The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 38, No. 2 & Volume 39, No. 1 - 39

Faculty and Staff Benefits in LLPs

responded positively to each item and the percentage of the subgroup that the number represents. The top three benefits for each group also are ranked (1 being the highest) based on the responses from that group. Chi-square analyses were conducted to examine the differences between faculty and student affairs staff. Four differences were found to be significant. Faculty were significantly more likely to receive allotments for expenses associated with inviting students to a meal or other social activities (χ2 (1, N = 268) = 11.19, p = .001), to receive a partial meal plan or dining dollar allotment (χ2 (1, N = 268) = 4.33, p = .037), and to receive a reduction in their teaching load or collateral assignments (χ2 (1, N = 268) = 7.97, p = .005). Staff were significantly more likely to receive opportunities to participate in professional conference presentations (χ2 (1, N = 268) = 4.37, p = .037).

and staff in departments other than my own. The remainder of this section will discuss the three statistically significant differences that were found. Conversations with students about outside topics. The results indicate that faculty (92.19%) were more likely to have conversations with students about topics not related to class than were the student affairs staff (83.57%). A possible explanation for the findings is that student affairs staff typically are not teaching courses. Because staff interact with students outside the classroom through their daily work, they may not indicate this as a benefit received through their participation in the LLPs. Additionally, LLPs may provide one of the few venues for faculty to ask students about their personal interests since the conversations may take place in non-academic buildings. Shared research interests. The results indicate that faculty (53.91%) were more likely to have shared research interests with students outside of the classroom than were the student affairs staff (27.14%). One possible explanation for the findings is that faculty perform research more regularly than do student affairs staff; also, research is often a job requirement for faculty but not for student affairs staff. If staff are performing research less often, they may have fewer research interests to discuss with students. Another explanation may relate to the students’ interest. Students may be interested in faculty research because they are interested in that academic field. Since few institutions offer a student affairs degree at the undergraduate level, undergraduates may not be interested in student affairs research and staff would have few opportunities to share this with them.
V o l u m e 3 8 , No. 2 • 2 0 1 2

DISCUSSION
Differences in the Intrinsic Benefits for Faculty and Staff
A high level of agreement was found between the faculty and staff participants. Of the 15 questionnaire items related to intrinsic benefits, 7 had a 75% or greater affirmative response from both faculty and staff. Additionally, both faculty and staff shared the same top five benefits, although in different order. These top five benefits included (a) held conversations with students about topics not related to class, (b) had greater interaction with students, (c) felt like I make a difference in students’ lives, (d) felt like I have furthered the academic mission of the institution, and (e) experienced increased interaction with student affairs faculty

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 38, No. 2 & Volume 39, No. 1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 38, No. 2 & Volume 39, No. 1