Operationalizing Gender Identity on NSSE

With increasing recognition that gender is more expansive than a binary and that gender is variable across all people, NSSE recently instituted several changes to better capture the diversity of gender among college students. In 2023, NSSE updated the gender identity demographic question with an expanded list of options, a space to enter an identity not included in the updated list, and a select-all-that-apply format for those who do not wish to describe their gender identity with a single term. Furthermore, in 2023 NSSE staff (including the authors of this brief) created a one-time set of additional items regarding gender identity which expanded on the demographics question and was administered with a subset of participating institutions. These items yielded a total of 2,073 responses from students at 16 institutions across the United States. Within that sample, around two in five (41%) students identified as first-year, and three in five (59%) identified as seniors. Given the variation in samples sizes within the gender identity demographic, including some groups with small counts, we intentionally combined the class year groups to focus exclusively on gender identity. See Table 1 for proportions of these students’ gender identities.

Table 1. Percentages of Student Gender Identities

Findings

Adding Nuance to Gender Identity & Expression in Survey Response

To better capture the nuance of gender identity and expression, we implemented a novel slider bar design within the experimental set for respondents to indicate their level of agreement on a continuous scale. There were six questions in this format, with slider bars that ranged from a student’s perception that they “not at all” characterized themselves by this aspect to “completely” characterized themselves by this aspect. For example, a student could respond anywhere between characterizing their gender expression as “Not at all masculine” to “Completely masculine” (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Screenshot of slider-bar items as they appeared to respondents

Believing that aspects of gender expression can be extremely varied among individuals, we created a visualization of this variation. In this interactive dashboard of results, one can imagine each of the six questions ranging from the middle of the hexagon (not at all) out to each of the hexagon’s corners (completely). In the aggregate results, we can see a pattern (Figure 2) where students largely characterize their gender expression as aligning with their ideal and more feminine than not. They moderately characterize their gender expression as masculine, nonconforming to gender norms, and neutral. Overall, gender expression was least characterized as fluid. But when filtering for student characteristics from the core survey such as by gender identity, sexual orientation, racial/ethnic identification, and even major one can see how much gender expression shifts.

Figure 2. Image of the Radar Chart Pattern of Students’ Gender Expression in the Aggregate

Connecting Gender Identity and Relationship-Rich Education  

To explore relationship-rich aspects of education in the context of gender identity, we focused on three measures from the core NSSE survey that align with the concept. Quality of Interactions is a measure of students’ perceptions of the quality of their interactions with peers, faculty, advisors, and administrative staff at their institution. Supportive Environment is a measure of how supported students feel both academically and socially at their institution. Sense of Belonging is a measure of how much students agree that they are part of the community, feel valued, and are comfortable being themselves at their institution. For the purposes of exploring the difference between using groupings of items and the complete list of gender variables, we also created a collapsed version of gender identity: woman (67%), man (24%), and non-binary+ (6%), which consisted of individuals that selected anything other than woman, man, cisgender, and another gender identity. We coded students who selected cisgender or another gender identity as missing to simplify this analysis and interpretation.

Withourcollapsed gender identity measure, we did not findnotable differences between women, men, or nonbinary+ students on their perceptions of quality of interactions, sense of belonging, and supportive environment. When we disaggregate, however, we find many more differences in student perceptions (Table 2.)For example, using Cohen’s d effect sizes, we see that students who identify as women have slightly (d > .1) higher Quality of Interactions, Supportive Environment, and Sense of Belongingthan students who do not identify as women. Conversely, students who identify as demigender perceive a notably less Supportive Environment(d < -.3) and Sense of Belonging(d < -.5) than students who do not identify as demigender. 

Table 2. Effect-Size Differences for Relationship-Rich Aspects of Education by Gender Identity

Thoughts to Take Away

Our findings demonstrate the necessity of exploring sub-group differences within broader identity categories such as gender identity. Only when using disaggregated data were we able to see notable differences between various student populations. To create more inclusive campus environments for all students, it is vital that we collect and analyze data in ways that represent and reflect the diversity of identities and experiences in the student population. For example, frequency results from the gender identity experimental item set tell us that in general, most students agree (agree or strongly agree) that sharing pronouns is a common practice at their institutions (85%) and that instructors and staff ask about and use students’ gender pronouns correctly (83%). Though these high percentages may sound positive, our findings using disaggregated data show that there are still disparities among different gender identity groups in perceptions of a Quality of Interactions, Supportive Environment, and Sense of Belonging. Therefore, although ensuring sharing pronouns is a common practice and is certainly something worth doing, institutions should be aware that doing so may not be enough to improve relationship-rich aspects of education for all student identity groups. Pronouns are a great starting point, not a finish line. These findings also support the value of asking students who they are, and in the most expansive way possible. When nuance and granularity are important, question formats like select-all-that-apply and continuous slider bars can serve as useful options.

An important mission of colleges and universities is to encourage students to think in more expansive and inclusive ways through education that opens minds to new perspectives and ideas. Connecting with others to gain new perspectives requires attention to relationships. Thus, one roadblock to relationship-rich education is a simple inability to connect with others given misunderstandings and misconceptions about who people are. Results from the experimental item set also show that around one in five (20%) students frequently learned about trans or gender nonconforming identities and experiences in their courses during the current school year, but a similar proportion (23%) never had such experiences. Institutions should work to ensure that the curriculum represents more identities and perspectives through support for inclusive pedagogical decisions as well as the structural representation of identities in students, faculty, and staff.

Institutions also need to protect students, faculty, and staff with identities under attack. In the experimental item data, less than half (40%) of students knew how to report a gender-related bias incident on their campus, and of those who did, four out of five (80%) would be comfortable doing so. Students need to be given information on how to protect themselves and others from discrimination and bias. Correspondingly, institutions need to take such incidents seriously for both individuals and relationships among them to thrive. Although this can be difficult to navigate given controversial state and local government legislation, it is important because protecting minoritized students fosters a more inclusive and supportive educational environment, ensuring that all students can thrive without fear of discrimination or bias.