The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 42, No. 2 - 84

Deborah J. Taub * R. Bradley Johnson * Torry Reynolds

survey assessed the form, function, policies,
and procedures related to GNH arrangements.
(Sample item: "Please indicate the types of
gender-neutral housing facilities that are being
utilized on your campus.") These four items
were presented only to respondents who indicated that their institution currently provides
some form of gender-neutral housing options
for unmarried students.

Analysis
This mixed-methods study was designed to be
an exploratory assessment of GNH housing
options and policies. As such, the quantitative
data collected from the Gender-Neutral Housing
Survey was analyzed using simple descriptive
statistics.
Qualitative data in the form of GNH
policies were also collected and analyzed for
themes. First, all of the policies were read to
gain a general, overall sense of the data (Creswell, 2009). Initial codes were developed as
they emerged from the data (Creswell, 2009;

Five barriers to implementing
gender-neutral housing have
been encountered to roughly
the same extent: lack of suitable
housing facilities, parent/family
concerns, public relations
concerns, lack of upper-level
administrative support, and lack
of expressed student interest.
84

Lichtman, 2013). A constant comparative approach was used during the coding and analysis to identify categories and then critical
concepts (Lichtman, 2013).

RESULTS
Findings from this study are presented in
two components: qualitative and quantitative. Responses focusing on the consideration
and implementation of GNH as well as basic
demographic information were analyzed in
a quantitative format. Examples of policies
were analyzed and are presented in a qualitative section.

Extent to Which the Institution Had
Considered Gender-Neutral Housing
The question about the extent to which the
institution had considered GNH yielded 414
responses from 306 participants (multiple
responses were permitted). Trial or pilot programs had been implemented by 15.69% (n
= 48) of responding institutions. A full GNH
program had been implemented by 22.55% (n
= 69). Informal discussions or conversations
with colleagues about GNH had taken place
at 32.35% (n = 100), and formal discussions or
conversations as a topic of a staff meeting had
occurred at 24.84% (n = 77). Gender-neutral
housing had been explored with upper-level
administration or counsel and/or the policies
at other institutions had been investigated by
25.49% (n = 78). Forty-two institutions reported that they had not considered GNH at all.
A larger percentage of institutions in
NEACUHO, MACUHO, WACUHO, and
GLACUHO had implemented trial or full programs than did those in other regions. None of
the responding institutions in SWACUHO (n
= 21) had implemented either a trial or a full

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 42, No. 2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 42, No. 2