Spring 2004
Articles:
by Michelle Mayer
Perspectives:
by Jason Cassidy
by Frankie Kiel Williams and Cheryl Forkner
Book Reviews:
reviewed by Rene Sawyer
Writing Awards:
by Camilla Jones
Linking Student Affairs Practice Across Two- and Four-Year Colleges
Michelle Maher
University of South Carolina
Abstract
Fourteen students, admitted into a Student Affairs Masters of Education program and enrolled in a course designed to introduce them to the two-year college system, responded to a question requiring them to envision how the practice of student affairs at a four-year college is informed and shaped by knowledge of the constituents and practices of two-year colleges. Responses yielded these themes: Student affairs practitioners have a responsibility to understand the needs of students transferring from two-year colleges, they have a professional responsibility to be informed about institutions across the educational spectrum, they should know and learn from the best two-year college student affairs practices, they should understand how two- and four-year institutions collaborate across academic initiatives, and they can strengthen their advising capacity by being aware of academic opportunities at two-year colleges.
Students further indicated that knowledge of two-year colleges provides an opportunity to widen potential job searches. Responses suggest that when exposed to knowledge about two year colleges, students identified how it could strengthen and expand their future student affairs practice. Concluding remarks discuss the importance of two-year college knowledge to developing student affairs practitioners.
Linking Student Affairs Practice Across Two- and Four-Year Colleges
Imagine you are a student affairs professional at a four-year college. A colleague sees your copy of The American Community College on your bookshelf and wonders why you would spend time reading about two-year colleges. Provide a detailed response.
According to the 2003-2005 Directory of Graduate Programs Preparing Student Affairs Professionals developed by the Professional Preparation Commission of the American College Personnel Association, 116 colleges and universities have at least one program that prepares student affairs professionals. Of these 116 programs, 46 offer a link to their Master’s curriculum information from the Directory website (Professional Preparation Commission of the American College Personnel Association, 2003), and of these, 13 programs list a course dedicated to the study of the community, junior, or two-year college. The chance that a student enrolled in one of these 116 student affairs preparation programs could easily and effectively respond to the above question is slim, although, lest one think hope is lost, the imagined student would likely base a response on information gathered through leadership, finance, or organizational courses.
Students who plan to practice in student affairs upon graduation are often surprised to learn that 44% of all United States undergraduates are enrolled in a two-year college, and 45% of all first-time freshman chose a two-year college to begin their postsecondary education (American Association of Community Colleges, 2001-2002). With an enrollment of 10.4 million students, 5.4 million of whom are enrolled in college credit bearing classes across 1,171 institutions, the two-year college represents a significant segment of today’s higher education domain. Recent growth in two-year college enrollments (Evelyn, 2001), along with predictions of continued enrollment growth (Meline, 2003), suggest that two-year colleges serve a major segment of today’s college student population - a segment about which today’s student affairs practitioners cannot afford to be ignorant.
In this study, I posed the above question to a graduate class of fourteen future student affairs practitioners enrolled in an optional graduate class entitled, “The Junior, Technical, and Community College.” As the semester began, most of these students knew little or nothing about two-year colleges, although all planned careers in student affairs. As the semester progressed, I saw these students engage with the class material in ways indicating that they were building links between what they learned and what they hoped to practice. My question, more succinctly phrased, became, “When exposed to material about two-year colleges through a graduate survey course, what links between two- and four-year institutions specific to the practice of student affairs do students identify?”
Methods
Study Participants
I collected data from fourteen students enrolled in a course designed to present an overview of the American two-year college system. All students were fully admitted in a Masters of Student Affairs program offered at a large Southeastern university; five students were in their first year of the program, nine students were in their second year of the program. First day class discussions revealed students had almost no knowledge of two-year colleges and their perceptions of these institutions were either neutral (e.g., “I’ve never given any consideration to two-year colleges”) or negative, (e.g., “Two-year colleges are for students who can’t ‘make it’ at a four-year institution”).
Course and Examination Information
The course in which the students were enrolled was offered as an optional or elective course within the Masters of Student Affairs program. The course was designed to introduce students to a broad overview of the American two-year college system. Course topics included the historical background, students, faculty, governance, finance, instruction, career, community, developmental and collegiate education, student affairs, scholarship, social issues, and current and future trends at two-year colleges.
I administered a take-home essay examination seven weeks into the course session, at which point all topics noted above through career and community education had been addressed. The examination included six essay questions, and I indicated that responses should range between three to four typewritten double-spaced pages. Students chose to respond to three among five questions and were required to respond to the final question:
Imagine that in three years you are a student affairs professional in the area of your choice at a four-year college or university. A colleague comes to your office to borrow a book and sees your copy of The American Community College on your bookshelf. Your colleague wonders out loud why a student affairs professional at four-year institution would benefit from being informed about two-year colleges. Provide a detailed response.
Students were restricted from collaborating as they developed examination responses. They were free to use any resource available as part of the class material (e.g., the class textbook, The American Community College, Cohen and Brawer, 2003) or in addition to class material (e.g., the American Association of Community Colleges website).
Analysis
All students submitted a response to the above exam question that was graded and returned. I then asked each student for written permission to use his or her response for this study, emphasizing that granting permission was optional and there was no penalty for not doing so. Each student gave me written permission. Student responses ranged in length from two and a half to four double-spaced pages.
To analyze students’ responses, I first read and noted emergent themes. As I continued to reread the responses I identified related themes, noting where sub themes overlapped to offer a fuller consideration of a broader theme and eliminating redundant themes. I also noted salient quotations through which students’ voices represented and summarized a theme in a particularly vivid manner.
Results
Several students began their response to this question by acknowledging that at the beginning of the semester, they themselves were uncertain how an understanding of two-year colleges would benefit their student affair’s practice at a four-year institution. For example, one student noted:
When I enrolled in the class I figured that I would never use the information covered. I
knew I would seek employment at [a four-year university]. My advisor suggested the
course because there were few alternatives that I had not yet taken, and when it came
time to register, I realized it was a good fit for my schedule.
However, students then began to identify and discuss links between their imagined future four-year practice and what they had learned about two-year institutions to date. Six themes or links between two- and four-year institutions specific to the practice of student affairs emerged from their exam responses and are presented in descending order of frequency.
Transfer Students
Thirteen of the 14 students noted that student affairs practitioners at four-year institutions need an understanding of and appreciation for students transferring from two-year institutions. Several students observed that 25 percent of the undergraduate students currently attending the university at which they were earning their Masters of Student Affairs degree had transferred from other colleges, with a large percentage of these coming from local two-year colleges. In addition, six students observed that since 45% of American undergraduates begin their college career at two-year colleges (Cohen & Brawer, 2003), regardless at what four-year institution they found themselves, they would undoubtedly serve a sizable number of students who had transferred from a two-year college.
For the thirteen students who identified two-year college transfer students as an important consideration for four-year college student affairs practitioners, having an appreciation of these students’ collegiate backgrounds was key. Students indicated that two-year college transfer students were “used to benefits such as lower tuition and fees, smaller class sizes, current technology.” However, students also remarked that two-year college transfer students “may need special consideration through the academic advising process” or “may be overwhelmed [when they] step onto a campus of 30,000, paying a good deal more in tuition, but not getting near the personal attention as at a two-year campus.” Two students explained in more detail:
Since many students enrolled in community colleges plan to transfer to four-year colleges
a student affairs professional would hopefully be able to make that transition easier…. As
a student affairs professional at a four-year institution, if I am not aware of the trends,
issues, and happenings of community colleges, then I am not prepared for the near 25
percent of the students I am supposed to serve…. Without knowing the demographics
and issues that face these students, it will be impossible for me to fulfill my job as it
relates to them.
-----
It is crucial that we [student affairs professionals] understand the culture from which they
[two-year college transfer students] came and the background of the institutional mission
and goals [of two-year colleges]. Only after we know this information are we able to
effectively serve those students.
Professional Responsibility
Seven of the 14 students indicated that student affairs practitioners at four-year institutions have a professional responsibility to be informed about all institutions across the educational spectrum, including two-year colleges. One student began her response by indicating that she assumed the colleague who asked this question was a new employee, as “an [experienced] academic advisor should be aware of how a two-year college runs along with types of programs and courses that are offered.” Another student wrote:
Our own education is key to becoming the best student affairs professional possible. If
we do not understand the higher education system as a whole, we fail our students and
ourselves. How can we become the best-rounded professional if we do not know why
higher education came to be in the fashion it is? There is a reason why two-year colleges
are alive today. Joliet Junior College, the G. I Bill, and the Truman Commission are all
examples of higher education history in action.
Sharing Best Practices
Seven of the 14 students indicated that student affairs practitioners at four-year institutions familiar with two-year college practices could “borrow” best practices for use at a four-year institution. These best practices included ideas for better serving non-traditional or “at-risk” students, addressing diversity on campus, learning new teaching strategies, and more efficiently using available resources. For example, one student described at length the importance of looking to two-year institutions for strategies to better serve minority students, while another student highlighted the importance of strategies used by two-year college to better serve nontraditional students:
There are several things that two-year colleges do particularly well, such as encouraging
the participation of minority groups. As our society becomes increasingly diverse, it will
be important for four-year institutions to look for ideas on addressing diversity in many
places and apply these to their own practices.
-----
In student affairs, we have limited knowledge about how to deal with non-traditional
students. Reviewing practices that two-year colleges use…can only help us. [For
example] we constantly struggle with the commuter student population….and I know
most of the students who attend two-year colleges commute. By researching the
services they [two-year colleges] provide to them [commuter students], we can better
assess what four-year institutions can do to help this population. Two-year campuses
can provide valuable information about providing for students with children or students
who are older than the traditional 18-21 year olds that we typically serve. [A review of]
childcare facilities, extended hours of operation for campus offices, and other services
that two-year college provide would greatly assist the development of similar services on
our campus.
Collaboration Between Two- and Four-Year Colleges
Five of the 14 students indicated that student affairs practitioners at four-year institutions would benefit by understanding how two- and four-year institutions could collaborate on various projects. For example, one student suggested that two- and four-year institutions could co-sponsor service-learning activities for student and community development, as the two-year college might be uniquely aware of an outstanding community need that could be addressed within the service learning framework. Other students suggested that the two- and four-year colleges have a symbiotic relationship, in that, “each feeds off the other to maintain the particular types of services that each type of institution provides to prospective students.” For example, one student explained:
Two-year colleges are able to assist students and the State in ways that we [four-year
colleges] cannot and do not. Continuing education is something that we barely
address…the work that two-year colleges do for remedial education also lightens the
burdens that our teacher face in attempting to catch students up to the level where they
need to be to succeed. All of these roles that two-year colleges play help us in important
ways.
Student Development Opportunities
Five of the 14 students indicated that student affairs practitioners at four-year institutions could strengthen their advising capacity by being better informed about opportunities at two-year colleges for their students who might need alternative educational options. These students suggested that not all students are best served by a four-year institution, and student affairs practitioners are responsible for representing the range of options for students who, for whatever reason, need advice on alternative educational options. For example, one student noted:
It is important to recognize that the four-year institution is not able to serve the needs of
all college students…as not all students are cut out for a four-year college setting. Also,
suggesting a course offered by a two-year college so a student can graduate on time,
letting a student know about a continuing education program that sparks interest in a
specific hobby or passion, exploring a two-year college that is closer to a homesick
student’s family, or stating the financial advantages of attending a two-year college when
a student intends to drop out because college is no longer affordable are ways to foster
student success on our campuses. Realizing a student may be better off somewhere else
and providing him or her with the tools to get there is an aspect of our job.
Professional Development Opportunities
Five of the 14 students indicated that as a student affairs practitioner at four-year institution, should they decide to change jobs, they might find their next employment opportunity at a two-year college. Students cited salary, increased student contact, opportunities for advancement, and professional challenge as reasons to consider employment at a two-year college. In addition, one student noted that even if she did not leave her position at a four-year college, “a two-year college could benefit me because they offer continuing education courses that a four-year institution many not offer.” Students reflected on employment possibilities at two-year campuses through the following observations:
I haven’t ruled out working at a two-year college one day. The pay is no different than a
four-year college and the opportunities for advancement are even greater. You have a
tremendous amount of student contact, and the students are great. They range in age
from 18 year-old kids to 40-year older single mothers and 70-year old men. They have
all different needs, so you would never know what to expect. Each day at a two-year
college is full of surprises.
-----
Many of us have never considered working at a two-year college, but colleagues of mine
who have say it is amazingly rewarding…. sometimes student affairs professionals at
two-year colleges are making more money than we are, but that’s not saying much.
Who goes into this profession for the money?
Conclusion
When exposed to material about two-year colleges through a graduate survey course, what links between two- and four-year institutions specific to the practice of student affairs do students identify? Students who had previously known little about two-year colleges were able to identify several links between the practice of student affairs at two- and four-year colleges and envision how their own practice might be shaped and informed by these links. Links included the need to understand and appreciate the background, expectations, experiences and requirements of students transferring from two-year colleges, the responsibility to be informed of institutions across the educational spectrum, the responsibility to be aware of student affairs “best practices” used at two-year colleges that could be transferred to the four-year college campus, the need to understand how two- and four-year institutions collaborate on various projects, the need to know of opportunities at two-year campuses that would allow them to strengthen their advising capacity, and the opportunity of widening potential job possibilities to include employment on two-year college campus. Students’ responses suggest that when exposed to knowledge about two-year colleges, students could identify a variety of ways in which the knowledge would strengthen and expand their future student affairs practice.
The reader should note inherent study limitations. The class size was small, thus participants were few. Data collection was limited to one class offered during one particular semester by one specific instructor. Student responses were doubtlessly biased by topics emphasized in this specific class and by students’ knowledge that they were responding to a graded exam question. Perhaps in another class, or across many different offering of this course, student responses would have been different.
Despite limitations, perhaps the significance of this study lies not in that these students could easily envision how this information “fit” their future student affairs practice. Rather, I argue that the significance is that so many of them knew so little about two-year college students and practices to begin with. This should be considered against the backdrop of today’s postsecondary education landscape, in which almost half of the American undergraduates, almost half of the first-time freshman, almost half of the Asian/Pacific Islander, almost half of the Native American student population, and over half of the African-American and Hispanic student population attend two-year colleges (American Association of Community Colleges, 2001-2002). Many of these students are first-generation college students or college students from low socio-economic backgrounds, students in need of the very services offered by their two-year college student affairs offices.
Preparation programs for student affairs practitioners routinely exclude or downplay the study of two-year colleges, where arguably these future practitioners are most needed and where many of them will find themselves employed in years to come. These fourteen students found six links between two- and four-year colleges, but how many more links could be identified if student affairs preparation programs encouraged or required all would-be practitioners to identify the ties that bind two- and four-year colleges? How much stronger might the impact of the practice of student affairs be across the lives of how many more college students? Although it remains to be seen whether any of these fourteen students will begin their career at a two-year campus, the knowledge that they have of two-year college students and practices will benefit their future students, no matter at which type of institution they pursue their career.
References
American Association of Community Colleges, (2001-2002). Community college facts at a
glance. Retrieved October 28, 2003, from http://www.aacc.nche.edu
Cohen, A. M. & Brower, F. B. (2003). The American community college (4th ed.) San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Evelyn, J. (2001). Many community colleges report a boom in their enrollments. Retrieved
February 12, 2004 from http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v48/i08/08a03601.htm
Meline, M. (2003). A new campus sign: No vacancy. Retrieved February 12, 2004 from
http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v48/i08/08a03601.htm
Professional Preparation Commission of the American College Personnel Association (2003).
Directory of graduate programs preparing student affairs professionals (2003-2005).
Retrieved October 28, 2003, from http://www.acpa.nche.edu/c12/directory.html
Student Affairs v. Customer Service
Jason Cassidy
Furman University
What is customer service? A customer is “one who regularly or repeatedly makes purchases of a trader; a purchaser; a buyer” (Webster’s Dictionary, 1996). Service is “the performance of labor for the benefit of another” (Webster’s Dictionary, 1996). Student affairs professionals provide goods and services to the students and parents who pay for them. Student affairs today is a field that has been engulfed by high expectations from students, parents, and even senior administrators. Consequently, the term “customer service” is not foreign to many who work on college campuses. We have all heard the phrase, “I pay $____ to go here, and deserve ____.” This phrase abounds on our campuses because we live in a society that expects an immediate and acceptable response to our concerns. The purpose of this perspective article is to suggest that student affairs professionals must accept the challenge of meeting the high customer service expectations. In addition, six suggestions are offered to aid in accomplishing the daunting task of meeting the customer’s expectations.
1. Remember who pays your salary…remember your professional responsibility…find a balance between the two. The student affairs profession can be frustrating at times when students and parents expect you to say “yes” to their every request. Some define customer service as giving the student or parent what they want. It would be impossible to give everyone what they want when they want it. However, practitioners can give the student or parent their full attention with a smile when requests are made. Practitioners may then either grant the customer’s request or politely explain why their request may not be granted. As a practitioner, take the extra time to explain policies and procedures so that your customer, the student or parent, understands why certain decisions have been made. Using patience, listening skills and professionalism will aid in meeting your professional responsibility to the customer and in turn providing better customer service.
2. Hire people who enjoy working with college students. During job interviews, ask applicants the following questions: “Why do you want to work on a college campus?”; “What challenges do you think college students face today?”; “What excites you about young people between 18-25 years old?”; and “How do you balance customer service with student development?” These questions will help you gauge how these applicants will interact with college students and their parents. Whether you can relate to or fully understand each individual, college students must be handled with a mixture of respect, patience, and understanding.
3. Review job descriptions regularly and shift workloads when necessary. Humans are creatures of habit. Student affairs professionals are human. Therefore, student affairs professionals are creatures of habit. Practitioners should step out of the box and assess employee workloads on an annual cycle. Processes and procedures are constantly evolving on college campuses, so it only makes sense that job descriptions should evolve too. Unfortunately, that does not happen in many cases. Practitioners should always look for ways to be more efficient and effective. That might involve shifting employees’ responsibilities around (make sure those employees are included in the change process). Ultimately, creating better efficiency and effectiveness will lead to better customer service.
4. Utilize student staff more efficiently. Student staff are an amazing group to work with on a college campus. The student staff are willing to learn and eager to participate. Do not underestimate the abilities of your resident assistants, desk workers, receptionists, and other student staff. Train them properly so they can better serve their peers and others they provide services to as a student staff member. Challenge student staff by giving them more responsibility as they prove themselves. Untrained student staff can lead to poor customer service which reflects negatively on a department.
5. Use technology to your advantage. Many institutions have not fully utilized technology to their advantage. Most of today’s students (customers) have always known the Internet. Student affairs practitioners should adjust their processes to offer services to students online. The level of customer service can be increased exponentially by communicating with students through web sites and e-mail. The days of students filling out forms by hand and walking it to an office are becoming obsolete. Students typically prefer to e-mail their concerns or read about policies while online. Student affairs practitioners should make it a priority to train at least one person in each office, depending on the size of the institution, to develop and maintain the department’s web page. Many institutions have only one Webmaster to maintain the entire institution’s web page. Using technology typically saves time and money in the long run, in addition to creating better customer service for students. As a bonus, using technology should entice administrators in this age of “do more with less.”
6. Contract products, equipment, and services when reasonable. There are a number of products, equipment, and services that can be contracted; for example, refrigerators, linens, lofts, washers and dryers, carpets, vending machines, locking and security systems, storage units, and cleaning services. Many institutions can provide these products and services to their students with internal resources. On the other hand, many institutions, especially smaller ones, cannot provide these products or services due to a lack of funding or staffing. However, lack of funding should not stop the student affairs profession from making these services available. Practitioners should research contract vendors that could offer the products and services needed. In many cases, institutions can profit financially on their relationship with vendors with little effort on the institution’s part. Practitioners need to continuously assess what outsource options are available and how the institution can benefit.
Overall, the student affairs profession must accept the fact that although higher education is a privilege, students and parents today view themselves as customers. If institutions want to be competitive, they must make customer service a top priority. Practitioners must remember that the sole reason we are employed and the sole purpose of higher education is the students we as professionals and institutions serve.
References
(1996). Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary. Plainfield , New Jersey : MICRA, Inc.
[On-line]. Available: http://dictionary.reference.com
Female Student Affairs Professionals: The Dynamics of Leadership Roles
Frankie Keels Williams
Clemson University
Cheryl Forkner
Clemson University
Many professions, including student affairs, have experienced increased numbers of women entering the workforce. Women are expected to manage complex and multiple responsibilities with limited resources in these professions while balancing these demands with their personal lives. Women must overcome organizational and personal barriers as they seek leadership roles in student affairs. Women entering leadership roles in the student affairs profession must understand the organizational socialization (unwritten norms and explicit expectations) and dynamics of their professional leadership roles.
Gaining and integrating knowledge relating to the dynamics of the organization and leadership roles and educational credentials empowers women entrants. By facilitating their development as functioning, integrated group members, women enhance the leadership skills required by their new work environment. The process of integrating educational credentials and career preparation with organizational dynamics is known as organizational socialization (Feldman, 1976, 1981). Feldman’s framework suggests that there are three major stages in the organizational socialization process: (1) Anticipatory socialization, which relates to learning and experiences which occur before entry to the job; (2) Accommodation, which is the process of getting to know the organization and becoming a participating member in it; and (3) Role management, which is the mediation of conflict between the demands of the work group, the larger organization, and factors outside the organization such as community, family, and friends. Measures of the effectiveness of organizational socialization have been developed and they include task mastery, work group functioning, knowledge and acceptance of culture, personal learning, and role clarity (Anakwe & Greenhaus, 1999). Organizational socialization is very complex and is particularly difficult for individuals who are culturally different from traditional incumbents in student affairs leadership roles (Yukl, 2002).
Organizational Socialization Process
Organizational socialization processes affect all group members. New members must be integrated into existing groups, validated, and granted legitimacy by subordinates and superiors. The leader’s personal context such as one’s talents, preferences, personal characteristics, thinking, and experiences facilitates the ascension to the leadership position. When a person moves into a leadership position, the personal and social contexts exert powerful influences over one’s leadership experiences (Hart, 1995; Dunlap & Schmuck, 1995; Davey & Arnold, 2000). The social context, as described by Hart (1995), is more diverse and complex for it challenges the leader to fully integrate into an existing system. The leader has the additional task of understanding the fundamental values, beliefs, and assumptions about personal and professional worth to motivate and energize existing members of the work group. Therefore, the leader must learn existing culture while striving to affect changes within the system (Crouch & Yetton, 1988; Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2002).
The interaction of the leader’s personal context and the social context of an established environment has an impact on the leader and the organization (Dunlap & Schmuck, 1995). When the professional is a new leader and newcomer, contact with the organizational culture can reshape the individual’s professional identity in order to accommodate the preexisting practices and values dominated by a succession of role models. Researchers assert this is the prevalent outcome of succession and organizational socialization (Duke, 1987; Hennig & Jardim, 1977). The lack of role models for women who ascend to leadership roles allows for innovation and creation of their own identity as newcomers and successors.
Leadership Role: Creating Your Own
For women who are free to innovate and create their own identity as they move into leadership positions in student affairs, innovation occurs in different domains—content and role (Hart, 1995). Content innovation incorporates traditional norms and goals and is more likely to occur without role models. It emerges in the way a new leader performs her role through the ideas and processes she encourages people to adopt. The new female student affairs leader can adopt new strategies and tasks as she draws from a new knowledge base for support. Subsequently, content innovation embraces the organizational culture and the interpersonal relationships between group members. On the other hand, role innovation redefines the mission, goals, and content of leadership. The new female student affairs leader makes a genuine attempt to redefine both the ends and means, with emphasis on success in the leadership role and on the leader’s personal growth and career advancement. Consequently, role innovation is more likely to result in leadership success along with personal growth and career advancement.
Implications: Career Management Activities
Organizational socialization begins before entry into the job and affects the outcomes of leadership succession and the leadership roles of female student affairs professionals. As women aspire to move into leadership roles, preparation becomes a key factor for success in the organizational socialization process. Contextual diagnosis and deliberate actions are required of women to secure the leadership roles before they begin dealing with the validation of members of the organization. During this time, these leaders seek to find the best avenues through which they can contribute to the achievement and development of their leadership roles and the organization’s goals (Dunlap & Schmuck, 1995). Women must be attentive to their own incongruities and draw attention to their talents and skills. The literature suggests that educational credentials, participation in formal leadership training, mentoring, and working long hours are significant factors for women in securing leadership positions (Keels, 1996). Career management activities that incorporate these factors are essential for women’s succession to the leadership roles.
Female entrants into student affairs leadership positions must be aware of the nature of work, the number of hours required, and the general requirements of the job prior to securing the positions. Career management and development for these female student affairs professionals must be a collection of organized activities. The activities should be centered on needs and interests related to personal and professional activities, while retaining flexibility in addressing individual and organizational leadership challenges. The formal activities should be challenging, comprehensive, and provide a forum to address the complex process of organizational socialization (Dunlap & Schumck, 1995). The following recommendations are offered for female student affairs professionals in an effort to assist them in understanding organizational socialization and the dynamics of leadership roles as they advance in their careers:
- Women must be aware of the organizational socialization processes and understand the dynamics of their leadership roles;
- Women must participate in career management opportunities through structured leadership development activities;
- Women must be prepared for their leadership positions in terms of their educational credentials;
- Women must participate in formal leadership training activities;
- Women must be aware that many leadership roles in student affairs require working long hours; and
- Women must be able to balance their professional and personal responsibilities.
Further research is necessary to investigate the significance female student affairs professionals place on their organizational socialization and the effectiveness of factors contributing to their organizational socialization. Ethnographic studies that may capture both simple and intricate elements of organizational socialization and the dynamics of leadership roles are recommended. Organizational socialization is an on-going process that precedes organizational entry and continues well beyond entry.
References
Anakwe, U.P. & Greenhaus, J.H. (1999). Effective socialization of employees: socialization
content perspective. Journal of Managerial Issues, 11(3), 315.
Cooper-Thomas, H. & Anderson, N. (2002). Newcomer adjustment: the relationship
between organizational socialization tactics, information acquisition and attitudes.
Journal of Occupational and Organization Psychology, 75, 423-437.
Crouch , A. & Yetton, P.W (1988). The management team: An equilibrium model of
manager and subordinate performance. In Dunlap, D.M. & Schmuck, P.A. (Eds.),
Women leading in education. New York : State University of New York Press.
Davey, K. M. & Arnold, J. (2000). A multi-method study of accounts personal change by
graduates starting work: Self-ratings, categories and women’s discourses. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 461-485.
Duke, D. L. (1987). School leadership and instructional improvement. New York :
Random House.
Dunlap, D.M. & Schmuck, P.A. (1995). Women leading in education. New York : State
University of New York Press.
Feldman, D. C. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 21, 433-451.
Feldman, D. C. (1981). The multiple socialization of organization members. Academy of
Management Review, 6, 309-318.
Hart, A.W. (1995). Women ascending to leadership: The organizational socialization of
principals. In Dunlap, D.M. & Schmuck, P.A. (Eds.), Women Leading in Education.
New York : State University of New York Press.
Hennig, M. & Jardim, A. (1977). The managerial woman. New York : Doubleday.
Keels, F. (1996). Selected personal characteristics, career aspirations, and career
enhancement factors associated with the career advancement of women administrators.
(Doctoral dissertation). Columbia , South Carolina .
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River , New Jersey : Prentice
Hall.
Creating Successful Partnerships Between Academic and Student Affairs
Rene Sawyer
Greenville Technical College
Schuh, J.H., & Whitt, E.J. (Eds). (1999). Creating Successful Partnerships Between Academic and Student Affairs. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
John Schuh and Elizabeth Whitt do an excellent job as editors of the New Directions for Student Services: Creating Successful Partnerships Between Student Affairs and Academics of collaborating seven independent articles on the topic of partnerships between student affairs and academics. Schuh and Whitt employ writers such as Charles Schroeder, Barbara Jacoby, Frankie Minor, Theodore Tarkow, Sarah Westfall, Martin Larréy, Sandra Estanek, and Jerry Price to discuss partnerships between academics and student affairs. The writers discuss such topics such as student learning, institutional effectiveness, service learning, freshman interest groups, in- and out-of-class experiences, and evaluation. The key theme running through each of the articles is successful collaboration between student affairs and academics.
In the first article Partnerships: An Imperative for Enhancing Student Learning and Institutional Effectiveness, Schroeder states that “developing an effective partnership, whether between or among people of units in student affairs and academic affairs is complex, takes time, energy, and commitment.” (p. 7). In the article, Schroeder lists key principles to be used in developing successful partnerships. In addition, he lists eleven common opportunities among institutions that may lend to successful partnerships between the two disciplines. Schroeder asserts that student affairs and academic affairs need to, “embrace an integrated view of learning and forge effective educational partnerships to advance student learning, foster educational attainment, and reinvigorate undergraduate education (p. 16).”
The second article, Partnerships for Service Learning, Jacoby asserts that service learning projects are based on and thrive upon successful partnerships between student affairs and academics. Jacoby lists strong and weak characteristics of service learning projects. In addition she cites examples of successful student learning projects housed under the supervision of student affairs (University of Utah, Chandler-Gilbert Community College, Georgetown University) and those housed under academics (George Mason University, Portland State University and California State University, Monterrey Bay). Jacoby also includes a service learning case study at the University of Maryland to allow the reader insight into the politics and processes involved in creating a successful partnership. Jacoby concludes that the successes of a student learning partnership outweigh the frustrations.
Schroeder, Minor and Tarkow show the innovative and effective partnerships available in residential learning communities in the third article Freshmen Interest Groups: Partnerships for Promoting Student Success. Scroeder et al., take the reader through the steps of getting started, finding the need on campus, setting up the interest group, existence, problems and evaluation. Three key steps are identified in establishing a partnership for an interest group, (1) identify critical issues, (2) identify partners and allies and (3) locate existing models. In addition, nine vital steps are listed for faculty and staff interested in starting an interest group partnership. Schroeder et al. conclude that “developing successful partnerships requires leadership, collaboration, compromise, risk taking and fundamental examination of prevailing educational assumptions.” (p. 48).
Susan Westfall wrote the fourth article, “Partnerships to Connect In- and Out-of-Class Experiences. Westfall states that programs such as a freshman interest group helps students bridge the gap between academic and student affairs. Westfall uses freshmen interest groups at Indiana University Bloomington to show how in-and out-of-class experiences can be combined at large institutions the size of Indiana University Bloomington. Westfall lists challenges facing effective partnerships as well as recommendations involved in combining in and out-of-classroom experiences.
The fifth article, The Ursuline Studies Program: A Collaborative Core Curriculum written by Larréy and Estanek illustrates a brief case study of curriculum collaboration between faculty, student affairs and administration at Ursuline College , a small Catholic women’s college. The study was grounded in three dynamics: “the experience of faculty working with returning nontraditional students; the revision of the College mission statement; and the national conversation about curriculum revision (p. 65).” Larréy and Estanek identify four themes that would be common to any university or college in the process of collaboration and innovation: the importance of theory; the importance of mission; the importance of leadership; and the importance of structure.
The sixth article, Merging with Academic Affairs: A Promotion or Demotion for Student Affairs?, Jerry Price asserts that “student affairs staff traditionally are considered experts on who students are, whereas faculty are regarded as experts on what and how students learn; the gaps in one group’s strength are filled by the strengths of the other” ( p. 75). Price lists seven key points to review before beginning a merger. Price also includes implications for thought, both positive and negative, for student affairs practitioners. He concludes to make mergers successful all players may need to cross over traditional boundary lines.
The last article, Guiding Principles for Evaluating Student and Academic Partnerships, written by John Schuh stresses the importance of evaluation once a partnership has been put in place. Schuh reviews nine principles for evaluating successful partnerships between academics and student affairs.
I found this book to be very applicable to institutions of higher education. The underlying topic of each article, creating successful partnerships between student affairs and academics, in my opinion, is critical to the success of the institution in providing holistic learning for the student. Many of the authors used lists to summarize points to be considered when initiating a merger between academic affairs and student affairs. From working in higher education for a number of years, I have encountered simple misunderstandings to unproductive projects that stem from not including either student affairs or academics in the mix. The need for academics and student affairs to appear more seamless in the eyes of the student is a vital component to their success. Greenville Technical College currently has an organizational structure where the Associate Vice President of Academics and Associate Vice President of Student Affairs both report to the Vice President of Academics and Student Affairs. This structure of reporting has strengthened the inclusion of both divisions in critical decisions as well as strategic planning for the college and its students. Lists, principles, and tips included in Creating Successful Partnerships Between Academics and Student Affairs provide a starting point to create and/or ensure successful mergers on projects and policies; thus, leading to a seamless learning environment for the student.
As for the student affairs profession, the information from this book could be key in helping build successful partnerships between student affairs and academic affairs. Student affairs professionals are typically viewed as service providers by academics. Student affairs practitioners could use the research and guiding principles in this book to build mergers with academics. Through these mergers the academic community will hopefully realize the critical component student affairs plays in student learning. In addition, student affairs practitioners could encourage out-of-class learning whether it be through learning communities, freshmen interest groups or smaller projects that would include academics playing a major role. Through these opportunities, academics may begin to view student affairs in a different light, as educators instead of just service providers. Student affairs practitioners need to continue to set goals and find opportunities to make the boundary lines between themselves and academics become more seamless. Once the boundary lines become seamless the institution can more effectively serve the student holistically in regards to their college experience both in- and out-of-the classroom.
The Debate over the Addition of “Sexual Orientation” to Higher Educational Non-Discrimination Statements
Camilla Jones
Clemson University
The addition of two words, sexual orientation, to non-discrimination statements used in institutions of higher education and other places of employment is causing controversy. This controversy is occurring not only in South Carolina but at other institutions in the United States. At the federal government level, there are no protections for gays and lesbians against job discrimination, leaving the strongly debated addition to the statements up to the individual state legislatures and institutions (Human Rights Campaign, 2002). In 1994, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) bill came before the US Congress but it only addresses discrimination in employment for lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgendered, and questioning (LGBTQ) persons (Religious Tolerance, n.d.). Since the introduction of this bill, this bill has continuously been debated and amended. Since 1994, the debate of this topic has moved to the state level. On Feb. 10, 2003 , an amendment was brought to remove the term sexual orientation from the Minnesota Human Rights Act (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, February 2003). Conversely, on January 8, 2003 , Key West , Florida voted to add the words into their city’s non-discrimination statement (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, January 2003).
This debate also is occurring within higher education institutions. William Jewell College students have called for sexual orientation to be added to their university’s non-discrimination statement ( Coronado , 2003). The struggles of making these policies are also being felt in South Carolina . Both Furman University and The University of South Carolina (USC) have faced the political ramifications of making changes to their university non-discrimination statement. In June, 2001, Furman University stated that they would be offering benefits to domestic partners (Associated Press, 2001). At USC in December, 2001, the faculty senate voted 48-14 for the addition of sexual orientation to the university’s statement of non-discrimination; however, former Lt. Gov. Bob Peeler wrote a letter to the board of trustees urging them not to adopt the faculty recommendation (Stensland, 2001). This action led to the introduction of SC Senate Bill 811 which is designed to prevent a state institution of higher education from singling out gays and lesbians for protection from discrimination. This bill accompanies House Bill 4417 and House Bill 4580, written in response to Furman University ’s actions to halt the offering of benefits to domestic partners ( Alliance for Full Acceptance, n.d.). In the heat of this political controversy, it is important for student affairs professionals to examine both sides of the impact that this issue has on our institutions and our responses.
B.J. Cardin, William Jewell College , stated that the addition of the term sexual orientation to a non-discrimination statement allows the statement to represent every student on campus. The addition is not judging whether homosexuality is right or wrong ( Coronado , 2003). By making a fair representation of all students and employees, adding sexual orientation to the non-discrimination statement can lead to several positive outcomes. Examples of these positive outcomes include a progressive workplace with better recruitment and lower turnover, a boost of productivity, and a unity on campus.
With the addition of sexual orientation to the non-discrimination statement, the institution may experience several positive outcomes. In having this written policy, more individuals may be willing to apply for admissions and jobs in the university, yielding a larger and better candidate pool of students and staff. These same individuals may also feel better while on campus about their selection of the institution, therefore leading to a higher student retention rate and lower employee turn-over rate.
Happiness, and in this case acceptance, can also boost productivity. Individuals who are content or happy in their workplace tend to work more efficiently and harder, thus resulting in higher productivity. The last major positive outcome of this inclusion is that the inclusiveness of the non-discrimination statement leads to unity of individuals at the institution regardless of the lack of federal or state laws. For an individual to see that the institution has developed the non-discrimination statement without support of the federal government, the individual experiences the connectiveness of the institution as one working together for the common goal of not discriminating against anyone.
After examining the benefits of adding sexual orientation to a non-discrimination statement, one could easily favor it; however, the addition of this clause may not be a smooth insertion. Typically the insertion of this statement is accompanied by controversy and questions. The University of South Carolina experienced significant controversy in the faculty senate as Michael Mungo stated that gays and lesbians who push for non-discrimination statement policy changes have a hidden agenda and this addition gives LGBTQ persons a reason to sue the university because of a way they may be treated (Stensland, 2001). In response to Mungo’s comments, religion professor Kevin Lewis stated, “These comments sound like the ones white racists made about black people decades ago.” (Stensland, 2001, p1) This objection within the university is one aspect that might hinder an institution from proceeding with the addition.
Other controversy may begin by comments made by other persons affiliated with the institution, not necessarily faculty, staff, or students. Such comments may include that the university cannot list every type of person or every demographic category in a non-discrimination statement and that the institution is following federal leadership. The argument usually follows that until the federal government does something, then the institution will refrain from any action.
In terms of complying with federal law, the laws that may be passed in South Carolina could lead to negative aspects for the institution if they were to add sexual orientation to the non-discrimination statement. The addition of sexual orientation could lead to decreased funding from the state government or other funding bodies, if not a state supported school. For example, William Jewell College is facing a loss of funding by the Missouri Baptist Convention if this addition is made to the nondiscrimination clause ( Coronado , 2003). In South Carolina if the proposed House Bill 4417 were to pass, it would deny state funding to institutions that offer insurance and benefits to same-sex couples. House Bill 4580 would prohibit universities from accepting Life Scholarships, Palmetto Fellows Scholarships, or tuition grants if the institutions offered same-sex insurance benefits. Senate Bill 811, directly related to the non-discrimination statement, would bar all South Carolina colleges from adding sexual orientation to their non-discrimination statement. Overall a decrease in state funding would occur based upon stopping scholarships and additional funds if the institution tries to insure equality for LGBTQ employees and their families ( Alliance for Full Acceptance, n.d.).
Individual institutions must examine the positive aspects of the addition to their non-discrimination statement and be prepared for the negative controversy that may accompany the addition. Regardless of the institution’s response, student affairs professionals can act without any institutional movement. Before examining the impact of this topic on student affairs in South Carolina and around the country, it is important to first explore some of the founding principles shared across student affairs. These values of the profession are found in Principles of Good Practice for Student Affairs (Oliaro & Gordon, 1996). First, “Good practice in student affairs helps students develop coherent values and ethical standards.” (Oliaro & Gordon, 1996, p.3) Within this, student affairs administrators have pledged to be committed to justice, equality, honesty, and freedom. The second good practice is, “Good practice in student affairs builds supportive and inclusive communities.” (Oliaro & Gordon, 1996, p.4) Building these communities will aid in individuals feeling comfortable with where they are and who they are. As a profession, student affairs is committed to those guiding principles. This controversy is an opportunity for the profession to take a lead for a change in the institutions.
When examining the negative and positive aspects of adding to the non-discrimination statement, the institution may limit who comes to their state, professionals might experience issues with students and staff feeling uncomfortable across campus, and the institution may lose money if the addition is made. Whether the institutional policies are in question or not, student affairs practitioners’ commitment is to the recognition and value of all people. Though understanding that controversy may happen, student affairs practitioners are called to actively support all students and staff.
One simple way to individually show the value of all people on campus is to challenge the language being used by others that many community members might perceive as offensive. Professionals can also begin to examine the introduction of “safe zones” across campus. These zones indicate areas and people who are open for conversation and interaction with all people. Also the introduction and implementation of a LGBT resource center can be of benefit for the LGBT students and staff and their allies. Overall, a simple but visible acceptance and recognition of value for all students will slowly bring about campus changes, even if the government may or may not have laws protecting or prohibiting discrimination for the LGBT community. Understanding and preparing for possible controversy, and allowing students and staff to work at their own pace of acceptance, will lead to a positive outcome.
As this struggle unfolds in Congress, student affairs professionals are in key positions to reach and educate the faculty, students, and staff of the institution. Although the negative consequences of a policy change have been examined, and are real, it is imperative that student affairs professionals explore the positive aspects of this change and what they can do individually to promote an open, safe, college community. Through the openness and inclusiveness of all individuals on campus, the culture on campus will be a welcoming atmosphere for faculty, students, and staff. With education and resources such as safe zones and resource centers, student affairs professionals can take the lead in the movement of value for all people within the institution. The controversy surrounding this issue is not expected to be resolved quietly in South Carolina or nationally; however, by being patient and working with our individual students, faculty, and staff, student affairs professionals can make a difference and change their campus communities.
Author's Note: On December 11, 2003, University of South Carolina officials announced the addition of sexual orientation to the university's non-discrimination statement forbidding discrimination against persons based on their sexual orientation.
References
Alliance for Full Acceptance. (n.d.). South Carolina legislative session 2001-2002. Retrieved
February 10, 2003, from http://www.affa-sc.org/SC%20Legislature%202001-2002.pdf
Associated Press. (2001, June 19). Furman to offer domestic partner benefits. Retrieved
March 2, 2003, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/
Coronado, N. (2003, January 28). Proposal to include gays and lesbians in Jewell student bill
of rights draws fire. Kansas City Star. Retrieved February 13, 2003 , from
http://www.naspa.org/netresults/PrinterFriendly.cfm?ID=928
House Bill 4417, South Carolina . January 8, 2002.
House Bill 4580, South Carolina . January 24, 2002.
Human Rights Campaign. (2002). South Carolina laws affecting GLBT people. Retrieved
February 5, 2003, from http://www.hrc.org/stateaction/laws/southcarolina.asp
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (2003, February 10). Minnesota introduces bill to
remove sexual orientation from human rights law. Retrieved February 13, 2003, from
http://www.ngltf.org/news/release.cfm?releaceID=514
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (2003, January 8). Key West passes transgender anti-
discrimination law: Civil rights coalition applauds unanimous vote for state’s most
inclusive law. Retrieved February 13, 2003, from http://www.ngltf.org/news/release.cfm?
releaceID=506
Oliaro, P. & Gordon, S. (1996). Principles of good practice for student affairs. Retrieved
August 24, 2002, from http://www.acpa.nche.edu/pgp/principle.htm
Religious Tolerance.org. (n.d.). Employment discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Retrieved February 10, 2003, from http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_empl2.htm
Senate Bill 811, South Carolina. January 8, 2002 .
Stensland, J. (2001, December 7). USC Sexual Orientation Policy Draws Fire. The State.
Retrieved February 5, 2003, from http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/south_carolina/
scnews01.htm
.gif){kind=small}
