Ethnic Minority Student Engagement in Campus Recreation: Barriers and Facilitators

Background/Purpose: Colleges and universities exist in both academic and social contexts, with nonacademic experiences being important for student retention (Tinto, 1975). According to the Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange (2002), first year student retention rates were highest among White students (80.3%), whereas they were 67.2%, 74.7%, and 75.7% for American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black/African-American, and Hispanic/Latina/o students, respectively. Contributing to improving this situation by assuring that their facilities, programs, services, and staff are grounded in and operating by principles of diversity, inclusivity, and social justice are important concerns of campus recreation professionals. This will become increasingly important in the future, as demographic trends indicate that ethnic minority groups will account for the vast majority of America’s total population growth (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators of ethnic minority students to participating in campus recreation programs.

Method: Undergraduate students (N = 22; n = 14 females, n = 8 males) who identified as American Indian/Alaska Native (n = 6), Black/African American (n = 7), or Hispanic/Latina/o (n= 9) at a major research university located in the Pacific Northwest were recruited from campus cultural centers to participate in one of three focus group discussions. Each focus group lasted 45 to 60 minutes, with each discussion being audio recorded and later transcribed verbatim. The transcribed text was analyzed and coded using the constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), with consensus achieved by two independent coders. The results were also member-checked to ensure that the data was not misinterpreted or incomplete.

Analysis/Results: Ten themes emerged, including four barriers and six facilitators. The barriers included organizational barriers (i.e., crowded facilities, lack of equipment knowledge, socioeconomic barriers associated with additional cost of classes, lack of access to students taking online classes), lack of time, gender barriers, and cultural barriers. The facilitators were social dynamics of campus recreation facilities, health maintenance, personal growth, maintaining a cultural connection, facility and services, and accountability.

Conclusions: Campus recreational programs can create more inclusive environments by ensuring equitable use of shared spaces, facilitating women’s weight training, providing online resources to students, creating more structured programming, requiring cultural competence training for all staff, and designating spaces for cultural recreational activities. Future research could explore other potentially underserved student population groups, such as differently abled students; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer students; student parents; or veteran students.