by James A. Bacon

The College of Arts & Sciences at the University of Virginia is undertaking a campus climate survey to gauge the extent to which students, faculty and staff in the college’s many departments feel a sense of “belonging.”

The priority at the moment is choosing among 16 themes to be explored in the questionnaire, with detailed questions to be developed in the next phase. The goal is to have the questionnaire ready by this fall.

In emails obtained by The Jefferson Council, Keisha John, associate dean of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion for the College of Arts & Sciences, noted that many departments had conducted their own climate surveys. She was working with the University DEI division and the Center for Survey Research to “ensure consistency and validity of survey instruments.”

“Departments,” she wrote in the email, “will have this as an additional tool as they strive to ensure all constituents — students, staff and faculty — are flourishing.”

The last time UVA conducted a detailed university-wide climate survey to probe the sense of “belonging” was in 2018. Since then, the University has participated in shorter, biennial surveys conducted by the Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) consortium. There has been little continuity in the phrasing of the questions, so it is difficult to precisely track changes in attitudes over time. The College survey, it appears, will reflect the current preoccupations of College faculty and administrators and not lend itself to longitudinal comparisons either.

While the College survey may yield findings useful to DEI administrators, its design will make it impossible to ask the most important question of all: Has the investment of millions of dollars to recruit minority undergraduates, grad students and faculty, the massive expansion of the DEI bureaucracy, the reinterpretation of UVA as a historically racist institution, and the obsessive attention to racial, gender and sexual “identity” over the seven-year tenure of President Jim Ryan had a positive or divisive impact on “belonging” at UVA?

According to John’s email, the survey effort started with “listening sessions” conducted by Rachel Spraker and Weija Wang, both of whom work for the University-level Division of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion. Spraker and Wang then developed a list of 16 themes:

• Salient identity and authenticity
• Trusting and being trusted
• Quality of relationships/connections
• Actions impacting culture
• Transparency
• Decision-making processes
• Communication norms
• Fairness of workplace policies/actions
• Agency and self-determination
• Feeling valued
• Workplace values
• Professional support
• Personal support
• Teaching dynamics
• Research dynamics
• Service dynamics

John has forwarded these themes to departmental DEI directors, asking them to “share broadly” with faculty, staff and students within your department,” and soliciting feedback on the importance of the themes for inclusion in the survey.

James A. Bacon is contributing editor to The Jefferson Council.

THEMES AND DEFINITIONS

Salient Identity and Authenticity: Asks what parts of identity are most important to individuals in various settings in department and if individuals perceive ability to authentically be self, or act from sense of self, without hiding or censoring beyond what could reasonably expected in a place of work and learning.

Trusting and Being Trusted: Asks if individuals trust the intentions of leaders and colleagues in the department as well as whether they feel they are trusted with information, to self-manage, to self-prioritize, and to be given the “benefit of the doubt” when issues arise.

Quality of Relationships/Connections: Asks what relationships are or would be most meaningful personally and professionally in workplace and learning settings and assesses the quality of relationships and opportunities for connections that are meaningful to individuals.

Actions Impacting Culture: Asks individuals what actions they take to promote positive workplace culture and assesses how actions of others support or diminish experiences of positive culture.

Transparency: Asks individuals what transparency means to them and where it is most important for effective functioning for themselves and for the department overall. Assesses current state perceptions of how ideals of transparency for individual are or are not being met and what change would meet ideal state.

Decision-making processes: Asks individuals which decision making processes are most important to them and how they currently perceive their ability to know about or impact decisions that are important to them.

Communication Norms: Asks about what effective and inclusive communication would be in observable behaviors and what individuals do to engage in positive communication norms and assesses extent to which there is active broad-based engagement in such norms.

Fairness of Workplace Policies/Action: Asks about the extent to which individuals believe faculty, staff, and students are treated consistently in relation to existing policies and the extent to which policies are adequately responsive to the contextualized needs of individuals in circumstances those policies attempt to regulate or adjudicate activity.

Agency and Self-determination: Asks about the extent to which individuals feel they are empowered to act consistent with their values and aspirations as well as the extent to which they perceive a sense of their ability to direct their professional or educational activities consistent with their goals and circumstances.

Feeling Valued: Asks individuals the extent to which they feel their unique contributions to the success and operation of departmental functions matter, that they feel they are individually known and valued by colleagues and leaders, and that their voice/opinion is valued equally alongside those of others.

Workplace Values: Asks individuals what they value most in their workplace and how they operationalize those values in their own actions and the specifics of their work to contribute positively to an inclusive and positive climate.

Professional Support: Asks individuals about the extent to which they feel the department is providing the support they need to achieve professional goals and assesses departmental infrastructures or actions that most actively contribute positively to or diminish the amount of support they perceive.

Personal Support: Asks individuals about the extent to which they feel the department is providing the support they need to meet their personal needs and commitments balanced against the demands of their work or learning in the department and assesses departmental infrastructures or actions that most actively contribute positively to or diminish the amount of support they perceive. Seeks to identify what individuals feel is a reasonable amount of support from a place of learning/working in relation to the integration of personal lives and departmental lives.

Teaching Dynamics: Asks individuals about the conditions and supports in place to effectively achieve the department’s teaching mission. Based on the respondent’s positionality to this dimension (i.e. faculty or student) may also seek to assess the quality of teaching, the relevance of material being taught to disciplinary advances/future directions, and how teaching contributes to developing positive and inclusive disciplinary identity. May seek to clarify understandings from constituents of what the teaching mission is for the department.

Research Dynamics: Asks individuals about the conditions and supports in place to effectively achieve the department’s research and scholarship mission. Based on the respondent’s positionality to this dimension (i.e. faculty, prs, student, etc.) may also seek to assess how research contributes to developing positive and inclusive disciplinary identity. May seek to clarify understandings from constituents of what the research mission is for the department.

Service Dynamics: Asks individuals about the conditions and supports in place to effectively achieve the department’s service and administrative needs. May seek to clarify understandings from constituents around importance of service, what service is meaningful to individuals, and perceptions of the fairness with how that service is distributed and rewarded.