RISK PERCEPTIONS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science By Kimberly Ann Bruemmer In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Major Program: Education April 2016 Fargo, North Dakota North Dakota State University Graduate School Title RISK PERCEPTIONS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS By Kimberly Ann Bruemmer The Supervisory Committee certifies that this disquisition complies with North Dakota State University’s regulations and meets the accepted standards for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: Chris Ray Chair Brent Hill Linda Manikowske Christopher Wilson Approved: 4/4/2016 William Martin Date Department Chair ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to examine perceptions of risk in student organization management, including differing perceptions among student leaders, advisers, and university personnel, as well as, how factors such as institutional size and community setting influenced said perceptions. In identifying how these three individual groups articulate risk, the study sought to identify disconnect between the groups. This disconnect could lead to better resources to assist in the risk management processes. In order to achieve the purpose of this study, five research questions were developed.
An electronic survey was used to gather information on risk perceptions. The survey had four sections – demographics; risk scenarios; campus and community environment; and the role the university should play in risk management. A quantitative analysis of the data occurred focusing on descriptive statistics, and through the use of a two-way between-groups analysis of variance (ANOVA). The ANOVA testing was used to see an interaction between the university and the campus setting and size was present.
If no interaction was identified, the study looked at the major effects to see if significant differences were present. Student organizations provide many opportunities for student development. Well- managed organizations can also be an effective marketing tool for universities. However, despite the advantages, they can also raise questions of risk and liability to the institution (Broe, 2009).
This study focused on the current perceptions in risk management of student organizations. While this study identified campus setting and size play a minor role in how risk perceptions are formed, it did identify that an individual’s role at the institution does impact how risk is viewed, and particularly what level of risk is present. Most of the differences occurred between student iii leader’s and adviser’s perceptions in regards to the perception of risk severity. Student activities professionals can use these perceptions to support stronger training programs.
Based upon the results of this current study, such training should focus less on what types of risk are present and instead focus more on how the level of severity could be increased or decreased due to certain factors. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my deep gratitude to my adviser, Dr. Chris Ray for the continuous support on my Ph. His patience, motivation, and understanding are what have allowed me to complete this adventure and I couldn’t imagine a better adviser and mentor throughout this process.
I would also like to thank my thesis committee: Dr. Brent Hill; Dr. Linda Manikowske; and Christopher Wilson. Your expertise and dedication to students pushed me throughout the process to look deeper, strive for better, and to question everything.
The completion of this project could not have been accomplished without the support of my coworkers, Campus Attractions students, and my family. Your willingness to step in and help when I needed time away to write was greatly appreciated. Finally, I want to thank my mother, Irene. With the deepest of gratitude, I thank you for the late nights, the proof reading, and the words of encouragement.
Without your support throughout this process, I’m sure I would have given up. You kept me moving forward and for that I extend a heartfelt thank you! v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT. v LIST OF TABLES. ix LIST OF FIGURES.
2 Statement of Problem. 7 Significance of the Study. 10 Definition of Terms. 13 Organization of the Study.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE. 16 Identifying Student Organization Risk. 25 Student/University Relationship. 28 Types of Organizations.
28 Social Greek Organizations. 29 Working with Registered Student Organizations. 30 vi Risk Management Teams. 36 Ways to Educate.
46 Population and Sample. 153 Summary of Results. 160 Implications for Theory. 161 vii Implications for Research.
162 Implications for Practice. EMAILS TO PARTICIPANTS. 199 viii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Risk coding classified by type.
Barriers coding classified by type. Means and Standard Deviations for physical risk to the student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting. Two-Way Analysis of Variance for physical risk to the student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting. Means and Standard Deviations for reputational risk to the student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting.
Two-Way Analysis of Variance for reputational risk to the student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting. Means and Standard Deviations for emotional risk to the student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting. Two-Way Analysis of Variance for emotional risk to the student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting. Means and Standard Deviations for financial risk to the student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting.
Two-Way Analysis of Variance for financial risk to the student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting. Means and Standard Deviations for facilities risk to the student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting. Two-Way Analysis of Variance for facilities risk to the student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting. Means and Standard Deviations for physical risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting.
Two-Way Analysis of Variance for physical risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting. Means and Standard Deviations for reputational risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting. Two-Way Analysis of Variance for reputational risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting. Means and Standard Deviations for emotional risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting.
Two-Way Analysis of Variance for emotional risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting. Means and Standard Deviations for financial risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting. Two-Way Analysis of Variance for financial risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting. Means and Standard Deviations for facilities risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting.
Two-Way Analysis of Variance for facilities risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting. Means and Standard Deviations for Campus Setting as a function of Role for Risk Perception in Q21. Summary Table for Two-Way Analysis of Variance of Effects of Role and Campus Setting on Risk Perception in Q21. Means and Standard Deviations for physical risk to the student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size.
Two-Way Analysis of Variance for physical risk to the student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size. Means and Standard Deviations for reputational risk to the student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size. Two-Way Analysis of Variance for reputational risk to the student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size. Means and Standard Deviations for emotional risk to the student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size.
Two-Way Analysis of Variance for emotional risk to the student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size. Means and Standard Deviations for financial risk to the student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size. Two-Way Analysis of Variance for financial risk to the student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size. Means and Standard Deviations for facilities risk to the student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size.
Two-Way Analysis of Variance for facilities risk to the student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size. Means and Standard Deviations for physical risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size. Two-Way Analysis of Variance for physical risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size. Means and Standard Deviations for reputational risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size.
Two-Way Analysis of Variance for reputational risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size. Means and Standard Deviations for emotional risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size. Two-Way Analysis of Variance for emotional risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size. Means and Standard Deviations for financial risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size.
Two-Way Analysis of Variance for financial risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size. Means and Standard Deviations for facilities risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size. Two-Way Analysis of Variance for facilities risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size. Means and Standard Deviations for Campus Size as a function of Role for Risk Perception in Q21.
Summary Table for Two-Way Analysis of Variance of Effects of Role and Campus Size on Risk Perception in Q21. Means and Standard Deviations for Q36 as a function of Role and Campus Setting. Two-Way Analysis of Variance for Q36 as a function of Role and Campus Setting. Means and Standard Deviations for Q36 as a function of Role and Campus Size.
Two-Way Analysis of Variance for Q36 as a function of Role and Campus Size .149 xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Conceptual framework identifying the relationship between environment, risk management, and student safety. Estimated marginal means of physical risk to student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting. Two-Way Analysis of Variance for reputational risk to the student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting.
Estimated marginal means of emotional risk to the student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting. Estimated marginal means of financial risk to the student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting. Estimated marginal means of facilities risk to the student organization scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Setting. Estimated marginal means of physical risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size.
Estimated marginal means of reputational risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size. Estimated marginal means of emotional risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size. Estimated marginal means of financial risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size. Estimated marginal means of facilities risk to the university scenario questions as a function of Role and Campus Size.
Estimated marginal means of Q21 as a function of Role and Campus Setting .