BIASED BY BINARIES: A COMPLEX EVALUATION OF QUEER & TRANS WORKFORCE CLIMATE ASSESSMENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Abstract

This robust quantitative study examined how U.S. higher education institutions measured and reported campus climate for staff, with particular attention to constructs relevant to queer and trans higher education professionals (QTEHPs). Grounded in the Transformational Tapestry Model (Rankin & Reason, 2008) and informed by poststructural perspectives on institutional knowledge production, the study analyzed publicly available staff climate survey reports (N = 116) using an explanatory sequential design. A rubric was developed to evaluate four domains of survey design—contextual grounding, identity representation, measurement, and reporting and transparency—each scored on a 0–2 scale to accommodate variation in survey structure and reporting practices. A similar rubric was designed to account for QTHEP experiences with gender identity expressions, sex bias, and homophobia. Descriptive findings indicated that institutions most consistently demonstrated strengths in contextual grounding and measurement, while identity representation and reporting and transparency were less consistently present or were operationalized in limited ways. Inferential analyses, including analysis of variance and regression modeling, revealed statistically significant but modest differences across institutional types. Research-intensive institutions and system offices generally demonstrated higher levels of measurement inclusion for gender identity, sex-based bias, and homophobia, whereas community colleges consistently reflected lower predicted scores. However, differences remained constrained within the limited range of the composite measure, suggesting broadly patterned but uneven approaches to climate survey design across institutional contexts. Findings were interpreted by positioning climate surveys as institutional artifacts that structure what can be known, measured, and reported about campus climate. This study contributes to the literature by providing a systematic framework for evaluating climate survey design and by identifying persistent gaps in identity representation and reporting practices. Implications for research, theory, and practice emphasize the need for more transparent, expansive, and critically informed approaches to institutional climate assessment.