journal_vol49no2 - 21

Gender-Inclusive Housing: A Second Look
Institutions (n = 31) also had the option to select " Other " with respect to obstacles
encountered. Responses to this category included political concerns, the capacity of
housing facilities and infrastructure for inclusive restrooms, housing assignment software
limitations, fear that campus culture is not ready for GIH, logistics of where to
implement, and language concerns with respect to making sure that GIH policy and
procedures were understood by all.
Type of Facilities
The question about the types of housing facilities being utilized by GIH programs
yielded 296 responses from 184 participants (multiple responses were allowed). GIH
was defined as " housing in which a unit (room, suite, apartment) is not occupied by
individuals of the same biological (legal) sex " (Taub et al., 2016, p. 86). Most facilities
being utilized for GIH were located in apartment-style housing (separate bedrooms,
shared kitchen and living area, possibly shared bathrooms; n = 111). Other facility
types used included suites (shared bathroom and possibly a living area but no kitchen;
n = 90) and traditional double-loaded corridor housing (communal bathroom or other
facilities such as a lounge or kitchen; n = 69). The " Other " category (n = 26) yielded
responses pertaining to pods/pod-style (individual use restrooms), small houses,
hotel-style (private bedroom and private bathroom), studio-style apartments, and townhomes
(shared kitchen and bathrooms but individual rooms).
RESULTS OF QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
To answer Research Questions 2C and 3, respondents were presented with two
open-ended questions: one concerning their GIH policies and the other concerning
lessons they had learned from their experience with the implementation of GIH.
Policies
Participants were asked to provide their GIH policies, if they had them. Of the 184 institutions
that responded, 111 provided their policies or links to their policies. The coding
and related analysis yielded several themes: eligibility and restriction, the role of
parents/family, administrative processes, bathrooms, and using the policy to educate
(see Table 4, page 19). Because survey responses were anonymous, the policies cannot
be attributed to any specific institution.
Eligibility and restriction. Twenty-seven institutions addressed eligibility and restrictions
in their submitted policies. Policies detailing eligibility often stated that
gender-inclusive housing was available to all students regardless of class year. A
smaller number of policies detailing GIH eligibility included restrictions, such as
GIH not being open to first-year students and, in rare cases, open only to juniors and
seniors. However, in some cases when GIH was not open to first-year students, respondents
indicated that housing and residence life staff worked with these students
on a case-by-case basis. Of particular note were policies that restricted consideration
for gender-inclusive housing to students " based on gender identity and exploration
only. " Almost all the policies concerning eligibility indicated that this kind of housing
was not designed for romantic relationships.
18 The Journal of College and University Student Housing

journal_vol49no2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of journal_vol49no2