Input and interaction with stakeholders

A part of this process included deep, guided discussion with partners in our state and across our region about what is important to them.

Qualitative review of responses from 5 key questions

Below are the 5 key questions presented to our user groups, a breakdown of participant percentages and common themes pulled from the various responses.

Participant Classification: 43.8% Staff (n = 64), 31.5% Faculty (n = 46), 17.1% Students (n = 25), 5.5% Alumni (n = 8), 2.1% Other (n = 3).

Key Findings: The three most common qualities respondents felt should be included in a Land Grant University:

1) Extension, outreach, and support for local communities; 2) Research; 3) Education or excellent teaching/instruction

• Extension, outreach, and support for local communities were identified as the top quality by three out of four classification groups, except for student respondents.
• Staff identified state-wide impact as an important quality of a land grant university, at a higher rate than any of the other groups.
• Alumni respondents identified career readiness as an important quality of a land grant university, which was in the top five of the overall table but did not appear in any other group’s top five.

Participant Classification: 36.5% Staff (n = 149), 28.7% Faculty (n = 117), 24.5% Students (n = 100), 9.8% Alumni (n = 40), 0% Other (n = 2).

Key Findings: The three most common competencies all respondents felt OSU graduates should demonstrate: 

1) Communication; 2) Critical thinking; 3) Global perspectives

• Alumni supported the importance of communication by a large margin and were somewhat in line with students regarding the importance of field-related skills/knowledge and career readiness.

Participant Classification: 45.6% Staff (n = 144), 25.9% Faculty (n = 82), 19.0% Students (n = 60), 4.7% Alumni (n = 15), 4.7% Other (n = 15).

Key Findings: The three most common improvements respondents felt OSU could make in the lives of Oklahomans:

1) Educate the public (based on research and science), provide consultation and academic outreach where needed; 2) Promote and teach about diversity, equity, and inclusion; 3) Advertise outreach and extension programs; 4) communicate accomplishments of outreach

• Each group found educating the public to be in the top of their list of priorities when responding to this question.
• Students ranked university-related issues/changes as extremely important.

Participant Classification: 47.1% Staff (n = 104), 24.0% Faculty (n = 53), 22.6% Students (n = 50), 4.5% Alumni (n = 10), 1.8% Other (n = 4). 

Key Findings: The three most common suggestions all respondents felt OSU can implement to develop a unified, effective, and efficient system:

1) Extension; 2) Pathways to unity; 3) Quality education

• All groups listed improving extension efforts in their top five priorities, which is also reflected in its ranking as number one overall. 
• Faculty and staff ranked creating pathways to unity higher than the other groups. 
• Alumni were more interested in OSU embracing differences and allowing for innovation than other classification groups.

Participant Classification: 34.7% Students (n = 127), 29.5% Staff (n = 108), 22.1% Faculty (n = 81), 1.4% Alumni (n = 5), 1.1% Other (n = 4).

Key Findings: The most common thoughts respondents had regarding society-impacting research:

1) Has a real, positive, immediate impact on the lives of those in the world; 2) improves the overall quality of life; 3) Expands overall knowledge or our understanding of the world; 4) promotes critical thinking

• Having a real, positive, and immediate impact on the lives of those in the world was the highest priority for all three groups
• Students were more likely to state outright that research that impacts society is important.
• Disseminating information from research to the public was most often seen as a priority for those who identified as staff

Strategy session participation

In-person strategy sessions and digital feedback were essential components the input gathering process. Included in the input garnered from faculty, staff, alumni, donors and friends are the following: