Diversity climate and experiences of discrimination in higher education: quantitative assessment of students’ perceptions

Diversity, generally, refers to the variety and inclusion of people from different social, cultural and ethnic backgrounds, genders, sexual orientations and other identities (Servaes et al., 2022). Modern technologies and global migration movements have broadened access to intercultural experiences (Stuart et al., 2025), which in turn influence the perception and practice of diversity at universities (Sommer and Thiessen, 2023). Universities, particularly Universities of Applied Sciences, mirror these developments and provide environments that bring together a diverse student body in terms of age, ethnic origin and other sociodemographic characteristics (Kerst et al., 2024).

Through their diverse backgrounds, students contribute a wide range of experiences and perspectives that enrich campus life and advance both teaching and research (Sommer and Thiessen, 2023). At the same time, students can also experience challenges such as various forms of discrimination, bias, prejudice, unequal treatment or difficulties with integration (Hussain and Jones, 2021). Universities are increasingly recognising their responsibility to prevent discrimination and promote respectful interaction within a diverse student body (Hagelskamp et al., 2025). These efforts are often grounded in the General Equal Treatment Act, which specifies various criteria based on which protection against discrimination is required (Springsgut, 2021). It includes gender, ethnic origin or race, religion or worldview, disability, age and sexual identity (Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes, 2006). As employers, universities are obliged to protect their employees from discrimination (Çağlar et al., 2025). However, students are often overlooked in this context, and researchers and practitioners are increasingly critical of the widespread ineffectiveness of such measures (Täuber, 2022). There appears to be a discrepancy between universities’ efforts to combat discrimination and students’ perceptions and lived experiences (Springsgut, 2021). An asymmetric approach continues to tackle the various dimensions of inequality (Çağlar et al., 2025). It now seems common for universities to express a positive attitude toward diversity in their strategic documents (Sommer and Thiessen, 2023). It conveys an outward impression of cosmopolitanism and inclusion (Çağlar et al., 2025) and has become part of universities’ self-presentation (Ihme and Stürmer, 2019), but how diversity is handled and perceived by students has been studied at only a few universities in Germany to date (Sommer and Thiessen, 2023). There is little evidence on the intersecting dimensions of social inequality among students in higher education contexts (Springsgut, 2021).

In this context, the notion of diversity climate captures the collective perception of how diversity is acknowledged and integrated within organisations (McKay and Avery, 2015). In theory, it includes assessments of equal opportunities, openness to diverse characteristics (such as gender, religion and sexual orientation), fairness and inclusion (Hagelskamp et al., 2025), as well as the impact of mechanisms of discrimination and exclusion (McKay and Avery, 2015). Since the 1990s, diversity climate has been studied at US universities, particularly with regard to how ethnic diversity is managed, known as the ethnic-racial climate. This research shows that students from ethnic minorities and students of colour experience diversity climate more negatively and assess it more critically than white students (Telles and Mitchell, 2018). Furthermore, the number of target groups to which a person belongs (intersectionality) is associated with lower evaluations of the diversity climate (Cheeks and Yancey, 2022).

It is known that a positively perceived diversity climate among Black students has a positive effect on mental health and reduces anxiety and depression (Leath et al., 2023). Among ethnically diverse students, the university’s appreciation of diversity is also positively correlated with student outcomes (Hagelskamp et al., 2025). This emphasises the importance of a favourable diversity climate at universities for students’ well-being and success; therefore, greater attention must be given to this aspect and the diversity climate must be examined from various perspectives. This also raises the question of how far these findings can be generalised to other minority or potentially disadvantaged groups, such as people of varying ages, world views, gender identities and other diversity characteristics. A review by Alay and Can (2020), which examines empirical studies on the diversity climate between 1975 and 2018, shows that the perception of the diversity climate in academia is often shaped by personal characteristics such as ethnicity and gender. However, other diversity characteristics such as age, sexual orientation and religion are comparatively under-represented and the perception of the diversity climate from the perspective of people with disabilities is not taken into account (Alay and Can, 2020).

Some German universities have already investigated the perception of diversity climate for diverse groups, such as people of different genders or sexual orientations (Tillmann and Woelki, 2023). In this context, the question arises whether belonging to certain groups, defined by specific diversity characteristics, is associated with perceptions of the diversity climate. Given that people in society are discriminated against based on various diversity characteristics (European Union, 2023). This study further investigates whether such an experience of discrimination influences perceptions of diversity climate.

Therefore, the following two research questions were derived:

Quantitative data on demographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, perceptions and attitudes towards diversity and experiences of discrimination were collected from students at a University of Applied Sciences in Hamburg, Germany. The University of Applied Sciences is one of the largest practice-oriented universities in Germany. It offers over 70 bachelor’s and master’s degree programmes in the field of health, life sciences, social sciences, engineering, design and media and business. Other than regular universities in Germany, Universities of Applied Sciences in Germany and their programmes are characterised by a strong practical focus, small study groups and a friendly atmosphere (HAW, 2026). A total of 747 students from this university attempted the online questionnaire between March and June 2025 via the Platform LimeSurvey. Only fully completed questionnaires were included in the current analysis, resulting in a sample size of N = 473 participants. Chi-square analyses were carried out to compare participants with complete and incomplete questionnaires, based on valid responses only, excluding participants who had not reached the respective item. Significant differences were found regarding gender, migration background, sexual orientation and religion/denomination. These findings suggest that some demographic characteristics were associated with questionnaire completion. However, some analyses of the incomplete responses were based on relatively small valid sample sizes and should therefore be interpreted with caution. No evidence was found that participants without experiences of discrimination were more likely to discontinue the questionnaire and the perception of the diversity climate also appeared to have no influence on respondents’ decisions to discontinue the questionnaire. Against this background, the exclusion of incomplete questionnaires can be considered justified and unlikely to have affected the results.

Eligible for participation were all students from the University of Applied Sciences in Hamburg, Germany who are aged at least 18 years and proficient in German. Students from other universities, persons under the age of 18, and students who do not understand or speak the German language were excluded. As an incentive to participate, cash vouchers were offered as a prize draw incentive among all participants who finished the survey completely.

The study used a cross-sectional design. Ethical approval was granted by the ethical Competence Centre Health at the Hamburg University of Applied Sciences on 27th of January 2025. Participation was anonymous and voluntary. The questionnaire was developed based on nine German- and English-language instruments, all of which address higher education and/or diversity research. The following instruments were included: The Diversity Monitoring questionnaire from Dresden University of Technology (Engel et al., 2018), Guideline for the Stifterverband self-report (Stifterverband, 2026), Diverse Health Education Survey for German Universities (Adedeji et al., 2024), a question from Eurobarometer (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 2019), The student Survey in Germany: 22nd Social Survey (Kroher et al., 2023), the Diversity Survey from the University of Michigan (Sellers, 2019), the questionnaire from “Studying with a disability – best2” (Deutsches Zentrum für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsforschung GmbH, 2016), the “Diversity in Companies” screening tool (Küpper et al., 2026) and the “Results Report online Survey for Scientific Employees” (Friedrich-Alexander Universität, 2017). Not all questions from these selected instruments were included. The wording was adapted to suit the needs of the target group. Individual questions, such as “Please describe diversity in three words” or “What would you like to see in terms of diversity and inclusion at the university?” were additionally included to suit the questionnaire’s aims. A set of questions on subjective perceptions of diversity was developed based on the diversity characteristics defined in the General Equal Treatment (AGG) (Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes, 2006). When collecting personal data, consideration was given to the AGG. The complete questionnaire was reviewed by experts and revised based on their comments. Before distribution, it was piloted with students to assess the clarity of the questions. The questionnaire was provided only in German. The recruitment of participants included active and passive steps, including the distribution of passive recruitment flyers with a study description and a QR code linked to the online questionnaire across all faculties of the University. In addition, the survey was also shared via university email distribution lists, various university social media accounts and internal workplace channels. For active recruitment, interviewers approached participants during lectures and classes, allowing students to complete the survey during class.

The questionnaire was divided into eight sections:

1. sociodemographic data;

2. diversity characteristics;

3. care tasks;

4. understanding and perception of diversity;

5. discrimination experiences;

6. perception of the university;

7. suggestions for improvement and requests; and

8. socioeconomic data.

The Sociodemographic data section includes questions about the gender recorded on the birth certificate (What gender was entered on your birth certificate when you were born?) and gender identity (Which gender do you feel you belong to?). Age was asked as an open-ended question. Regarding university, questions were asked about activities undertaken before starting university, which faculty and department and how many semesters the student has been studying. The section on Diversity characteristics furthermore covers data on migration background (in which country were you born? In which country were your legal guardians one and two born?), ethnic minority (do you feel like you are part of an ethnic minority?), social groups, spirituality (which of the following statements best corresponds to your spiritual beliefs?), religion and denomination, predominantly spoken language (which language is mainly used in your private life?), housing situation, sexual orientation (which sexual orientation do you most closely identify with?), as well as disability and chronic illness and their impact on student life (how much do your disability/disabilities and/or chronic illnesses affect your studies?). For most questions, there was a selection of different answers to choose from, as well as the option to add an own answer or not to answer. Understanding and perception of diversity assesses familiarity with the topic of diversity through a self-assessment and asks about associations with the topic. Participants specified their intuitive, personal perception of the diversity climate in society using the following options: “very negative”, “rather negative”, “rather positive” and “very positive”. A definition of the term “diversity climate” was not provided to elicit an intuitive response from participants. However, responses may have been influenced by the preceding detailed questions on diversity characteristics, which may have subconsciously increased participants’ awareness of a wide range of characteristics. Impressions, attitudes and perceptions of diversity were also surveyed in this section using a four-point agreement scale (“I completely disagree”, “I rather disagree”, “I rather agree” and “I completely agree”). Examples of these questions are: “People from different backgrounds have the same opportunities in society,” “The topic of diversity is discussed too much in society” or “I feel that my gender identity is socially recognised and accepted.” Questions about the perception of diversity related to the six diversity characteristics of the General Equal Treatment Act, e.g. “In my environment, I experience discrimination because of my background,” and “I am afraid of negative reactions when I speak openly about my sexual orientation or identity.”. Discrimination experiences ask about experiences and observations of discrimination in three areas of life: Work, private life and university, e.g. “Have you ever felt discriminated against and/or disadvantaged in any way in your private life?”. Follow-up questions cover the form of discrimination and whether support services were sought or not (Did you receive or seek any form of support?). Questions about educational level and financing of living expenses were asked in the last section, entitled Socioeconomic data.

Statistical analyses were computed using SPSS Version 22 (IBM Corp, 2013) and R (Posit team, 2025). Descriptive statistics are reported as means ± standard deviation (SD), absolute frequencies and percentages. The originally ordinal diversity climate categories were coded on a four-point scale (1–4) to calculate mean values and the significance level was set at α = 0.05 for all analyses. Spearman’s correlation test, Mann–Whitney U test, Pearson chi-square and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to test for significant effects or differences in discrimination experiences and perceptions of the diversity climate in relation to the diversity characteristics of age, gender, religion, ethnic minority (including migration background and social groups), sexual orientation and disability/chronic disease. To ensure methodological consistency, the analysis focused exclusively on the criteria defined in the AGG. Other personal characteristics, such as educational attainment, were not taken into account.

Overall experience with discrimination (private, occupational and university contexts) was tested for its significant association with the diversity climate. An ordinal logistic regression was conducted to explore the relationship between the outcome variable diversity climate (on a four-point scale ranging from “very negative” to “very positive”) and predictors discrimination experience, gender, religion, migration background, sexual orientation and disability/chronic disease as independent variables. In addition, model fit and goodness-of-fit statistics were tested to assess whether the model adequately fits the data, as well as the McFadden Pseudo 𝑅² to indicate improvement in the model’s predictive capability. Further analysis included examining the parameter estimates and odds ratios (ORs) to assess possible positive or adverse effects.

As shown in Table 1, 57.9% (n = 274) of the total participants (N = 473) were cisgender women, 31.1% (n = 147) were cisgender men and 4% (n = 16) were non-binary. Participants were 25.6 years old on average (±5.62), with ages ranging from 18 to 65.34% (n = 161) had a migration background and 15.9% (n = 75) identified as belonging to an ethnic minority. When asked to identify their social group, most people selected “white” (61.5%, n = 291). The largest additional groups were: Asian-German (3.6%, n = 17), Black, Indigenous and People of Colour (BIPoC) (2.7%, n = 13) and Russian-German (2.7%, n = 13). Further descriptive analysis revealed that more than half of the participants were heterosexual (68.1%, n = 322), while 11.4% (n = 54) identified as bisexual, 7.4% (n = 35) pansexual and 3.8% (n = 18) asexual. In terms of religion, Christians made up 36.8% (n = 174) of the cohort, outnumbering non-religious people (23.3%, n = 110), atheists (18.8%, n = 89) and Muslims (7%, n = 33). More than one-third (37.2%, n = 176) reported one or more diagnosed disabilities and/or chronic diseases. Mental impairment (22.2%, n = 105), chronic physical illness (9.5%, n = 45) and sensory impairment (7.6%, n = 36) were the most common impairments among those affected. Participants also provided information about their highest level of education, with A-levels^[1] predominating at 78% (n = 369), followed by 14.8% (n = 70) with a Bachelor’s degree and 2.5% (n = 12) with a Master’s degree.

When asked about experiences of discrimination, 56.4% (n = 267) reported having experienced discrimination. Further, the participants rated the diversity climate as “rather negative” with 51.4% (n = 243). 39.5% (n = 187) assessed the diversity climate as somewhat positive.

As presented in Table 2, when correlating discrimination experience with specific diversity characteristics, the following show statistically significant associations: age (ρ = 0.213, p = ≤0.001), gender identity (p = ≤0.001), social group “black” (p = 0.031), sexual orientation (p = ≤0.001) and disability and/or chronic disease (p = ≤0.001). In contrast, no statistically significant results were found for migration background (p = 0.140), ethnic minority (p = 0.086), different social groups and religion (p = 0.272).

Spearman’s rank correlation revealed no significant association between age and perception of diversity climate (p = 0.419). Descriptive differences in perceptions of the diversity climate were observed between gender groups; however, post hoc Games-Howell tests showed no statistically significant differences (p ≥ 0.05). Similarly, no significant difference was found between participants with and without migration background (M = 2.44 ± 0.66; M = 2.37 ± 0.62; p ≥ 0.05) as well as ethnic minority (with migration background M = 2.28 ± 0.69; without migration background M = 2.40 ± 0.63). With respect to religion (p = 0.876) and disability and/or chronic disease (p = 0.625), ANOVA results indicated no significant group differences. By contrast, a significant effect of sexual orientation on diversity climate was found (p = 0.010). However, Levene’s test was significant (p ≤ 0.001), indicating a violation of the homogeneity assumption, likely due to unequal group sizes; therefore, these results should be interpreted with caution. The Mann–Whitney U test revealed a statistically significant difference in the perception of the diversity climate between participants with and without experiences of discrimination (p ≤ 0.001), with participants reporting discrimination showing a lower mean score (M = 2.29 ± 0.59) compared with those without such experiences (M = 2.53 ± 0.67), indicating a more negative perception of diversity climate.

The model fitting test was significant (p = 0.003), indicating that the predictors explain a significant proportion of the variance in the outcome variable. In contrast, the non-significant deviance value (p = 1.00) from the goodness-of-fit test suggests that the model fits the data adequately. At the same time, the Pearson test was significant (p ≤ 0.001), likely due to small expected cell counts and therefore should not be interpreted as evidence of poor model fit. The McFadden’s pseudo-R² was 0.055, indicating an approximately 6% improvement in the model’s predictive performance.

For this study, parameter indicate a statistically significant effect of discrimination experiences. A tendency can be observed that no discrimination experiences lead to higher perceptions of diversity climate. Other factors such as age, gender, migration background, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion and impairment do not show a statistically significant influence. As quantified by the odds ratio (Table 3), the odds of reporting a more positive perception of the diversity climate were 1.97 times higher among participants who had not experienced discrimination than among those who had. Finally, the test of parallel lines was non-significant (p = 0.096). Thus, no statistically significant evidence against the proportional-odds assumption was found. However, given the relatively small analytical sample and the limited power of assumption tests, this result should not be interpreted as definitive evidence that the assumption holds.

In German higher education, calls for greater recognition of diversity and equal opportunities have increased in recent years. This study examined whether students’ diversity characteristics and experiences of discrimination influence their perceptions of the diversity climate.

The findings of the present study indicate that students generally perceive the diversity climate as rather negative. Statistically significant correlations were found between discrimination experiences and specific diversity characteristics, including age, gender identity, identification with the social group “Black”, sexual orientation and disability and/or chronic disease. However, no statistically significant associations emerged between diversity characteristics and students’ perceptions of the diversity climate itself. Instead, discrimination experiences proved to be the most influential factor: the regression analysis showed a significant relationship between the experiences of discrimination and the perceptions of diversity climate. The likelihood of a more positive perception of the diversity climate was higher among students who had not experienced discrimination, making discrimination experiences the key predictor to perception of diversity climate. Conversely, this means that students who have experienced discrimination reported lower scores for diversity climate perceptions.

These findings partially differ from earlier research: In contrast to the somewhat negative perception of diversity climate in the presented study, participants in the research by Sommer and Thiessen (2023) reported an overall positive perception. This discrepancy may reflect changes in the broader social and institutional context between 2023 and 2025. In recent years, public debates surrounding diversity in Germany have become increasingly polarised, potentially shaping students’ perceptions of inclusion in higher education. In addition, the increasing visibility of discrimination and structural inequality may have heightened critical awareness, leading to more negative evaluations.

Further, Tillmann and Woelki (2023) reported stronger associations between diversity characteristics and perceptions of diversity climate, suggesting that contextual factors, such as institutional culture and the degree of diversity visibility, may moderate these relationships. A possible explanation for the lack of significant associations in the present study could be the sample composition, which was predominantly White, heterosexual, cisgender and without a migration background, leading to an underrepresentation of marginalised groups typically more affected by discrimination, as other studies show (Hussain and Jones, 2021; Sommer and Thiessen, 2023).

Interestingly, while individual diversity characteristics often serve as the basis for discrimination, they did not show a significant correlation with perceptions of diversity climate in this study. This raises the question of what diversity climate means to students and how they evaluate it independently.

From a conceptual perspective, the operationalisation of diversity climate in the context of the study was based on the General Equal Treatment Act (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz, AGG). However, the AGG has been criticised for its limited scope, as it does not cover factors such as social background or socio-economic status (Mittertrainer et al., 2023; Springsgut, 2021). This is problematic since the most frequently reported forms of discrimination and harassment in Europe are related to age, gender, political opinion, socio-economic status and physical appearance (European Union, 2023) – many of which fall outside the scope of the AGG and, therefore, also outside the operational definition used in this survey.

Supporting evidence from other studies further underlines the critical role of authentic engagement with diversity (Hussain and Jones, 2021), the need for universities to move beyond symbolic diversity commitments toward authentic (Çağlar et al., 2025), inclusive practices that are co-developed with students and supported by lecturers (Hagelskamp et al., 2025).

In summary, the findings of this and previous studies highlight the urgent need for substantive diversity measures that actively support marginalised groups within German higher education. Experiences of discrimination are evidently widespread among students and shape their perceptions of the diversity climate. In particular, in times of increasing political polarisation and rising hostility toward diversity, institutions like universities must move beyond symbolic image cultivation and instead implement sustainable strategies that protect and empower affected and potentially affected students. Particular care should be taken not to overlook any marginalised group. At a structural level, this may involve reviewing and possibly amending aspects of the study process, such as admission requirements. To foster widespread and sustainable awareness, the issues of discrimination and diversity should be firmly embedded in the curricula of all degree programmes. To further protect and empower affected and possibly affected students, trustworthy, anonymous and student-friendly support services and reporting systems must be established.

On an interpersonal level, it is particularly important to hold all university-affiliated individuals, especially teaching staff and employees, accountable, to raise their awareness of discriminatory practices and to create a diversity-friendly learning environment for everyone.

Since the questionnaire was only available in German, international students with limited language proficiency may have been excluded, potentially limiting the representativeness of the sample. This language restriction likely reduced participation among students whose first language is not German and who may experience discrimination in distinct ways, thereby narrowing the diversity perceptions captured. Although the researchers attempted to reach a broad spectrum of students, there may have been a bias due to voluntary participation and self-selection, as those who were more interested in the topic were more likely to complete the questionnaire. This may have led to an over- or underrepresentation of certain groups. In addition, data were self-reported and limited to a single-institution sample, which could reduce the robustness of the results. Although a relatively large sample size was achieved, some groups with specific diversity characteristics remained small, which affected the representativeness and interpretation of the results and limited the possibility of conducting more fine-grained subgroup analyses. In this context, it should also be noted that while the associations between diversity characteristics and the diversity climate are substantial in descriptive terms (with odds ratios of approximately 2.0 or higher), they are not statistically significant, likely due to small group sizes. Thus, diversity characteristics may prove relevant when analysing larger, more diverse student populations.

In addition, students were not provided with a standardised definition of diversity climate, allowing them to interpret the term freely, which may have affected the consistency of its interpretation. However, this open approach can also be considered a strength, as it enables participants to express their genuine perceptions of the diversity climate without being constrained by predefined frameworks – an aspect that is rarely captured in quantitative research.

Turning to the strengths of this study, a large number of students participated despite the sensitivity of the topic, indicating a high level of trust and willingness to engage with issues of diversity and discrimination. This provided valuable insights into students’ lived experiences of discrimination and perceptions of diversity. Furthermore, the questionnaire was based on previously validated instruments, ensuring methodological robustness and enhancing the reliability and comparability of the findings. The breadth of the results enabled a nuanced understanding of discrimination experiences beyond purely statistical associations.

The results contribute to addressing an existing research gap on diversity climate in higher education, a field that remains underexplored empirically. This emphasises the need for universities to critically reflect on how diversity is implemented and understood. By linking individual diversity characteristics and experiences of discrimination, the presented study highlights the importance of engaging students as active stakeholders in shaping institutional diversity practices.

This study provides empirical evidence that experiences of discrimination, rather than diversity characteristics per se, are decisive in shaping students’ perceptions of the diversity climate within higher education institutions. While diversity characteristics such as gender, migration background or religion did not significantly predict perceptions of the diversity climate, experiences of discrimination emerged as a key determinant. Students who reported experiencing discrimination perceived the diversity climate markedly more negatively, underscoring the profound impact of lived experiences of exclusion on perceptions of institutional inclusivity.

These findings highlight a critical gap between universities’ formal diversity commitments and students’ everyday experiences. To bridge this gap, higher education institutions must move beyond symbolic expressions of inclusivity and embed anti-discrimination measures into structural and curricular frameworks. Integrating mandatory, cross-disciplinary modules on diversity and anti-discrimination could foster critical awareness and equip both students and staff with the competencies needed to recognise and address discrimination in its various forms.

For future research, these results underline the importance of examining additive and intersecting forms of discrimination, as well as expanding diversity criteria beyond those defined in the German General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) to include dimensions such as social background, political orientation and physical appearance. Future studies should also aim to more robustly capture the perspectives of underrepresented minority groups, as their experiences are central to understanding institutional equity.

Ultimately, diversity strategies in higher education must evolve from image-building initiatives into empirically grounded, participatory frameworks that authentically reflect students’ lived realities. Only through such an approach, can universities fulfil their mandate as spaces of critical reflection, equal opportunity and transformative learning.

This study was approved by the ethical committee of Competence Centre Health at the Hamburg University of Applied Sciences on 27th of January 2025.

The survey included an introductory and informational text which stated the objectives, context and purpose of the study. In addition, the participants were informed about data protection and the right to withdraw from the study at any time without negative consequences. Each participant was required first to read and indicate their voluntary, informed consent to the study through a written consent form.