be sensitive to
varying identities and affiliations.
Train students on various issues of diversity including sexual orientation, religion, and
ability/disability.
Perceptions of the Classified Staff
Purpose of the Needs Assessment
7
In order to develop a training best suited to the needs of the classified library staff
participants, we conducted an assessment of their perceptions, knowledge, and experiences of
diversity and social justice within the library setting. To acquire the data to determine these
factors, we constructed a survey that was distributed to all classified staff members from the
Jerome Library at BGSU (see Appendix B). We will use this information, in conjunction with
assessments of the administration, faculty, and student staff, and a document analysis, to inform
a set of social justice trainings with the Jerome Library staff to take place in April 2014.
Research Questions
In order to design a diversity and social justice training session that accurately meets the
needs of our audience, we felt it was critical to tailor our presentation to the classified library
staff members current knowledge and experiences, the needs of the library staff as a whole as
identified by respondents, and their preferred learning formats. We therefore developed the
following research questions:
! What are the classified library staff members desired learning outcomes from the social
justice training?
! What are the classified library staff members levels of awareness and knowledge
pertaining to social justice issues?
! What activity groupings would the classified library staff members prefer when
participating in a social justice training with other levels of library staff?
! What are the preferred learning styles of the classified library staff members?
Methods
The survey was conducted Friday, March 7 through Monday, March 17, 2014. Prior to
conducting the survey, the Dean of the Library informed the classified staff about a survey they
8
would receive in conjunction with the upcoming training. All classified staff received the email
invitation. Those who chose to participate received instructions and assurance that
confidentiality would be maintained. Participants were also instructed to contact the instructor of
record if questions and concerns regarding the survey, its content, or their participation arose.
By proceeding to the first question, they demonstrated their consent to participate in the 10
question survey. Due to the sensitive nature of the survey topic and reservations that individuals
may have had, we also requested permission to use open-ended responses in our analysis.
Completion of the survey averaged six minutes.
This assessment utilized a web-based institutional licensed version of the survey tool,
Qualtrics. An emailed web-based survey was used for a number of reasons. First, email
provided expedient access to all 32 classified library staff members and allowed for timely
follow-up with participants. The 32 classified staff participants were sent an individualized
email that requested their voluntary assistance and provided a private link to the survey.
Participants who did not respond to the initial invitation received a follow-up email requesting
their participation on the seventh day of the survey period.
Second, based upon our initial meeting with representatives of the Library, the panel of
six individuals noted that administering the survey through email and completing it online would
be conducive to the wide range of hours classified staff work. The operational hours of the
library are designed to meet access needs and vary each day and within departments and units.
This posed a potential hindrance to the timely collection of paper or interview response formats.
Finally, conflicting schedules between student and staff schedules due to a scheduled break in
the institutions academic calendar posed potential timely data collection concerns.
Results and Analysis
9
The following section discusses the results and finding of the survey. Each subsequent
section parallels with the major questions of the survey.
Response rate. Of the 32 classified staff invited to participate in the survey, 21
responded, yielding a response rate of 66%. Each question included the option for respondents
to opt out in an attempt to capture accurate responses. As a result, some of the questions did not
have full participation. Our analysis of collected data and findings focused primarily on the
response to the five Likert scale questions and two preferred learning style questions.
Comfort with issues of diversity and inclusion. The first prompt said, I feel
comfortable about issues of diversity and inclusion related to differences based on The
questions utilized the seven categorical identifiers: 1) race/ethnicity, 2) gender/sex, 3) age, 4)
socioeconomic status, 5) religion/faith, 6) sexual orientation, and 7) disability.
Identifier
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Race/Ethnicity 0% 0% 5% 11% 58% 26%
Gender/Sex 0% 5% 0% 5% 53% 37%
Age 0% 0% 0% 5% 63% 32%
Socioeconomic
status
0% 0% 0% 21% 53% 26%
Religion/Faith 0% 0% 11% 21% 42% 26%
Sexual
orientation
0% 11% 5% 11% 42% 32%
Disability 0% 0% 5% 11% 58% 26%
Table 1. Response rates for the question: I feel comfortable about issues of diversity and
inclusion related to differences based on

Results indicated that the majority of the classified staff agrees (42% - 58%) or
strongly agrees (26% - 37%) that they feel comfortable with all seven categories (Table 1).
Moreover, 5% (n = 1) somewhat disagree that they would feel comfortable discussing issues of
race/ethnicity, gender/sex, sexual orientation, or disabilities and 5% (n = 1) disagrees that they
feel comfortable talking about gender/sex and 10% (n = 2) about sexual orientation.
1u
Knowledge of social identities. The next question stated, My level of knowledge of
the following social identities is The questions utilized the seven categorical identifiers: 1)
race/ethnicity, 2) gender/sex, 3) age, 4) socioeconomic status, 5) religion/faith, 6) sexual
orientation, and 7) disability (Table 2). Notably for this question, only 19 individuals responded.
Identifier None Basic Developing Advanced and Expert
Race/Ethnicity 0% 11% 47% 43%
Gender/Sex 5% 11% 53% 32%
Age 0% 11% 63% 27%
Socioeconomic status 0% 16% 47% 37%
Religion/Faith 0% 16% 63% 22%
Sexual orientation 5% 5% 58% 32%
Disability 0% 26% 58% 16%
Table 2. Response rates for the question: My level of knowledge of the following social
identities is

Results indicated that the majority of the classified staff viewed their knowledge of the
seven categories as developing (47%-63%). By conflating advanced and expert
categories, it was determined that this level of knowledge what the second most selected option
for all of the categories except disability. Yet, despite having the highest percentage of
participants selecting basic knowledge, the general knowledge of topic of disability still was
mostly developing (58%; n = 11) or advanced and expert (15%; n = 3).
Diversity and inclusion topics. Two questions within the survey assessed participants
self-identified learning interests and topics that the classified staff member believed would be
beneficial for library staff in a diversity and inclusion workshop. These two questions were: I
would like to learn more about the following topics related to diversity and inclusion and I
feel that the library staff as a whole (classified staff, faculty, and administrative staff) would
benefit from learning more about issues of diversity and inclusion related to Both questions
were rated using a six point Likert scale that ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
11
Notably one individual only answered the first question and not the second. Therefore, results
are given in face value rather than percentages (Table 3).

Identifier
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree Strongly
Agree
Race/Ethnicity 1 1 2 1 - - 7 3 8 8 1 4
Gender/Sex 1 1 2 2 1 - 7 4 8 8 - 2
Age 1 1 2 2 1 - 6 3 9 9 - 2
Socioeconomic
status
1 1 2 1 - - 5 3 8 10 3 3
Religion/Faith 1 1 2 1 - 1 5 3 10 7 1 4
Sexual
orientation
1 1 3 1 - 2 6 1 8 10 1 2
Disability 1 1 2 1 - 1 7 4 8 8 1 3
Note that for each response choice, unshaded values represent which topics respondents
personally would like to learn more about and shaded values represent topics they feel the UL
staff as a whole would benefit from learning more about.

Table 3. Response rates for the questions: I would like to learn more about the following
topics related to diversity and inclusion and I feel that the library staff as a whole (classified
staff, faculty, and administrative staff) would benefit from learning more about issues of
diversity and inclusion related to

The majority of participants agreed that every topic was of interest for a diversity and
inclusion workshop. Furthermore, the majority of participants agreed that the library staff as a
whole would benefit from learning about each topic. Although every topic had interest,
socioeconomic status, religion/faith, and sexual orientation were the top selected identifiers
among the participants. Furthermore, the classified staff strongly agreed that there was
personal interest in learning more about socioeconomic status (n = 3). The classified staff also
strongly agreed that Race/ethnicity and religion/faith had the highest response rates amongst
those who selected that they strongly agreed that the overall staff would benefit from learning
about these topics. For more information about the results for each indicator, please see Table 3.
12
Understanding of key terms. The following question stated, I feel comfortable
defining The questions utilized the five categorical identifiers: 1) diversity, 2) prejudice, 3)
oppression, 4) social justice, and 5) privilege (Table 4). Notably for this question, only 18
individuals responded.
Identifier
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Diversity 0% 0% 17% 39% 33% 11%
Prejudice 0% 0% 17% 33% 33% 17%
Oppression 0% 0% 28% 28% 33% 11%
Social
Justice
0% 0% 39% 28% 22% 11%
Privilege 0% 0% 22% 33% 28% 17%
Table 4. Response rates for the question: I feel comfortable defining

The largest responses from classified library staff were somewhat agree or agree.
These options were selected the most for defining diversity, prejudice, oppression, and privilege.
Notably, when asked if participants felt comfortable defining social justice, the highest response
rate was somewhat disagree (39%; n = 7).
Preferred training activity groupings. Survey participants were asked to identify the
type of grouping they would feel comfortable with while participating in training activities or
discussions from the following list: randomly grouped, grouped with other people from my
unit/dept., grouped with people outside my unit/dept., grouped together by job classification,
grouped with people of other job classifications, and grouped with my supervisor. Participants
were most comfortable with being randomly grouped (57%; n = 12), being grouped with people
outside their unit/dept. (43%; n = 9), and being grouped with people of other job classifications
(33%; n = 7).
Additional shared information. When asked if there was any additional information
the participants wished to share with the training facilitators, only four participants chose to
1S
respond. One participant shared that the library staff had recently participated in a training led
by LGBT students. Another requested that the material in the training be concentrated rather
than spread over multiple topics because this participant learns more from this format. Another
shared that they were not interested in participating in another training unless it covered
different materials than previous trainings the participant had attended, such as those hosted by
OED. The fourth response was removed from the analysis, as it did not pertain to the training.
Limitations
Two primary limitations arose when conducting the needs assessment. First, the response
rate was only 66% (n = 21) as classified staff had little time to respond to the survey. The survey
deadline was on a weekend and the emails used were work emails that may not be accessed over
a weekend. Furthermore, due to the timing of our groups access to the email addresses for the
classified staff, the distribution of our survey began on the Friday leading into Spring Break and
was closed on the Sunday at the end of the break. While most of the staff were likely still
working over the break, this may have impacted our ability to collect more responses if some of
the staff had chosen to take vacation during the time allowed for survey participation.
Secondly, the types of web browsers that support full usage of the survey through Qualtrics
may have been limited. In the open-ended question at the end of the survey, one participant
shared that using Google Chrome impeded her or his ability to use the drag-and-drop function
for two of the questions, and thus this participant was unable to answer those questions. If a
similar problem occurred for other participants, this may explain why some questions did not
have full participation; this is difficult to decipher, however, because participants also had the
option to opt-out of the questions they did not wish to answer.
14
Recommendations
Based on the aforementioned results and analysis, we recommend the following actions
for the diversity and inclusion training in April 2014:
! Since some individuals felt they just had training about diversity, we feel that it would be
in the staffs best interest to build on their prior knowledge by discussing areas that they
would like to learn more about (socioeconomic status and religion/faith).
! Since the preferred format included anecdotes, we suggest that the diversity trainers
discuss stories and experiences pulled from current events (either on or off campus).
! One individual mentioned that it helps to focus on one issue. We agree that this is the
best format, therefore suggest only focusing on the issues that have interest
(socioeconomic status and religion/faith).
! While the participants graded themselves somewhat high on most diversity-related terms,
the training should cover the terms oppression and social justice because the participants
felt the least comfortable discussing these terms.
! The learning formats used in the training design should include stories/experiences,
research data, and small group discussions.
! For the training activities, groups should be decided randomly, with a mixture of persons
from different departments/units and different job classifications, while also trying to be
mindful not to group the classified staff participants with their supervisors.
Learning Outcomes
Based upon the results of our research we recommend the following learning outcomes
be considered in the overall training design:
By participating in the social justice workshop, participants will be able to:
1S
! Articulate issues of socioeconomic status and religion/faith.
! Describe anecdotal examples (such as stories or experiences) of oppression imbedded in
issues of socioeconomic status and religion/faith.
! Create a working definition of social justice, based in their experiences from previous
trainings and their newly acquired knowledge from this training.
Library Faculty and Administrators Diversity Issues Assessment
For the purpose of this assignment, our group was responsible for collecting and
analyzing data from the library faculty and administrators. This information will be combined
with the other groups assessments of the classified staff, the student staff, and document
analysis. In this section, we present our purpose, results and discussion, and recommendations.
Purpose
We designed this needs assessment to help inform our future decisions in regards to
shaping an effective and tailored social justice workshop for the library staff. We wanted to
assess the current views of faculty and administrators on diversity and social justice issues with
specific attention to the following: employees understanding of diversity as it relates to their
job, areas of confidence and uncertainty within social justice, and other measures relevant to the
creation of a future social justice workshop. These data were not only to be used by our group
but also by the larger social justice education and training class for the purpose of designing the
workshop for the library.
Specific Objectives
The library staff is categorized in a number of ways, including job classification, and our
goal within the creation, distribution, and collection of this survey was to assess the faculty and
administrators subpopulation within the library staff. As the data collected is to be used to
16
inform our social justice workshop, we focused on specific ideas, attitudes, preferences, and
personal experiences to help shape our understanding of the staff and what type of workshop
would work best for them. In terms of ideas, we wanted to assess the library staffs thoughts on
the amount of diversity work that was being included in conversations with each other and their
impression and relationship to diversity work within their job setting. We also wanted to
understand their attitudes towards the importance of diversity and their ability to work with
various marginalized populations. Additionally, we sought to understand whether faculty and
administrators believed the library was a sufficiently diverse workplace. We also asked about
their personal experiences within the library in regards to experiencing or witnessing harassment
or bias around identity. Lastly, we asked about their preferences concerning how we will be
conducting the training, including its content.
Methods
The survey methods used were selected for a number of reasons, including information
desired, time available, resources, and the number of individuals we wanted to survey. We
wanted to know highly personal information including opinions, experiences related to
harassment and bias, and comfort levels. We chose to use survey methodology because of the
amount of information we could collect with minimal participant time commitment. Due to the
sensitive nature of the material, we also intentionally chose not to collect demographic questions
as we did not have interest in running multivariate analysis on the data. We also wanted
participants to feel as anonymous as possible to encourage honest answers. Having a limited
timeframe, we felt that the most appropriate measure would be to use an online survey that could
be emailed to the appropriate individuals. With no financial resources to spend on the project
and very limited personnel and time to dedicate to the project, the quantitative online survey via
17
Qualtrics was by far the most feasible option. We designed the survey questions to be analyzed
with descriptive statistics.
The timetable for our data collection was as follows. We sent an email (see Appendix C)
including the link to the survey (see Appendix D) to the 35 library faculty and administrators on
Tuesday, March 4, 2014. When we closed the survey a week later, we had responses from 26
people, comprising a 74% response rate. Considering that this data collection was not
incentivized in any way and the only communication that we had with the faculty and
administrators who completed the survey was through email, we were happy with the response
rate.
Limitations
There are limitations to our survey, results analysis, and our recommendations. With
regard to our survey, we did not get a 100% rate and thus our results could have been affected by
response bias. Those who did not respond may have had strong thoughts or preferences that
differed from the information that we collected or may have chosen to opt out of the survey for
any number of other reasons. Our survey, though intentionally kept short, did ask quite a
number of questions and this may have led to fatigue among the respondents. Additionally, we
intentionally avoided collecting demographic information with the hopes that respondents would
be more forthcoming and honest in their responses if their responses could not be linked back to
them. However, we did not make that known to participants at any point during the survey.
Thus, the results may have been influenced by participants hesitations in being linked to the
survey results. Lastly, in Table 5 the questions that addressed the source of bias did not include
yes, the source was a student employee which was an option that we had wanted to offer. As
18
such, there may have been answers that were lost or re-categorized that may have fit under this
category.
In analyzing our data, correlating results across different questions was done
informally. We only performed descriptive statistical analysis and did not perform any
multivariate analysis. With multivariate analysis, we may have seen stronger trends toward a
particular subject matter as being only from particular individuals or may have found that it was
a wide range of individuals who preferred or felt least competent addressing specific identities.
Lastly, our recommendations are limited due to the varied results of our survey
respondents. Our suggestions with regard to workshop format are based in strong preferences of
the respondents. However, when it comes to topic choice our recommendations are not as strong
as the results were far more varied. As such, our learning outcomes are focused only on a
particular identity topic and not on the range of identities that could be addressed in a broader
workshop.
Results and Discussion
We collected and analyzed the results from the completed surveys and found that while
some conclusions were clear and descriptive others were contradictory. The respondents had
strong alignment when asked questions regarding the set-up of the workshop particularly in
regards to who they would be grouped with and how the material would be covered. Subject
matter to be covered in the workshop, however, was less conclusive. In a number of different
questions, we sought to understand which topic areas would be most useful for the respondents
to learn more about based on their current knowledge level, their competencies, and their
preferences. However, our results across these different measures were spread out across over
five or more subject areas. As much of our data was not easily summarized, we largely
19
discussed each aspect of the survey independently, drawing conclusions and parallels between
the materials where possible.
We collected data on five primary topics, including respondents views about diversity at
work, experiences regarding identity and affinity groups, competence in addressing needs, bias
or harassment incidences, and training preferences. We present the results and conclude with
recommendations.
Views about diversity at work. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1 (See
Appendix E). The survey highlights a number of important findings for this project concerning
the norms of the library staff as they relate to diversity issues. The employees who participated
in this survey felt encouraged to include diversity-related content in the discussions in their work
and nearly all felt that understanding diversity was an important aspect to serving patrons
effectively. Most reported also feeling that their coworkers appreciated having discussions about
diversity, though 38% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed or outright disagreed with this
statement. Interestingly, when it came to inclusion of diversity topics within instructional
sessions and increasing the number of times diversity-related issues should be discussed, the
group was more split. No respondents strongly agreed that the instructional sections should have
a stronger emphasis on diversity related issues, and only 15% agreed. Additionally, 46% of
library employees responded neutrally to the question of whether diversity related issues should
be discussed more regularly amongst employees.
A limitation to interpreting these questions is that we do not know how regularly these
issues are currently discussed. From the informal conversations that we had with some of the
senior staff prior to the creation of this survey it would seem that for many of the staff, diversity
issues are regularly discussed as part of training and within the library staff, which could perhaps
2u
lead to the perception that the current level of conversation is acceptable. Perhaps employees
already feel that there is a significant emphasis on diversity issues within their professional
development and thus they do not feel that additional discussion of the topic is necessary.
The most important information that gathered from the above questions is in regards to the
overall attitude and impression that library staff hold related to diversity. Overall, the library
staff places an importance on diversity as it relates to serving patrons, believe that their co-
workers appreciate conversations about diversity, and feel encouraged to discuss topics related to
diversity within their work environments. Additionally, though attitudes and impression of
diversity as a topic are overwhelmingly positive, few individuals feel that the library is
sufficiently diverse in terms of faculty or administrative staff.
Identity and affinity groups. The next series of questions addressed respondent
perceptions of how often library staff talked about their experiences as related to particular
identity or affinity groups that they belonged to. We present the data in Table 2 (see Appendix
F). The categories that indicated staff talked frequently about their job status (classified, faculty,
administrators), being a woman, and being an older adult. Based on anecdotal knowledge,
individuals who hold these identities are common among the staff. Few faculty and
administrators heard others discuss their religion or sexual orientation. Only 16% of the staff
who responded indicated that they heard LGBTQ individuals sometimes or often talk about
their identity and 80% stated rarely or never. Additionally, only 12% of respondents indicated
they heard non-Christians talking about their religious identity sometimes or often. These
low values may perhaps be due to a low number of openly identified LGBTQ or non-Christian
individuals within the library staff or it may be that those individuals feel unsafe or unwelcome
in that space. Regardless, it is important to acknowledge the overwhelming lack of voices
21
coming from these two identity groups. Three individuals indicated they do not know of any
LGBTQ identified individuals working at the library. Five individuals indicated they do not
know of anyone with a disability who works at the library.
Competence in addressing needs. We present the compiled data regarding respondents
self-reported competence in addressing needs of others in Table 3 (see Appendix G). The library
staff that we surveyed felt the least competent addressing the specific needs of individuals with a
disability - much more so than any other identity group. Forty-four percent of individuals felt
somewhat less than competent and less than competent when it came to addressing needs of
this population. This, in combination with the question towards the beginning of the survey that
understanding issues of diversity as essential to serving library patrons may indicate a necessary
focus of our presentation for this particular group of staff. People of color, LGBTQ individuals,
and people who speak English as a second language were the identity groups that the staff also
indicated most strongly as only somewhat confident in addressing. Interestingly, while non-
Christian individuals had been identified as a group that people perceived as rarely speaking
about their own identity, over 75% of respondents stated that they were somewhat competent
or competent when it came to addressing the needs of this specific population.
Bias or harassment incidences. Results pertaining to personal experiences with bias or
harassment incidences are presented in Table 4 (Appendix H) and experiences witnessing bias or
harassment incidences directed at others are presented in Table 5 (Appendix I). Questions
regarding being a personal target of bias or harassment brought varying results as well. Gender
and age were the categories that were identified by the largest number of individuals as being
recipients of bias or harassment with six individuals indicating they have experienced gender
bias and five individuals indicating they have experienced age bias, from varying sources. This
22
finding is particularly interesting in relation to our earlier question about whether individuals talk
about their experiences related to their identity groups as age and gender were two of the more
common identities perceived to be discussed. Again, as respondents identified above the
majority of the harassment or bias seems targeted on identities relating to age and to
gender. This category also had an increased number of racially motivated bias incidents.
Training preferences. As is apt to happen when surveying individuals about a wide
range of diverse topics many possible subject matters were highlighted as important or
interesting to the library staff. When asked directly their preferred topics 60% of the staff
indicated they would be interested in learning about individuals who spoke English as a second
language. The next most popular topics were race and ethnicity with 48% and then a three-way
tie for third with sexual orientation, disability, and age. Interestingly, when asked what
group did the library staff feel least competent serving their specific needs 44% stated that they
were less than competent or somewhat less than competent addressing a the needs of a
person with a disability which was by far the identity category that the staff felt least competent
with. There was a four-way tie for second, 24% of the participants indicated they were less
than competent or somewhat less than competent in addressing the specific needs of LGBTQ-
identified individuals, people of color, non-English speakers, and those from a lower
socioeconomic background. Additionally, five staff members who completed the survey also
indicated they did not know anyone who identified as having a disability.
This leads us to a mixed conclusion in that more of the staff self-reported an interest in
learning about individuals who spoke English as a second language but when it came to
questions of competency and personal knowledge, addressing individuals with disabilities has a
stronger pull. Perhaps this wide variety of interests, however, is beneficial in that a training
2S
centered on any number of the 4-5 topics respondents indicated being interested in would
theoretically be well-received. However, it does present a challenge when narrowing down the
final topic choices.
Our survey participants did have a strong preference when asked with whom they would
rather work and how they would prefer the training to be conducted. Seventy-two percent
indicated that they be randomly grouped for the trainings and thus we would highly
recommend that configuration. In terms of delivery of the content of the workshop, we allowed
participants to indicate a number of methods that they would appreciate seeing within the
workshop. Fortunately we feel that the top three choices large group round table discussions
moderated by facilitators (80%), lecture-based (72%), and interactive small group activity-
based (68%) can all work in a single workshop quite nicely perhaps starting with a short lecture,
working in small groups on a particular activity before bringing it back to the large group for a
round-table discussion.
Additional comments. Respondents were given an opportunity to provide comments to
an open-ended question for additional information relevant to preparing training for the library
staff. One respondent noted that most individuals who work at a library are basically well-
intentioned towards issues of diversity. Two respondents noted that more experienced staff
members have participated in extensive diversity training over time and may not need or
welcome more. One respondent also said that additional diversity training feels like
punishment to all staff when a single individual is at fault for a lack of sensitivity to
diversity. To help increase buy-in from the staff, it will be important that we design a training
that is engaging and responsive to the participants, in order to avoid feeling like seasoned staff
are going over the same old information.
24
Recommendations and Suggested Learning Outcomes
Based on the data, we have several recommendations. First, we believe that participants
should be randomly grouped rather than grouped according to coworker groups. Second, there
was not a clear need-based or deficit-related topic identified unilaterally throughout the data.
Therefore, given the lack of competence in addressing the needs of people with disabilities and
given that 40% of respondents desired a disability-related workshop, we believe the topic of
choice should be disability. Lastly, we recommend large group round table discussions
moderated by facilitators, lecture-based, and interactive small group activity-based training
methods should be combined in the final training format.
Accordingly, we propose the following learning outcomes. As the result of participating
in the CSP 6800 facilitated training, the library staff will:
1. Be able to define disability and identify the categories of disabilities (e.g., physical,
emotional, etc.).
2. Be able to describe the social model of disability.
3. Be able to analyze the interaction between disability and the environment.
4. Be able to identify specific ways to address the needs of people with disabilities.
5. Be able to identify further areas of exploration for their continued diversity education
around disability issues.
Document Analysis
Purpose of Assessment
A document analysis helps us as social justice educators begin to understand the context
within which larger diversity issues are framed from an internal and external perspective for our
client, the University Libraries. A thorough analysis of documents disseminated by the
2S
University Libraries assists us in understanding messages about social justice and diversity issues
conveyed to constituents from many different backgrounds. As a result of analyzing these
documents, we were able to determine the breadth and depth of perspectives on these issues.
Several handbooks, job descriptions, mission statements and other documents were examined.
Methods
Our group created a list of documents that would assist in gaining insight for the social
justice training to be performed for the University Libraries. This list of potential documents
was then scrutinized and narrowed to inform our specific training needs. Documents able to be
retrieved on the University Libraries website were collected. An email was then sent to the
Dean of University Libraries requesting the documents that had not been located on the website.
The Dean and her assistant responded including the documents requested and additional
documents they believed might be helpful. These documents included library policies, staff
handbooks, information about services for those with disabilities, a selection of job postings, the
University Libraries organizational chart, a search committee charge, information from the
American Library Association, several departments annual reports, and the faculty recruitment
diversity plan.
These documents were reviewed for inclusive language, consideration of multiple
backgrounds/diverse perspectives of readers, and mission and value consistency. The document
collection and analysis took place from early to mid-March, 2014.
Findings and Implications
The mission statement of the American Library Association espouses values of diversity,
equal access, and advocacy for all staff and patrons. In addition, the missions of Bowling Green
State University and the University Libraries reflect the desire to build and engage diverse and
26
multicultural communities internal and external to the university. These documents suggest that
the profession, university, and department value diversity and equal access, and that each
employee should strive to incorporate this mission in all that they do.
In addition, each job posting provided included the following statement, Bowling Green
State University is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Educator and Employer, and We
are committed to a multicultural environment and strongly encourage applications from women,
minorities, veterans and persons with disabilities (Job Postings, various dates). The search
committee charge also prioritizes a commitment to diversity throughout the recruitment and
selection process (Search Committee Charge, n. d.). The faculty diversity plan also states a goal
of increasing the number of diverse applicants by 5% by the year 2015. In addition, the
document states goals of hiring a reference librarian who is responsible for outreach to diverse
faculty and students, eliminating any institutional obstacles for diversity, providing support for
internal career advancement for faculty from diverse backgrounds, and fostering a climate of
respect and inclusion (Faculty Diversity Plan, 2013). These documents confirm the values of
diversity and inclusion espoused in the mission statements; however, they failed to provide a
specific plan of action to bring these goals to fruition.
The organizational chart for the University Libraries was reviewed as well. The chart
details the hierarchy of the overall unit, sub-units, and lists the positions and names of the
directors for each sub-unit (Organizational Chart, 2014). If we make an assumption about
gender identity based on the names of individuals, it appears that eight out of the nine leadership
positions in the organization are held by a woman while one is held by a man. If this assumption
is correct, then it would seem that the gender representation is not representative of the university
27
student or employee population. We are not able to identify other aspects of the employees such
as race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
The general policies of the University Libraries are extremely detailed and provide
information on topics from computers to food to posting of signs. In relation to diversity and
social justice issues, the general policies include the following statement, University Libraries
staff are committed to providing a welcoming environment that is safe for both individuals and
the collections (General Policies, 2012). This statement could be perceived to mean that the
library is inclusive of diverse individuals and considerate of social justice issues but it does not
specify what constitutes a welcoming environment, or explain how this environment is created.
The general policies could provide a much more explicit endorsement of diversity and inclusion
through a more nuanced definition of welcoming.
University Libraries has a section on their website entitled Library Services for Those
with Disabilities (2013). This site describes how individuals can request help retrieving items in
the library. Those requesting books or periodicals can do so via e-mail. Individuals requesting
assistance retrieving items from special collections are asked to speak with the head of the
department in question in-person or on the phone between 8am and 5pm on weekdays. These
procedures might prevent some individuals from being able to access resources. The website
does however list contact information for the Office of Disability Services as a resource for
individuals.
The Administrative Staff and Classified Staff handbooks were also reviewed and
analyzed. A noticeable difference between the handbooks is that the assumed educational level
reflected in the language of the administrative staff handbook is higher than that in the classified
staff handbook. Both handbooks reference university policies that might apply to employees;
28
however neither explicitly references social justice issues other than in the affirmative action
statements of the university. It should be noted that these handbooks are for the entire university,
not solely for employees of the University Libraries.
Lastly, we examined the annual reports for several of the departments housed within
University Libraries for the 2012-13 academic year (Various Annual Reports, 2013). The
reports generally detailed the activities of the staff within each unit for that year as well as any
progress made on goals the unit had set. Very few of the reports acknowledged or identified
initiatives associated with diversity or social justice work. A few staff serve on university
committees related to these issues and others have attended professional development events.
Only one functional unit listed diversity as a core value of their unit, but neither they nor any
other unit included any goals related to diversity or social justice. This was surprising given that
the University Libraries strongly espouses diversity as a value and part of their core mission. A
survey created by one unit and sent to various constituents only allowed respondents to choose
female or male as their gender. This indicates a low-level of awareness around
gender/transgender issues.
Learning Objectives
The following learning outcomes were developed based on the document analysis that
was conducted.
1. Participants will be able to clearly articulate what diversity and social justice are as
applicable to their work with University Libraries.
2. Participants will understand the necessity for including diversity and social justice in
their units and sub-units goals for the year as they connect to the mission of Bowling
Green State University, University Libraries, and the American Library Association.
29
3. Participants will understand the importance for considering aspects of diversity and
social justice at every step as they create, write, and implement policies, procedures,
manuals and other guiding documents.
Data Sources
American Library Association. (2014). Mission & priorities. Retrieved from
http://www.ala.org/aboutala/missionpriorities
Bowling Green State University. (2008). Classified staff handbook. Retrieved from
http://www2.bgsu.edu/downloads/hr/file11373.pdf
Bowling Green State University. (2012). Administrative staff handbook. Retrieved from
http://www2.bgsu.edu/downloads/hr/file11372.pdf
Bowling Green State University. (n.d.). Mission. Retrieved from
http://www.bgsu.edu/about/mission.html
University Libraries, Bowling Green State University. (2012). First-year experience
coordinator position description. Unpublished document.
University Libraries, Bowling Green State University. (2012). General policies. Retrieved from
http://www2.bgsu.edu/downloads/lib/file111977.pdf
University Libraries, Bowling Green State University. (2012). Records manager/assistant
university archivist position description. Unpublished document.
University Libraries, Bowling Green State University. (2013). Access services annual report
2012-2013. Unpublished document.
University Libraries, Bowling Green State University. (2013). Center for archival collections
annual report 2012-2013. Unpublished document.
Su
University Libraries, Bowling Green State University. (2013). Coordinator of library
Instruction position description. Unpublished document.
University Libraries, Bowling Green State University. (2013). Curriculum resource center
annual report 2012-2013. Unpublished document.
University Libraries, Bowling Green State University. (2013). Faculty diversity plan.
Unpublished document.
University Libraries, Bowling Green State University. (2013). Head librarian, curriculum
resource center position description. Unpublished document.
University Libraries, Bowling Green State University. (2013). Library associate 1 position
description. Unpublished document.
University Libraries, Bowling Green State University. (2013). Library information
technology services annual report 2012-2013. Unpublished document.
University Libraries, Bowling Green State University. (2013). Library services for those with
disabilities. Retrieved from http://libguides.bgsu.edu/disabilityservices
University Libraries, Bowling Green State University. (2013). Library teaching and learning
annual report 2012-2013. Unpublished document.
University Libraries, Bowling Green State University. (2013). Manager, library information
technology services position description. Unpublished document. University Libraries,
Bowling Green State University. (2013). Music library and sound recordings archives annual
report 2012-2013. Unpublished document. University Libraries,
Bowling Green State University. (2013). NWORBD annual report 2012-2013. Unpublished
document.
S1
University Libraries, Bowling Green State University. (2013). Ray and Pat Browne library for
popular culture studies annual report 2012-2013. Unpublished document.
University Libraries, Bowling Green State University. (2013). Reference archivist position
description. Unpublished document.
University Libraries, Bowling Green State University. (2014). Organizational chart.
Unpublished document.
University Libraries, Bowling Green State University. (n.d.). Mission and vision statements.
Retrieved from http://www2.bgsu.edu/colleges/library/about/page42102.html
University Libraries, Bowling Green State University. (n.d.). Search committee charge.
Unpublished document.

S2
Appendix A: Student Staff Survey

1. Please mark your level of agreement with the following statements:
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Agree Strongly
Agree
Mean
The Library hires a
diverse student worker
population.
0 0 0 70%
(n=7)
30%
(n=3)
4.30
The Library promotes a
diverse student worker
population.
0 0 10% (n=1) 60%
(n=6)
30%
(n=3)
4.20
The Library promotes a
diverse student
population.
0 0 0 70%
(n=7)
30%
(n=3)
4.30
The Library responds to
the needs of a diverse
student worker
population.
0 0 0 70%
(n=7)
30%
(n=3)
4.30

2. Do you consider the Library staff (both student and staff) to be divers?
n
Yes 70% (n=7)
No 10% (n=1)
Unsure 10% (n=2)

3. Why do you feel this way?
No responses

4. If so, what do you feel makes the Library staff (both student and staff) diverse?
Text Response
There are many LGBT and women employees
Nobody is quite like anyone else. Everyone is obviously qualified and competent, but the
personalities and backgrounds and people themselves are all different enough that it doesn't feel
like working with twenty people with the exact same life experiences as you. I also love the
"subtle discrimination" page just for the fact that it exists, and is so sensitive the small things
SS
which are often overlooked.
Racial make-up of the employees
I visit the library frequently and interact with both student and staff of all races, majors,
religions etc.
Total Responses 4

5. Please rate your level of comfort in talking to your supervisor concerning the issue of:
Question Very
Uncomfortable
Uncomfortable Neither
Comfortable
Nor
Uncomfortable
Comfor
table
Very
Comfor
table
Mea
n
Race/ethnicity 0 0 0 66.67%
(n=6)
33.33%
(n=3)
4.33
Gender 0 0 0 50%
(n=4)
50%
(n=4)
4.50
Sexual
Orientation
0 0 37.5% (n=3) 25%
(n=2)
37.5%
(n=3)
4.00
Religion 0 0 12.5% (n=1) 50%
(n=4)
37.5%
(n=3)
4.25
Age 0 0 0 37.5%
(n=3)
62.5%
(n=5)
4.63
Ability/
Disability
0 0 1 37.5%
(n=3)
50%
(n=4)
4.38
Socioeconomic
Status
0 0 0 50%
(n=4)
50%
(n=4)
4.00
Other (Please
Specify):
0 0 0 1 0 4.00

6. Please expand on your answers above.
I dont express freely about my sexual orientation to the job because I am cautious and may
get penalties.
Being that my supervisor is also a woman of color, it would be easier to discuss these issues
with her as she would have a better understanding.
S4
Ive already had to talk to my supervisor about an emotional diagnosis and she was great
about it. I also dont see why any of the other things would need to come up but Im not
uncomfortable broaching any of those subjects with anyone.
Total Responses 3

7. Please rate your level of comfort in sharing the following aspects of your of your identity
while working at the library:
Question Very
Uncom
fortable
Uncomfo
rtable
Neither
Comfortable
Nor
Uncomfortable
Comforta
ble
Very
Comfortab
le
Mean
Race/ethni
city
0 0 0 28.6%
(n=2)
71.4%
(n=5)
4.71
Gender 0 0 0 28.6%
(n=2)
71.4%
(n=5)
4.71
Sexual
Orientation
0 0 14.3% (n=1) 28.6%
(n=2)
57.1%
(n=4)
4.43
Religion 0 0 28.6% (n=2) 42.9%
(n=3)
28.6%
(n=2)
4.00
Age 0 0 0 28.6%
(n=2)
71.4%
(n=5)
4.71
Ability/Dis
ability
0 0 0 42.9%
(n=3)
57.1%
(n=4)
4.57
Socioecon
omic
Status
0 0 0 57.1%
(n=4)
42.9%
(n=3)
4.43
Other
(Please
Specify):
0 0 0 33.3%
(n=1)
667 %
(n=2)
4.67

8. Please expand on your answer above.
same as above
i don't care about anything else, but i'm an athiest. not a diehard athiest. i just don't care and
can sometimes get uncomfortable when people bring up religion because "athiest" is often
looked at as a synonym to "satan worshiper," which is really silly because we aren't worshiping
anything. trust me.
SS
Total Responses 2

9. Have you ever experiences a conflict or concern at a library facility regarding your age,
race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, religion, socioeconomic statues, etc.?


10. Please Explain:
everythings pretty great
Total Responses 1

11. Do you have concerns about diversity in your workplace?
Answer n %
Yes 1 11%
No 8 89%
Unsure 0 0%
Total 9 100%

12. What aspects of diversity, if any, are evident in the complaints and comments from
patrons? (Check All that Apply).
Answer n %
Race/ethnicity 1 13%
Gender 1 13%
Sexual Orientation 0 0%
Religion 0 0%
Age 0 0%
Ability/Disability 0 0%
Answer n %
Yes 0 0%
No 8 100%
Unsure 0 0%
Total 8 100%
S6
Socioeconomic Status 1 13%
No aspects of diversity are
evident.
7 88%
Not Listed: 0 0%

13. Has there ever been a time that you or another BGSU student you know has felt that the
Library staff has been (positive or negative) biased towards a specific population within
the library?





14. Please expand on above answer:
Text Response
Occasionally my supervisors will make comments about people with strong religious ties and
as a devout Catholic that makes me uncomfortable
Some students point out how many gay students work at the library (in a positive way)
I have not felt the need
Total Responses 3

15. Are there reasons related to diversity that you believe make some of your peers not use
the library?
Answer n %
Yes 0 0%
No 8 89%
Unsure 1 11%
Answer n %
Yes, Positive 1 11%
Yes, Negative 1 11%
Yes, Both Positive and Negative 0 0%
No 6 67%
Unsure 1 11%
Total 9 100%
S7
Total 9 100%

16. If yes, please explain:
No response

17. Please describe any diversity issues that affect your job in the Library or on changes
regarding diversity that you would like to see in your department.
none
I would like to see more staff that are people of color. There are plenty of students it seems
but the staff is lacking. It is overwhelmingly white female and as I am sure this may be what that
specific demographic is interested in more than others, there should be more people of color and
even men to really get that diversity that is so important.
none.
Total Responses 3


S8
Appendix B: Classified Staff Survey

Thank you for participating in this survey. Your voluntary, confidential responses to this
brief survey will take approximately 6-10 minutes to complete. The purpose of this survey will
assist in developing a diversity workshop that meets your needs and interests. Please answer the
questions to the best of your ability. Participation is completely voluntary and will not result in
any penalties if you choose to opt out.

1. What designation is your position at the library?
__ Classified __ Administrative __ Faculty __ Other: _____________________


2. I feel comfortable talking about issues of diversity and inclusion related to differences
based on:
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Somewhat Agree Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6

Race/Ethnicity 1 2 3 4 5 6
Gender/Sex 1 2 3 4 5 6
Age 1 2 3 4 5 6
Socioeconomic status 1 2 3 4 5 6
Religion/Faith 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sexual orientation 1 2 3 4 5 6
Disability 1 2 3 4 5 6


3. My level of knowledge of the following social identities is:
None Basic Developing Advanced Expert?
1 2 3 4 5

Race/Ethnicity 1 2 3 4
Gender/Sex 1 2 3 4
Age 1 2 3 4
Socioeconomic status 1 2 3 4
Religion/Faith 1 2 3 4
Sexual orientation 1 2 3 4
Disability 1 2 3 4

4. I would like to learn more about the following topics related to diversity and inclusion:
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Somewhat Agree Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6

Race/Ethnicity 1 2 3 4 5 6
S9
Gender/Sex 1 2 3 4 5 6
Age 1 2 3 4 5 6
Socioeconomic status 1 2 3 4 5 6
Religion/Faith 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sexual orientation 1 2 3 4 5 6
Disability 1 2 3 4 5 6


5. I feel that the library staff as a whole (classified staff, faculty, and administrative staff)
would benefit from learning more about issues of diversity and inclusion related to:
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Somewhat Agree Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6

Race/Ethnicity 1 2 3 4 5 6
Gender/Sex 1 2 3 4 5 6
Age 1 2 3 4 5 6
Socioeconomic status 1 2 3 4 5 6
Religion/Faith 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sexual orientation 1 2 3 4 5 6
Disability 1 2 3 4 5 6


6. I feel comfortable defining:
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Somewhat Agree Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6

Diversity 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prejudice 1 2 3 4 5 6
Oppression 1 2 3 4 5 6
Social Justice 1 2 3 4 5 6
Privilege 1 2 3 4 5 6

7. When I participate in a diversity and inclusion workshop, I learn best from a format(s) that
includes the following elements (select three options):
PowerPoint
Research data
Experiences/stories
Reflection exercises
Interactive activities
Handouts/supplemental information
Small group discussions
Large group discussions
Lecture-style delivery
4u
Role-playing


8. In the setting of a workshop on issues of diversity and inclusion, I would feel comfortable
being grouped for discussions/activities (select all that apply):
Randomly grouped
Grouped with people from my unit/dept;
Grouped with people outside my unit/dept;
Grouped together by job classification
Grouped with people of other job classifications
With my boss


9. Is there anything else you would like the training facilitators to know related to the
upcoming diversity training (hopes, expectations, concerns, etc.)? (Open-ended question)


10. Can we confidentially share the narratives you provided in our survey in our report?


Thank you your participation. If you have additional questions or concerns, please contact us
via Ellen Broido at ebroido@bgsu.edu.


41
Appendix C: Participant Recruitment Email

Dear Library Faculty and Administrators,
You are invited to participate in a survey regarding diversity issues and perceptions about
diversity at the Jerome Library. Please note that this is not required and will not affect your
relationship with the university in any way. This assessment is being conducted as part of the
information gathering process for the College Student Personnel Social Justice Education and
Training course (Dean Bushong likely sent an email informing you about this partnership for the
semester).
We anticipate this assessment will take you 10 minutes or less to complete. We ask that you
complete this assessment before Sunday, March 9, 2014. We will use this information to tailor
the in-service/training that we provide for library employees toward the end of this
semester. Your Anonymous Survey Link:
https://bgsuedhd.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9QRTxSXRvn3INhz
Please be assured that all responses are confidential and will be used so that we can design
the in-service/training. Additionally, an executive report of aggregated data only (with no
identifying information) will be shared with the Dean. If you have any concerns or would like
more information, please email Katie at kstygle@bgsu.edu. If you would prefer to direct your
concerns or request further information from Dr. Ellen Broido (the instructor of record), please
email her at ebroido@bgsu.edu.
Thank you very much for your time and participation this will help us to create a
meaningful training. We look forward to working with you later in the semester.
Sincerely,
Katie, Megan, & Chris
Faculty & Staff Assessment Team, CSP 6800: Social Justice Education and Training

Katie Stygles
Doctoral Student, Higher Education Administration
Higher Education and Student Affairs


42
Appendix D: Library Faculty and Administration Diversity Issues Assessment Survey


4S


44


4S


46

47
Appendix E: Library Faculty and Administration Views about Diversity at Work

Library Faculty and Administrator Views about Diversity at Work

Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree

I feel encouraged to include
diversity-related content and
discussions in my work.
0% 0%
8%
(n = 2)
58%
(n = 15)
34%
(n = 9)

It seems my coworkers
generally appreciate having
discussions about diversity.
0%
12%
(n = 3)
26%
(n = 7)
50%
(n = 13)
12%
(n = 3)

Library employees are
evaluated fairly regardless of
what identity groups they
belong to (race/ethnicity,
gender, etc.).
0%
4%
(n = 1)
8%
(n = 2)
58%
(n = 15)
30%
(n = 8)

Library employees should
discuss diversity issues more
often.
0% 0%
46%
(n = 12)
35%
(n = 9)
19%
(n = 5)

As a whole, the library faculty
are sufficiently diverse (in
terms of their race/ethnicity,
gender, etc.).
27%
(n = 7)
61%
(n = 16)
4%
(n = 1)
8%
(n = 2)
0%

As a whole, the library
administrators are sufficiently
diverse (in terms of their
race/ethnicity, gender, etc.).
31%
(n = 8)
65%
(n = 17)
4%
(n = 1)
0% 0%

Library instructional sessions
should have a greater emphasis
on diversity issues.
4%
(n = 1)
12%
(n = 3)
69%
(n = 18)
15%
(n = 4)
0%

Understanding diversity is an
important part of serving
library patrons effectively.
0% 0%
4%
(n = 1)
35%
(n = 9)
61%
(n = 16)
Note: n = 26.

48
Appendix F: Library Faculty and Administrator Perceptions of the Frequency of
Library Employees Discussions about their Identity or Experience as a Member of an
Identified Group


Never Rarely Sometimes Often
All of
the time
I dont
know
of any


People of color
12%
(n = 3)
30%
(n = 8)
50%
(n = 13) 0% 0%
8%
(n = 2)


Women
8%
(n = 2)
12%
(n = 3)
58%
(n = 15)
19%
(n = 5)
4%
(n = 1) 0%


Men
8%
(n = 2)
38%
(n = 10)
46%
(n = 12)
4%
(n = 1) 0%
4%
(n = 1)


LGBTQ
30%
(n = 8)
50%
(n = 13)
12%
(n = 3)
4%
(n = 1) 0%
4%
(n = 1)


Non-Christians
30%
(n = 8)
46%
(n = 12)
8%
(n = 2)
4%
(n = 1) 0%
12%
(n = 3)


Classified staff 0%
4%
(n = 1)
54%
(n = 14)
35
(n = 9)
8%
(n = 2) 0%


Faculty 0%
8%
(n = 2)
27%
(n = 7)
54%
(n = 14)
12%
(n = 3) 0%


Administrators
4%
(n = 1)
8%
(n = 2)
54%
(n = 14)
30%
(n = 8)
4%
(n = 1) 0%


People with
disabilities
26%
(n = 6)
46%
(n = 12)
12%
(n = 3) 0% 0%
19%
(n = 5)


Older adults
12%
(n = 3)
30%
(n = 8)
42%
(n = 11)
12%
(n = 3) 0%
4%
(n = 1)


People whose first
language is not
English
8%
(n = 2)
46%
(n = 12)
38%
(n = 10)
4%
(n = 1) 0%
4%
(n = 1)
Note: n = 26.


49
Appendix G: Library Faculty and Administrator Self-Reported Competence in
Addressing Needs of Members of an Identified Group


Less than
competent
Some-
what less
than
competent
Some-
what
competent
Compete
nt


People of color
12%
(n = 3)
12%%
(n = 3)
52%
(n = 13)
24%
(n = 6)


Women
4%
(n = 1)
4%
(n = 1)
20%
(n = 5)
72%
(n = 18)


Men
4%
(n = 1)
12%
(n = 3)
32%
(n = 8)
52%
(n = 13)


LGBTQ
8%
(n = 2)
16%
(n = 4)
44%
(n = 11)
32%
(n = 8)


Non-Christians
4%
(n = 1)
16%
(n = 4)
28%
(n = 7)
52%
(n = 13)


People with disabilities
4%
(n = 1)
40%
(n = 10)
36%
(n = 9)
20%
(n = 5)


Older adults
4%
(n = 1)
16%
(n = 4)
36%
(n = 9)
44%
(n = 11)


People whose first
language is not English
12%
(n = 3)
12%
(n = 3)
60%
(n = 15)
16%
(n = 4)


People from a low
socioeconomic background
8%
(n = 2)
16%
(n = 4)
36%
(n = 9)
40%
(n = 10)
Note: n = 25.




Su
Appendix H: Library Faculty and Administrators Who Perceive They Have Been the
Target of Bias or Harassment Due to Their Membership of an Identified Group

Preferred
not to
identify the
source
The
source was a
student
employee
The
source was
an employee
The
source was a
patron


Race/Ethnicity 0% 0% 0%
4%
(n = 1)


Gender
12%
(n = 3) 0%
12%
(n = 3)
4%
(n = 1)


Sexual orientation
4%
(n = 1) 0% 0% 0%


Socioeconomic status 0% 0% 0% 0%


Disability 0% 0% 0% 0%


Age
a
8%
(n = 2)
4%
(n = 1)
4%
(n = 1)
4%
(n = 1)

People whose first
language is not English 0% 0% 0% 0%
Note: n = 25.
a
n = 24.


S1
Appendix I: Library Faculty and Administrators Who Have Witnessed Bias or
Harassment Due to What They Perceived to be Another Persons Group Membership

Preferred not to
identify the source
The source was
an employee
The source was
a patron


Race/Ethnicity
0%
(n = 0)
0%
(n = 0)
4%
(n = 1)


Gender
12%
(n = 3)
20%
(n = 5) 0%


Sexual orientation
4%
(n = 1)
4%
(n = 1) 0%


Socioeconomic status 0%
4%
(n = 1) 0%


Disability
8%
(n = 2) 0% 0%


Age
a
16%
(n = 4)
28%
(n = 7) 0%

People whose first language is
not English
4%
(n = 1) 0% 0%


Not listed 0%
4%
a
(n = 1) 0%
Note: n = 25.
a
Respondent specified mental illness.