Q: What methods were used to advertise the survey and results?
A: The survey and results was advertised in a variety of different ways.
Posters: These were placed in every dorm, around Oxford's campus including every academic building, and a variety of Uptown businesses.
Tabling: Members of our team dedicated over 15 hours in outreach informing and engaging stakeholders and encouraging survey participation. This was done in a neutral, non-leading approach. Team members did not disclose personal views and encouraged individuals to participate regardless if their expressed views aligned with or opposed expected outcomes.
Tabling at Armstrong Student Center occurred on October 21st, from 9am-5pm and November 7th, from 10am to 4pm.
Tabling at Uptown Trick-or-Treat occurred on October 30th, from 4:30pm-6:30pm.
Tabling at Miami University's Family Weekend Tailgate occurred on October 25th, from 12:00pm- 3:30pm.
Social Media: Instagram and Facebook were utilized for both survey distribution and dissemination of findings. Posts were shared within the Oxford Talk of the Town and multiple Miami University Alumni Facebook groups to encourage participation, provide updates on anticipated findings, and share final results.
E-mails: Each group received emails for the distribution of the survey and its results and reciepients were encouraged to share these messages within their networks. Official email distibution lists from Miami University were not accessible for use.
Emails were sent to:
Organization that listed at least one contact on The Hub.
Clubs
Fraternities and Sororities
Varsity, JV, and Freshman (Team) Sports
Club Sports
Miami University Academic Departments
Q: Might there be a sample bias and what might that mean for the results of the survey?
A: Without the use of incentives for recruitment or well-defined population parameters, we cannot determine the representativeness of our final sample. Nonetheless, our final sample size and the distribution of ‘respondent connections’ (i.e., their affiliations with Miami) indicate a well-rounded sample with substantial statistical power. Despite limitations limitations of our survey’s generalizability, alone, these findings are upheld by other data we reviewed, including over 100 project-related public documents and editorials, a review of the 1500 responses to the administration’s survey, academic research on college athletics arena investments, and innumerable anecdotal data anecdotal data from project team members’ conversations with peers, neighbors, and colleagues.
There’s another key source of data: natural experiment: People flock to basketball games in record-breaking numbers when the our team is good. They don’t care about the stadium—regardless of the arena and its location. This is exactly what we found in our survey - that attendance at athletic events wouldn’t be impacted by any of the arena proposals, and that, even though stakeholders enjoy attending games when the teams are good, they don’t choose to come to Miami for college sports.
All data reinforces each other and further affirm this consensus (and our findings).
For that reason, we feel confident in our findings.
Q: What does this project mean now that the Board of Trustees has voted?
A: The survey's implications expand beyond that of the new arena. The interdisiplanary work which was accomplished through the survey could be used as a model for how to collaboratively tackle problems and identify opportunities as a community.
Q: Were results shared with Miami University's Board of Trustees?
A: Paper copies of the final report were delivered to the Board's secretary about a week in advance of their meeting February 27th. The Board of Trustees was unable to accommodate a presentation due to time constraints within their agenda, however an Undergraduate Research Leader was able to speak to them during public comments and offered to answer any questions they might have about the survey's findings before their final decision to move forward with the arena was made.