Exploring Students’ Perceptions of the Campus Climate and Intergroup Relations: Insights from a Campus-Wide Survey at a Minority-Serving University

Abstract

Campus climate research has long been a focus of higher education scholarship; however, studies show that inequalities and a pervasive sense of not belonging continue to negatively affect students. This paper presents the results of a campus-wide survey conducted at a Minority-Serving Institution (MSI), with a sample of 820 undergraduate, master’s, Ph.D., and non-degree students. The authors explore students’ experiences on campus in relation to their identities as well as students’ perceptions of campus climate. Specifically, the paper examines students’ intergroup relations and how these influence their sense of belonging. The survey instrument developed in the frame of this project also included questions designed to assess opportunities students have to develop key values, attitudes, skills, knowledge, and critical understanding related to intercultural and democratic competences necessary for life and work in multicultural societies. This study identifies the areas students perceive as important for development, highlighting which values, attitudes, skills, knowledge, and critical understanding they have had the opportunity to cultivate during their time at the university and those they would like to develop further. The authors hope these findings will inform efforts to strengthen institutional support for more inclusive practices on culturally diverse university campuses and provide evidence-based guidance for designing effective pedagogical interventions.

1. Introduction

In times marked by social polarization, inequalities, and divisive politics, when college and university campuses become the stage for protests and demonstrations, exploring means to improve campus climate is imperative. Campus climate has been of concern for higher education research for decades (Garvey et al., 2018; Hart & Fellabaum, 2008; Soria, 2018; Woodard & Sims, 2000). Historically, campus climate surveys have been conducted mainly by Institutional Research or Student Affairs and focused on the issues related to students’ safety and well-being, campus infrastructure, institutional policies, and classroom practices (Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Hart & Fellabaum, 2008). While many studies have examined students’ perceptions of campus climate—particularly in relation to race, ethnicity, and belonging—our research expands the literature by exploring what competences students consider important (Golubeva, 2025b). Although students’ perceptions can be subjective, they serve as an insightful indicator of campus climate (see Golubeva, 2025a).

The novelty of our approach lies in the fact that, in addition to measuring students’ perceptions of campus climate, the survey we developed also gathered valuable insights into key areas—specifically values, attitudes, skills, knowledge, and critical understanding (VASK)—that are essential for enhancing intercultural communication and intergroup relations on campus.

Based on the literature reviewed and institutional priorities, our study addresses the following research questions:

• How do students at a Minority-Serving Institution perceive the inclusiveness of their campus climate in relation to their identities?
• Which VASK competences do students consider important, and which have they had opportunities to develop?
• How do students’ intergroup friendships and engagement in campus activities relate to their perceived sense of belonging?

2. Literature Review

2.1. Intergroup Relations and Campus Climate

Allport’s (1954) intergroup contact theory puts forward the idea that contact between culturally different groups can positively impact intergroup relations and reduce prejudicial attitudes, provided certain conditions are met. These conditions include (1) official institutional support, (2) equal status between minority and majority groups as they work together toward common goals, and (3) contact that fosters an understanding of shared interests across these groups (Allport, 1954). Conversely, contact that fails to meet one or more of these conditions may exacerbate negative attitudes and relations (Allport, 1954). For decades, campus climate research has shown that some institutions—even well-intentioned ones—do not meet these conditions consistently enough (Hurtado et al., 2008). As a result, students find it challenging to adjust to the new environment and make new friends on campus (Lopez et al., 2018). A growing body of studies shows that student friendships are not random (Zuckerman, 2024) and are usually formed with peers similar to them, for example, of the same ethno-racial background or gender (see Shrum et al., 1988; Tuma & Hallinan, 1979)—a phenomenon described by Lazarsfeld and Merton (1954) as ‘homophily’. Zuckerman (2024, p. 500) suggests that larger institutions have higher levels of homophily because “[t]he chances of finding good friendship matches in one’s own group increase with school size.”

This tendency toward homophily in student friendships underscores the challenges many students face in navigating a campus climate that may not fully support intergroup interaction. For students from minority backgrounds, a negative campus climate is often associated with an adverse impact on their academic achievement (Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Vega, 2021). Most campus climate research studies racial dynamics (Cuellar & Johnson-Ahorlu, 2020; Gavino & Akinlade, 2021; Mills, 2021; Vega, 2021), frequently focusing on the negative student outcomes associated with a hostile campus climate (Hurtado et al., 2012). However, a more recent study by Gavino and Akinlade (2021) reported the effects of a positive campus climate on Latinx students. Ensuring a climate of respect and valuing cultural heterogeneity on campus was linked to enhancing these students’ institutional affiliation (Gavino & Akinlade, 2021). According to Page et al. (2021), enhancing community belonging and developing shared values contributes to cultivating a culture of inclusion and reducing othering. When students perceive their campus as friendly, they are more likely to engage in the social activities of their college or university (Jean-Francois, 2019). In contrast, when they perceive the climate as unwelcoming, they may choose to withdraw from campus activities (Jean-Francois, 2019).

The relationship between students’ social integration and campus climate is further nuanced by the complexity of their intersecting identities. The current social and political realities in the United States and how they show up on campus continue to remind us that better understanding the climate on campus remains a relevant issue. In this regard, the existing scholarship on campus climate advocates for an intersectional approach (Lundy-Wagner & Winkle-Wagner, 2013; Maramba & Museus, 2011) and provides valuable insights and guidance on how to develop campus climate assessments and implement the subsequent educational interventions meant to make real-world improvements to campus inclusiveness (Hurtado et al., 2008, 2012). For instance, a recent study by Hudson et al. (2021) discusses worldview differences and their role in campus climate. By examining the relationship between college students’ ‘interworldview’ friendships and pluralism orientation, Hudson et al. (2021) found that the number of interworldview friendships developed by students in their first year of college is positively associated with pluralism orientation.

Many climate assessment projects historically were reactive to high-profile campus incidents (Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Hurtado et al., 2008, 2012). However, proactively auditing one’s own campus climate and culture and using the findings to create intentional opportunities for intercultural engagement can have a positive impact on enhancing inclusiveness on campus (Harper & Hurtado, 2007).

Our motivation for advancing this campus climate project was clear. As a Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) with a vision of inclusive excellence, we proactively sought campus climate assessment as part of ongoing institutional efforts seeking to “create the conditions that maximize learning in diverse student environments, thereby preparing students for living and working in a society that is ever more complex” (Hurtado et al., 1999, p. 97). Hurtado et al. (2008) have called for research that connects specific educational interventions with key learning outcomes, noting that little campus climate research has focused on the competences necessary for personal and professional success in increasingly multicultural societies. Arguing that universities should adopt comprehensive learning outcomes that prepare students for citizenship in a culturally diverse society, they offered a framework that includes four sets: cognitive; socio-cognitive; citizenship in a multicultural society; and values and attitudes (see for details, Hurtado et al., 2008, p. 214). They expanded on a model that had been developed by the Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) with the intention to further emphasize the competences that “frame personal and social responsibility in a multicultural society” (Milem et al., 2005, p. 215). Many of the outcomes listed by Hurtado et al. (2008) overlap with the 20 components of the Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture (RFCDC) model (Council of Europe, 2018), which we used for developing our survey and the subsequent co-curricular training initiative known as InterEqual (see detailed discussion of the RFCDC model in Section 2.2). Both frameworks outline the competences necessary to help students build a more inclusive campus by enhancing intergroup relations and intercultural communication while also preparing them for life and work in culturally diverse democratic societies. This shared interest is formally recognized by the two organizations’ collaboration as part of the International Consortium for Higher Education, Civic Responsibility, and Democracy (2019).

2.2. Intercultural Communication and Competences for Democratic Culture

We define ‘intercultural communication’ as a dynamic and multifaceted exchange in which participants communicate across various intersecting differences, adjusting to one another’s diverse cultural perspectives and identities—such as gender, race, socio-economic class, age, sexual orientation, disability, immigration status, (first) language, accent, ethnicity, national origin, and more. Successful intercultural communication requires a set of competences. Among the well-known intercultural competence models (e.g., Byram, 1997; Deardorff, 2004; Fantini & Tirmizi, 2006; Griffith et al., 2016; Ting-Toomey & Dorjee, 2015; UNESCO, 2013), we selected for our study the Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture (Council of Europe, 2018) because it integrates both intercultural and democratic competences, making it particularly relevant for addressing issues related to cultural heterogeneity. While other widely used models emphasize communication effectiveness, the RFCDC extends beyond to include a culture of democratic engagement and civic-mindedness—areas increasingly relevant in current times.

In developing the RFCDC, the Council of Europe identified and analyzed 101 relevant civic, democratic, and intercultural competence schemes before drawing from them 20 competences organized by sets of values, attitudes, skills, knowledge and critical understanding (Council of Europe, 2016; also see Figure 1). The rigor and transparency of the RFCDC’s development process, including validation through descriptors and multi-country implementation, contributed to our decision to use the RFCDC as the primary model upon which our survey and co-curricular initiative are based.

The RFCDC defines ‘democratic competence’ as “the ability to mobilise and deploy relevant psychological resources (i.e., values, attitudes, skills, knowledge, and/or understanding) in order to respond appropriately and effectively to the demands, challenges, and opportunities presented by democratic situations” (Council of Europe, 2016, p. 23). For the term ‘intercultural competence,’ the RFCDC uses this same definition while adding intercultural situations in place of democratic situations. In the field of intercultural education, many follow a narrow definition of intercultural competence as the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately with people from other cultures (Deardorff, 2004). In using the RFCDC for this study, we take a broader approach to understanding intercultural competence as a combination of values, attitudes, skills, knowledge, and critical understanding. Our approach to intercultural communication is not limited to communication with people from different cultural backgrounds but instead recognizes that various aspects of identity are equally important. These include gender, race, socio-economic class, age, sexual orientation, disability, immigration status, accent, ethnicity, national origin, and so on.

As explained in Barrett and Golubeva (2022), the 20 competences are typically activated in clusters, depending on the context and specific situation. As situations evolve, individuals may need to mobilize and deploy a new subset of competences.

For each competence, related descriptors were developed and validated (see Council of Europe, Volume 2). Scaled at three levels—basic, intermediate, and advanced—the RFCDC descriptors can be utilized for formative, diagnostic, monitoring, or summative assessment (see Barrett et al., 2021, for a systematic review of assessment methods and practical examples). This makes the RFCDC model in particular suitable for educational purposes. Although the RFCDC was developed by the Council of Europe, its values—such as human dignity, human rights, cultural diversity, democracy, justice, fairness, equality, and the rule of law—are globally resonant and increasingly relevant not only in Europe but also beyond it. It has been successfully implemented in diverse educational settings in countries such as Andorra, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium (French-speaking community), Cyprus, Finland, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Ukraine, and the United States. In our view, the RFCDC offers a promising foundation for fostering intercultural understanding and civic engagement in US higher education institutions, particularly those committed to inclusive excellence and social justice, such as our MSI.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Method

Data presented in this article are from a study conducted at a culturally diverse public university in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States of America in Fall 2021. A total of 13,017 students were invited to participate in a survey on campus climate and intercultural development at their institution, with 820 students fully completing the survey. Survey questions were designed to understand student experiences on campus as they relate to aspects of their identities (see Appendix A). This included questions about campus spaces and experiences where students feel comfortable discussing topics related to their identities, worldviews, and beliefs. Additionally, participants were surveyed about their perceptions of the importance of developing values, attitudes, skills, knowledge, and critical understanding outlined in RFCDC (Council of Europe, 2018). They were asked which of 20 competencies they had had the opportunity to cultivate during their time at the university, as well as which ones they would like to develop further.

To ensure consistent interpretation of the abstract concepts within the RFCDC model (e.g., autonomous learning skills), the study participants were provided with brief explanations of each term directly in the survey instrument. These were adapted from Council of Europe (2018). Prior to launch, the survey was piloted with a group of 150 students to ensure its reliability and validity.

The survey was distributed online via the MSI’s official student email system using Qualtrics and remained open for a period of three weeks. Participation was voluntary and anonymous.

3.2. Variables

In total, 820 students completed the survey (see

Table 1. Descriptive statistics: participant demographics (N = 820).

Variable	%
Degree Type
Bachelor’s	70.9
Master’s	15.9
Doctoral	10.2
First-Generation Student	24.6
Race/Ethnicity
Asian	28.5
Black/African American	19.6
Hispanic/Latino	8.9
Two or more races	5.4
White	35.5
Gender Identity
Female	58.0
Male	36.0
Other	6.0
College
CAHSS	38.5
CoEIT	32.3
CNMS	29.3
Aging studies	<1
Public policy	3.4
Social work	2.1
Academic Level
Freshman	20.7
Sophomore	15.5
Junior	17.7
Senior	21.5
Graduate	24.6
Languages Spoken
One	46.1
Two	35.6
Three	14.4
Four or more languages	3.9
	M	SD
Age	24.41	1.91

), in which 70.9% were bachelor’s students, 15.9% were master’s students, 10.2% were doctoral students, and 3% identified as ‘other’. The median age of participants was 24.4. 35.5% of participants identified as White, 28.5% as Asian, 19.6% as Black/African, and 8.9% as Hispanic/Latino; the remaining participants did not specify their racial or ethnic identity. Moreover, 24.6% were first-generation students, defined as the first family member to attend a 4-year college or university in their immediate (closer) family. Importantly, 58.0% of participants identified as female. Dependent variables for this study focused on perceptions of diversity and inclusion at the institution, spaces where students feel comfortable discussing topics related to their identities, and spaces where students feel comfortable discussing topics related to worldviews and beliefs. Additional dependent variables for this study focused on values, attitudes, skills, and knowledge and critical understanding statements, specifically, opportunities for experiencing VASK areas at the institution.

3.3. Intergroup Relations Variables

An additional set of demographic questions sought to understand student intergroup relations at their institution. Students were asked to think of their close friends (up to three) and describe them by selecting statements that were true for each friend (see Appendix A). 66.9% had close friends at the institution. 60.2% of their friends speak the same first (native) language as them. 54.3% identify with the same sexual orientation as them. 50.8% are from the same country as them. 36.9% have the same ethno-racial background as them, and 33.2% identify with the same religious or spiritual group/belief system as them.

Regarding campus involvement, 36.8% have not joined a student organization, club, or society at the institution; 19.9% have joined one organization; 32.9% have joined two to three organizations; and 10.3% have joined four or more organizations. The top three types of organizations students are a part of are academic/departmental (12.7%), hobbies and interests (10.3%), and cultural and ethnic (9.1%).

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Perceptions and Experiences of Diversity and Inclusion at the Minority-Serving Institution

Students were asked to respond to a variety of questions on how they experience their institution as a community inclusive of the identities of ethno-racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, religious/spiritual beliefs, and ideological worldviews on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = ‘agree’ to 4 = ‘disagree’ (see Appendix A).

In total, 75.98% of surveyed students perceived MSI as ‘very diverse’ and 22.44% as ‘somewhat diverse,’ followed by 61.34% of students perceiving MSI as ‘very inclusive’ and 33.41% as ‘somewhat inclusive.’ In relation to specific aspects of their identities, 97.20% and 97.19% of respondents, respectively, perceived MSI as ‘very inclusive’ or ‘somewhat inclusive’ of their gender identity and sexual orientation; 94.27% perceived it as inclusive of their ethno-racial identity; 92.32% of their religious/spiritual beliefs and 90.00% of their ideological/political worldviews.

Spearman’s rank-order correlations were used to examine the relationship between demographic characteristics and survey elements related to students’ identities, worldview/beliefs, and VASK areas. There was a strong positive correlation between first-generation status and experiencing their institution as a community inclusive of their ethno-racial identity (r_s(820) = 0.079, p = 0.024) and inclusive of their sexual orientation (r_s(820) = 0.087, p = 0.013) (see

Table 2. Correlation of community inclusivity and demographic data statements (N = 820).

			I Experience ___ as a Community That Is Inclusive of My Ethno-Racial Identity.	I Experience ___ as a Community That Is Inclusive of My Gender Identity.	I Experience ___ as a Community That Is Inclusive of My Sexual Orientation.	I Experience ___ as a Community That Is Inclusive of My Religious/Spiritual Beliefs.	I Experience ___ as a Community That Is Inclusive of My Ideological Worldviews.
Spearman’s rho	Degree level	Correlation coefficient	−0.021	−0.079 *	−0.055	−0.013	−0.018
		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.554	0.024	0.118	0.718	0.600
		N	820	820	820	820	820
	First in family to attend a 4-year college	Correlation coefficient	0.079 *	0.013	0.087 *	−0.040	0.017
		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.024	0.702	0.013	0.248	0.617
		N	820	820	820	820	820
	Ethnicity	Correlation coefficient	−0.084 *	0.019	0.006	−0.104 **	−0.036
		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.016	0.581	0.872	0.003	0.306
		N	818	818	818	818	818
	Age range	Correlation coefficient	0.017	−0.047	−0.041	0.010	0.017
		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.623	0.175	0.241	0.775	0.623
		N	820	820	820	820	820
	Gender identity	Correlation coefficient	−0.007	0.055	0.057	−0.064	0.039
		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.849	0.115	0.103	0.066	0.263
		N	820	820	820	820	820
	Languages spoken	Correlation coefficient	0.091 **	0.029	0.014	0.044	0.006
		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.009	0.404	0.683	0.205	0.867
		N	820	820	820	820	820

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

).

The positive correlations for first-generation students in some areas highlight their unique experiences. This could inform policies to sustain and expand inclusivity efforts for this group. The negative correlation with ethno-racial inclusivity suggests that some ethnic groups may face challenges in feeling included. Targeted initiatives (e.g., cultural affinity spaces or intercultural training) could address these disparities.

4.2. Comfortable Spaces for Discussing Topics Related to Students’ Identities

Students were asked to respond to a series of yes/no questions regarding spaces they felt comfortable discussing topics related to their identities. Results show that all demographic areas except gender identity had strong correlations with spaces, events, and individuals (see

Table 3. Correlation of comfortable spaces for discussing DEI and demographic data statements (N = 820).

Total Scores	−0.125 **	<0.001	820	−0.084 *	0.016	820	0.101 **	0.004	818	−0.136 **	<0.001	820	0.000	0.989	820	−0.030	0.396	820
None	0.082 *	0.019	820	0.067	0.056	820	−0.011	0.750	818	0.091 **	0.009	820	0.045	0.202	820	0.003	0.943	820
Other	0.117 **	<0.001	820	−0.092 **	0.009	820	0.048	0.173	818	0.117 **	<0.001	820	−0.006	0.868	820	−0.042	0.227	820
With staff	−0.027	0.442	820	−0.021	0.556	820	0.090 *	0.010	818	−0.014	0.683	820	−0.013	0.713	820	−0.030	0.384	820
With faculty	0.019	0.592	820	−0.012	0.724	820	0.131 **	<0.001	818	0.076 *	0.029	820	0.008	0.816	820	−0.038	0.279	820
With friends	−0.172 **	<0.001	820	−0.076 *	0.031	820	0.042	0.230	818	−0.222 **	<0.001	820	−0.065	0.063	820	−0.005	0.885	820
Campus celebrations/festivals	−0.065	0.065	820	−0.067	0.056	820	−0.041	0.243	818	−0.104 **	0.003	820	−0.048	0.171	820	0.062	0.077	820
Student organizations	−0.160 **	<0.001	820	−0.039	0.260	820	0.020	0.561	818	−0.209 **	<0.001	820	0.023	0.516	820	−0.005	0.885	820
Residence halls	−0.219 **	<0.001	820	−0.118 **	<0.001	820	0.020	0.562	818	−0.289 **	<0.001	820	0.037	0.293	820	−0.021	0.547	820
Virtual classrooms	−0.007	0.832	820	−0.062	0.077	820	0.079 *	0.023	818	0.058	0.098	820	0.011	0.759	820	−0.039	0.261	820
Classrooms	−0.063	0.071	820	−0.020	0.565	820	0.120 **	<0.001	818	−0.072 *	0.039	820	0.066	0.057	820	−0.048	0.173	820
	r	Sig (2−tailed)	N	r	Sig (2−tailed)	N	r	Sig (2−tailed)	N	r	Sig (2−tailed)	N	r	Sig (2−tailed)	N	r	Sig (2−tailed)	N
	Degree level				First generation			Ethnicity			Age range			Gender identity			Languages spoken
	Spearman’s rho

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

). Age range (r_s(820) = 0.076, p = 0.029) and ethnicity (r_s(818) = 0.131, p ≤ 0.001) had strong positive correlations with faculty. Further, ethnicity and staff had a strong positive correlation (r_s(820) = 0.090, p = 0.010).

Positive correlations, like those between students’ ethnicity and feeling comfort when discussing topics related to their identities with faculty, show that students from diverse backgrounds feel supported by their professors. Faculty training on intercultural competence could further strengthen this positive trend, enhancing comfort and dialogue around topics related to various aspects of students’ identities. Negative correlations between ethnicity and comfort in residence halls (r_s = −0.219, p < 0.001; r_s = −0.219, p < 0.001; r_s = −0.219, p < 0.001) suggest challenges in these living spaces, possibly due to cultural misunderstandings or lack of diverse programming. Introducing more inclusive activities and fostering intercultural communication in residence halls can address negative correlations with ethnicity. Negative correlations with degree level (r_s = −0.160, p < 0.001; r_s = −0.160, p < 0.001; r_s = −0.160, p < 0.001) suggest graduate students may engage less in these spaces, potentially due to time constraints or differing needs. Tailored DEI initiatives that align with graduate students’ unique schedules and priorities can encourage participation in organizations and discussions.

4.3. Comfortable Spaces for Discussing Topics of Worldview and Beliefs

Students were asked to respond to a series of yes/no questions regarding spaces they felt comfortable discussing topics related to worldview and beliefs. All demographic areas except gender identity had multiple strong correlations with spaces, events, and individuals (see

Table 4. Correlation of comfortable spaces for discussing worldview/beliefs and demographic data statements (N = 820).

Total Scores	−0.076 *	0.029	820	−0.088 *	0.012	820	0.118 **	<0.001	818	−0.073 *	0.037	820	−0.007	0.852	820	−0.032	0.353	820
None	0.008	0.816	820	0.114 **	0.001	820	−0.053	0.133	818	0.021	0.552	820	0.053	0.127	820	0.003	0.925	820
Other	0.155 **	<0.001	820	−0.052	0.138	820	0.030	0.385	818	0.103 **	0.003	820	−0.033	0.350	820	−0.024	0.489	820
With staff	0.023	0.509	820	0.002	0.947	820	0.091 **	0.009	818	0.028	0.427	820	−0.014	0.698	820	−0.014	0.692	820
With faculty	0.022	0.525	820	−0.018	0.604	820	0.136 **	<0.001	818	0.060	0.086	820	0.014	0.684	820	−0.041	0.239	820
With friends	−0.146 **	<0.001	820	−0.088 *	0.012	820	0.064	0.068	818	−0.181 **	<0.001	820	−0.061	0.079	820	−0.040	0.254	820
Campus celebrations/festivals	−0.035	0.316	820	−0.075 *	0.031	820	0.013	0.703	818	−0.108 **	0.002	820	−0.002	0.954	820	0.043	0.220	820
Student organizations	−0.167 **	<0.001	820	−0.078 *	0.026	820	0.029	0.413	818	−0.206 **	<0.001	820	0.006	0.875	820	−0.016	0.641	820
Residence halls	−0.186 **	<0.001	820	−0.135 **	<0.001	820	0.102 **	0.003	818	−0.226 **	<0.001	820	0.061	0.079	820	−0.064	0.069	820
Virtual classrooms	0.003	0.936	820	−0.036	0.307	820	0.082 *	0.019	818	0.111 *	0.002	820	−0.014	0.686	820	−0.020	0.560	820
Classrooms	−0.029	0.410	820	−0.037	0.285	820	0.101 **	0.004	818	0.006	0.861	820	0.087 *	0.013	820	−0.031	0.378	820
	r	Sig (2−tailed)	N	r	Sig (2−tailed)	N	r	Sig (2−tailed)	N	r	Sig (2−tailed)	N	r	Sig (2−tailed)	N	r	Sig (2−tailed)	N
	Degree level				First generation			Ethnicity			Age range			Gender identity			Languages spoken
	Spearman’s rho

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

). Ethnicity had strong positive correlations with classrooms (r_s(818) = 0.101, p = 0.004), virtual classrooms (r_s(818) = 0.082, p = 0.019), residence halls (r_s(818) = 0.102, p = 0.003), faculty (r_s(818) = 0.136, p ≤ 0.001), and staff (r_s(818) = 0.091, p = 0.009).

Positive correlations between ethnicity and classroom comfort (r_s = 0.101, p = 0.004; r_s = 0.101, p = 0.004; r_s = 0.101, p = 0.004) and virtual classrooms (r_s = 0.082, p = 0.019; r_s = 0.082, p = 0.019; r_s = 0.082, p = 0.019) highlight the importance of inclusive teaching strategies. Professors should incorporate diverse perspectives into curricula to sustain and expand the positive classroom correlations for worldview discussions. Similar to discussions on topics related to students’ identities and belonging, residence halls show a negative correlation (r_s = −0.186, p < 0.001; r_s = −0.186, p < 0.001; r_s = −0.186, p < 0.001) with ethnicity. This consistency emphasizes challenges for ethnically diverse students in this setting. Similar strategies, as mentioned above for DEI-related topics, can apply here, emphasizing cultural and religious inclusivity in residence hall activities. A negative correlation exists between degree level and comfort discussing worldview topics with friends (r_s = −0.146, p < 0.001; r_s = −0.146, p < 0.001; r_s = −0.146, p < 0.001), suggesting that as students progress academically, they may find fewer peer-based opportunities for such discussions. Introducing mentorship or peer discussion groups focused on worldviews could fill the gap for advanced students.

4.4. Friendship Dynamics

The demographic data on campus friendships reveal some thought-provoking insights into the patterns of intergroup relations at MSI. The fact that 66.9% of students reported having close friends at the institution is a positive indicator of social connection and contributes to enhancing students’ sense of belonging. At the same time, it also points to a significant proportion of students (about a third) who may feel isolated and not connected to the campus community. This suggests that despite DEI efforts, many students still struggle to find a close social group where they feel they belong, which may negatively impact their overall campus experience.

The results also show a tendency for students to form connections with peers similar to them (i.e., a tendency for homophily) along aspects of identity such as first (native) language (60.2%), sexual orientation (54.3%), and national origin (50.8%). These statistics highlight that social networks on campus can reflect existing societal divides, with students likely feeling most comfortable and understood by peers who share similar aspects of identity. The fact that 36.9% of students have close friends of the same ethno-racial background and 33.2% share the same religious or spiritual beliefs reveals that greater heterogeneity exists in friendships regarding ethnic-racial identities and students’ religious/spiritual beliefs.

While the tendency toward homophily is a natural and well-documented social phenomenon, it may limit opportunities for intercultural dialogue and engagement. Our intent is not to portray these preferences as negative, but rather to highlight how campuses can better facilitate more inclusive connections through intentional programming. The above-discussed friendship dynamics—where students tend to build closer ties with peers who share similar identities—indicate the need for more strategic efforts to foster intergroup dialogue and intercultural communication in campus social activities.

4.5. Student Involvement in Campus Social Activities

The data on campus involvement shows that one-third of students (36.8%) have not joined student organizations. This can be attributed to various factors, such as time constraints due to academic pressure or a lack of awareness or interest in campus activities. It also raises questions about the inclusivity of campus clubs and organizations, as students who do not engage in these activities may do so because they feel that they do not belong to these spaces. Moreover, the collected data shows that 63.2% of students have engaged with at least one organization, indicating that most of the students participate in some form of campus activities. The types of organizations that students are involved in suggest that they are finding outlets for their interests, though there is a tendency for certain types of organizations to dominate: academic/departmental (12.7%), hobbies and interests (10.3%), and cultural and ethnic (9.1%). These three categories suggest that while academic interests drive engagement, cultural and ethnic organizations still play a significant role in students’ campus lives.

Overall, these findings suggest that students seek social communities that both share academic goals and affirm their cultural or ethnic identities. The moderate involvement in cultural and ethnic organizations may reflect broader campus dynamics, where students are not confined to socializing with peers of the same ethno-racial background and are open to forming more diverse friendships.

Consistent with the findings discussed in Section 4.4, the results in this section indicate the need for the institution to implement intercultural programming that intentionally encourages intergroup dialogue and fosters a more inclusive campus environment. Offering students additional opportunities to collaborate with peers outside their immediate social circles could enhance their sense of belonging and promote greater understanding across differences.

4.6. Institutional Opportunities for Experiencing the VASK Areas

The respondents were surveyed about their perceptions of the importance of 20 VASK areas (as listed in Figure 1), selecting from a 4-point scale ranging from ‘very important,’ to ‘moderately important,’ to ‘slightly important,’ and to ‘not important at all.’ The results presented in Figure 2 reflect which VASK areas students selected as ‘very important’ (with the highest percentage on the top).

The students were asked to select which of the 20 VASK areas they had had opportunities to develop while studying at MSI (see Figure 3).

To better understand students’ needs, we also asked them to indicate which of the 20 VASK areas they would like to develop while studying at MSI (see Figure 4).

Findings presented in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 indicate the gap between what VASK students perceive as important, which ones they had opportunities to develop at MSI, and which ones they would like to develop further. This evidence served as guidance for developing research-informed intercultural training, the InterEqual modules.

While there were strong positive correlations between value statement areas, the only strong, positive correlation between demographic data and a value statement was in the areas of ethnicity and opportunities for valuing cultural diversity (r_s(820) = 0.096, p = 0.006). Attitude statements had three areas of strong positive correlation. A strong positive correlation existed between ethnicity and openness to cultural otherness and to other beliefs, worldviews, and cultural practices (r_s(820) = 0.123, p ≤ 0.001), ethnicity and civic-mindedness (r_s(820) = 0.88, p = 0.012), and ethnicity and self-efficacy (r_s(820) = 0.78, p = 0.025). Of the eight skill statements, there were four positive correlations. Strong positive correlations existed between ethnicity and the following skill areas: autonomous learning skills (r_s(818) = 0.112, p = 0.001), analytical and critical thinking skills (r_s(818) = 0.126, p ≤ 0.001), flexibility and adaptability (r_s(818) = 0.191, p = 0.009), and conflict-resolution skills (r_s(818) = 0.092, p = 0.009). Knowledge statements had two areas of positive correlation: both between ethnicity and knowledge and critical understanding of the self (r_s(818) = 0.087, p = 0.013) and knowledge and critical understanding of the world (r_s(818) = 0.145, p ≤ 0.001).

Thus, out of 20 VASK areas, 10 demonstrated strong positive correlations with students’ ethnicity, suggesting that ethnic background and related lived experiences may play a significant role in shaping students’ perceptions and understanding across various dimensions of democratic and intercultural competences. This indicates that culturally responsive pedagogy, tailored to the needs of a specific campus community, which acknowledges and values students’ diverse backgrounds, is essential to promoting not just academic success but also enhancing the inclusiveness of campus and developing competences necessary for life and work in multicultural societies. Moreover, such findings not only inform the design of intercultural training programs like InterEqual but also point to the broader need for inclusive, culturally affirming learning environments that cater to the diverse backgrounds of all students.

5. Conclusions, Limitations, and Implications

This article summarized the results of a campus-wide survey conducted at a Minority-Serving Institution in the Mid-Atlantic of the United States focused on students’ perceptions of campus climate and intergroup relations. Our purpose was to expand upon existing campus climate research with a specific focus on students’ experiences with diversity, equity, and inclusion in relation to their identities, as well as explore which VASK areas they perceive to be important to be developed during their time at the university.

Despite rigorous research methodology and robust data from 820 students collected across a broad variety of university degrees at a culturally diverse campus, this study presents some limitations. The major one is that the data were obtained from the same campus, and, therefore, the findings cannot be generalized. Another limitation of our study is the absence of open-ended questions, which could have offered deeper insight into students’ personal narratives and lived experiences. Additional research is needed to test the survey instrument in different contexts, for example, at institutions with culturally less diverse student bodies or more polarized communities. Last but not least, while the core structure of the RFCDC model is transferable across a plethora of educational contexts, certain elements—such as, for example, the language used and reference points for values—should be localized. We recommend retaining the model’s integrity while adapting it in terms of cultural relevance to local practices.

The most significant implication of this study is that its results served as evidence-based guidance for designing the InterEqual training modules, aimed at synergizing intercultural communication education with efforts to enhance students’ sense of belonging (for an overview, see Golubeva, 2025b). In particular, findings from the survey allowed us to identify VASK areas that our culturally diverse campus students needed the most. The survey we developed was intentionally structured to capture nuanced insights into each component of the Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture (Council of Europe, 2018). For instance, in terms of values, students emphasized the importance of valuing human dignity and human rights. In the domain of attitudes, many respondents marked respect as ‘very important’ and also noted openness to cultural otherness and to other beliefs, worldviews, and cultural practices. When examining skills, the majority of students cited listening and observing. Finally, in terms of knowledge and critical understanding, responses pointed to a need for developing knowledge and critical understanding of the world.

These research findings informed the design of the InterEqual modules by helping us identify content areas that align with students’ needs. By tailoring our pedagogical interventions to address the specific VASK gaps identified, we created learning experiences that are not only relevant but also transformative. Most importantly, the practical application of this approach led to a significant increase in students’ perception of the campus as inclusive and an improved sense of belonging (Golubeva, 2025a).

Our hope is that Student Affairs professionals, DEI officers, faculty, and campus leaders at other universities will find our study useful and apply our approach to enhance their campus climate. We also believe the insights from our study can inspire thoughtful reflection and foster meaningful dialogue, ultimately contributing to a more inclusive campus environment.