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.

 

Question 1What does land grant university mean to you?

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.

 

Question 2What are the ideal competencies for an OSU graduate?

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.

 

Question 3Through extension, outreach, and engagement, what can OSU do to improve the lives of Oklahomans?

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.

 

Question 4What can OSU do to develop a unified, effective, and efficient system that leverages its campuses and infrastructure for maximum impact on society?

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.

 

Question 5What does research that impacts societymean to you? 

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: