Profiles in Mentoring: Katie Kroeper on Fostering Belonging through Institutional Change

Kathryn “Katie” Kroeper, Ph.D, is an assistant professor of psychology at Sacred Heart University and principal investigator of the Understanding Nurturing, Inclusive, and Transformative Environments (UNITE) lab. Dr. Kroeper’s research centers on transforming identity-threatening environments into identity-safe spaces where individuals feel valued and supported. In the context of academic institutions, her work explores how environmental factors shape students’ experiences of belonging, particularly considering the impact of intersectional identities. We recently had the honor of speaking with Dr. Kroeper about her recent paper exploring social belonging in higher education, featured here in The Chronicle!

Chronicle (C): What personal experiences or observations initially sparked your interest in studying college belonging from an institutional perspective?

Katie Kroeper (KK): I’ve been interested in how environments shape students’ experiences since I was an undergrad, trying to navigate my own belonging in school and seeing others attempt the same. I watched several peers struggle, including one friend in particular—a first-generation student—who was brilliant but had a hard time adjusting. In her first semester, she was somehow enrolled in an upper-level history course without any background in the topic, and no one—neither instructors nor advisors—explained that this wasn’t a typical path for a first-year student. She struggled and took that to mean she didn’t belong in college. At the same time, she didn’t find many spaces on campus where she felt culturally connected; she went home most weekends because she missed the sense of community. By the middle of sophomore year, she had dropped out.

So often, especially in the U.S., we focus on belonging as something individuals either have or don’t have—something we treat as solely a student-level issue to diagnose and fix. And yes, of course, students play a key role in forging their own sense of belonging—seeking out connections, engaging in classes, finding purpose, and creating spaces or communities that feel like home. But the campus environment plays a powerful role too. In this paper, we show that students who struggle with belonging aren’t necessarily lacking something within themselves or doing something wrong. Often, they’re navigating settings that don’t offer meaningful opportunities to belong. And importantly, these gaps aren’t random—we find that Black, Asian, and first-generation students are systematically afforded fewer belonging opportunities across institutions. That’s not a student-level problem. That’s an institution-level problem. And it’s one that requires institutional change—rethinking the cues we send and the cultures we create so that all students can come to see their campus as a place where they belong.

C: Among the four predictors of belonging you identified, which do you believe institutions are most equipped to address quickly, and why?

KK: One of our key takeaways is that context matters. Different institutions—and even different departments within a single institution—have different strengths and gaps. So there’s no single “quick fix” that applies everywhere.

 That’s why we encourage institutions to start by talking with their own students: through surveys, interviews, and focus groups, they can learn who is currently well-served, who is not yet well-served, and where the gaps are. And what’s needed to foster belonging may vary not only from campus to campus but also across identity groups within the same campus.

 Across our large sample—more than 15,000 students across 22 universities—we found that four institutional factors consistently shape students’ sense of belonging, so asking students about these factors on their own campus could be a good starting place for institutions: (1) in-group representation—how well students see people like themselves reflected among peers, faculty, and staff; (2) inclusive cultures—whether students experience the campus environment as genuinely welcoming, respectful, and equitable; (3) opportunities for strong relationships—with both peers and faculty on campus; and (4) productive learning opportunities—including growth-oriented cultures and pathways that help students connect coursework to their broader career and life goals.

 Institutions shouldn’t assume they know which student groups feel greater or lesser belonging on campus or which of the above belonging affordances are available to these student groups—they have to ask. Once they hear from students, institutions will be well-positioned to identify the local changes that would most meaningfully support student belonging on their campus. Listening regularly—and acting on what they learn—is the only way institutions can build and maintain a campus climate where every student can find belonging.

 C: How do you envision future research building on the concept of “belonging affordances,” especially in graduate or non-traditional education contexts?

KK: I would love to see (or conduct) research that extends this work to other contexts—like community colleges, graduate programs, institutions serving primarily adult learners, or institutions outside the U.S. I’d also love to see studies exploring how belonging affordances vary across other dimensions of identity—like gender, LGBTQ+ identity, international status, or transfer status—and at intersections of identity, such as race/ethnicity by gender. My sense is that the broad categories we identified—in-group representation, inclusive cultures, relationships, and productive learning opportunities—are likely relevant across these contexts and groups too. But I also suspect we’d uncover new affordances that matter in distinct ways. There’s much more to learn.

Dr. Kroeper’s paper can be found here