Case Studies for Student Development Theory

Advancing Social Justice and Inclusion in Higher Education

Jason C. Garvey, Jessica C. Harris, Darris R. Means, Rosemary J. Perez, Christa J. Porter, Jason C. Garvey, Jessica C. Harris, Darris R. Means, Rosemary J. Perez, Christa J. Porter

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429879159
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This much-needed case study book provides higher education and student affairs graduate students, practitioners, and faculty with the tools to enhance their learning of student development theory and to apply this learning to practice. Each chapter offers a summary of theory – covering traditional and newer student development models – in addition to multiple case studies that help readers focus on practice that fosters social justice and inclusion.

The case studies for each chapter represent a range of institutional types and diverse student populations, offering an opportunity to explore the intersections of various developmental processes and to foster social justice and inclusion in higher education contexts. Guiding questions at the end of each case study offer opportunities for further discussion and critical reflection. An essential text for every student development course, Case Studies for Student Development Theory enhances student learning and development in higher education while also addressing how students' social identities intersect with college campus environments.

Part I

Introduction

Chapter 1

Considerations for Student Development Theory

Student development theory is a foundation for the field of student affairs (McEwen, 2003; McEwen & Talbot, 1998; Patton, McEwen, Rendón, & Howard-Hamilton, 2007; Patton, Renn, Guido, & Quaye, 2016). Student development theories (SDTs) provide a “common language” for campus professionals to explain and explore the ways that students progressively develop their identities within the context of postsecondary institutions (Knefelkamp, 1982; Rodgers, 1990). Campus professionals’ main goal on the college campus is to encourage and foster student learning and growth, i.e., student development (ACE, 1937, 1983; Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010; McClellan & Stringer, 2016). Subsequently, campus professionals’ knowledge of SDT is necessary “to identify and address student needs, design programs, develop policies, and create healthy college environments that encourage positive growth in students” (Patton et al., 2016, p. 8).

Since the first publication of the student personnel point of view (ACE, 1937), which urged student service professionals to educate the “whole student” rather than just focus on learning, scholars have consistently shifted, tested, and expanded SDT. While an exhaustive overview and history of SDT is beyond the scope of this book, we encourage readers to reference scholars who have already offered an extensive intellectual genealogy of SDT (Abes, Jones, & Stewart, 2019; Jones & Abes, 2013; Jones & Stewart, 2016; Patton et al., 2016). In one such offering, Jones and Stewart (2016) demonstrated the three waves of SDT, “to capture the shifts in the kinds of questions and concerns addressed by student development theories over time” (p. 17).

Theories from the first wave of SDT often centered psychological understandings of development, were rooted in a positivist paradigm, reflected the experiences of white men, and explored students’ psychosocial and cognitive development (Patton et al., 2016; Patton, Harper, & Harris, 2015; Patton et al., 2007; Evans et al., 2010; Jones & Stewart, 2016). SDT expanded in the 1970s and 1980s. According to Jones and Stewart (2016), this second wave of SDT accounted for a diversity of social identities, such as racial and gender identity, and college students, such as Black students and women students. Theories within the second wave also often encompassed a constructivist nature or reality, the environment of an institution, structures of inequality, and interdisciplinary perspectives. Critical and poststructural approaches to students’ development were introduced with a third wave of SDTs. These theories, such as, critical race theory (Delgado & Stefancic, 2011) and quare theory (Johnson, 2001), encourage an interrogation into the ways that systems of domination and privilege influence all students’ development (Jones & Stewart, 2016). Furthermore, while many theories, regardless of the time they were created, might be used in a manner that promotes equity, inclusion, and justice, critical and poststructural theories are rooted in liberatory understandings of social justice and inclusion (Guido, Chávez, & Lincoln, 2010; Jones & Stewart, 2016).

Professionals’ use of theory has the capacity to enact and promote social justice, or “a process and a goal that includes the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to create learning environments that foster equitable participation of all groups and seeks to address issues of oppression, privilege, and power” (ACPA & NASPA, 2015, p. 30). When critically examined and employed, educators might use theory to interrogate how power, oppression, and inequity operate throughout postsecondary policies, research, and programming to dis/inform collegiate environments and influence students’ developmental processes (Jones & Stewart, 2016; Patton et al., 2007; Patton et al., 2016). Thus, scholars’, practitioners’, and policy-makers’ knowledge and use of SDT centers on students’ individual development, but also holds far-reaching implications for inclusive postsecondary practice, policy, and research.

Yet, it is how one uses theory, and not necessarily the theory itself, that enacts a more socially just environment for students’ learning and development. As pointed out by Jones and Stewart (2016), bell hooks (1994) agreed, “Theory is not inherently healing, liberatory, or revolutionary. It fulfills this function only when we ask that it do so and direct our theorizing towards this end” (p. 61). In an attempt to direct our theorizing toward “healing, liberatory, or revolutionary” practice, it is imperative to explore what theory can do in postsecondary contexts by moving theory to practice, rather than only focusing on rote memorization of theories and their phases and stages (Patton et al., 2007; Patton et al., 2015). Student development theorists also encourage educators “to undertake active experimentation” with SDT (Thomas & Chickering, 1984, p. 399) and “to delve more deeply into theories and then, from that knowledge base, into the questions it evokes, to improve on what exists” (Jones & Abes, 2013, p. 4).

Therefore, the main purpose of this edited volume is to provide an educational tool that advances faculty members’, practitioners’, and higher education and student affairs graduate students’ understanding of how to actualize social justice and inclusion by moving student development theory to practice. We offer 39 case studies that encourage current and future individuals working in education to “undertake active experimentation” (Thomas & Chickering, 1984, p. 399) of SDT and to explore what professionals’ use of theory can do for individual students and for social justice and inclusion in postsecondary contexts.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY WHILE ANALYZING CASE STUDIES

Prior to reading further, we offer five considerations for readers to keep in mind while moving theory to practice via the case studies contained in this book. We generated considerations from our own experiences learning, teaching, and using SDT throughout our years in the field. We hope readers find these five considerations useful in further thinking through how to move theory to practice in ways that encourage social justice and inclusion. The five considerations include:

1. Reflect on the labeling of student development theory

2. Reflect on the power to create theory and control theoretical assumptions

3. (Re)examine the nature of development

4. Examine how oppression intersects with student development

5. Explore the possibilities of theoretical borderlands.

Below, we explore these five considerations in more detail. We encourage readers to continually return to these considerations while thinking through the case studies in this book and aim to foster social justice and inclusion through the use of theory.

Reflect on the Labeling of Student Development Theory

In their new edited book, Abes, Jones, and Stewart (2019) reimagine student development theory through critical and poststructural theoretical frameworks to move toward practice that is just and equitable. Rather than organizing theories by families, Abes, Jones, and Stewart structure their overview of student development theory based on key constructs that encompass multiple theories and frameworks, such as authenticity, agency, resilience, and dissonance. By complicating families of theories that were historically used to frame development theories, such as moral identity development or cognitive development, Abes and colleagues highlight the convergence of key concepts across and within theories.

With their broadened perspective of student development through the lenses of concepts, rather than theory families, Abes and colleagues illuminate the often-poor foundation of student development theory as an organized body of theoretical scholarship. Many of the constructs that connect first-, second-, and third-wave student development theories move beyond what student affairs has traditionally viewed as development into more complex interactions between students, institutions, and systems. For example, understanding resilience within student development requires that scholars explore students’ lived experiences within complex campus environments while also acknowledging the oppressive societal structures that narrowly shaped conceptualizations of resilience. Exploring SDT through organizing concepts may encourage the field of student affairs to recognize that using “student development theory” as a connecting entity for a loose group of scholarly frameworks and theories is counterproductive to advancing the profession.

For instance, by ascribing a label of “student development” to a collection of theories and frameworks, scholars may inadvertently reinforce methodological and epistemological assumptions within sub-disciplines of higher education. Whereas student development scholars oftentimes approach scholarship through theory development, qualitative inquiry, and constructivist, critical, and/or cultural perspectives, college impact scholars oftentimes approach scholarship through model development, quantitative inquiry, and postpositivist perspectives. Of course, there are exceptions to these boundaries, yet by using rigid classifications of “student development theory” within scholarship, scholars may reinforce the methodological and epistemological in-group collaborations and ideas exchange. Similarly, the label of “student development theory” may limit scholars’ and practitioners’ use and exploration of influential theories developed outside of the realm of student affairs, such as critical race theory, feminist theory, or queer theory. A narrow labeling and/or view of what SDT may be will limit educators’ inter-disciplinary use of theory and thus, perspectives on students’ development. By removing the label of “student development”, or expanding conceptualizations of SDT, scholars can begin to collaborate and exchange ideas across sub-disciplines in higher education and academic disciplines more broadly to approach theory from multimodal and multiparadigmatic perspectives.

Reflect on the Power to Create Theory and Control Theoretical Assumptions

We urge readers to reflect on how and why “theory” is deemed “theory” (or theoretical framework or theoretical model) and the differences, if any, between these terms and concepts. We also encourage readers to explore who holds the privilege and the power to name and create theory. Patricia Hill Collins (1990) argued,

Theory of all types is often presented as being so abstract that it can be appreciated only by a select few. Though often highly satisfying to academics, this definition excludes those who do not speak the language of elites and thus reinforces social relations of domination. Educated elites typically claim that they are qualified to produce theory and believe that only they can interpret not only their own but everyone else’s experiences.

(p. xii)

Collins’ words remain relevant today, particularly as students, researchers, and professionals conduct research and navigate producing and naming their empirical work as theory or theoretical in nature.

Similar to the previous consideration of how theory is labeled, it is imperative that we also think about the ways that theory is (co)constructed and how researchers, professionals, and students place value on what types of research are deemed “enough” to be considered “theory”. Because U.S. higher education is steeped in monoculturalism, or the belief that all people should conform to and operate from a dominant white Westernized worldview, white-centered scholarship, practices, and processes are often viewed as the only appropriate form of knowledge (Delgado Bernal & Villalpando, 2002; Gusa, 2010; Scheurich & Young, 1997). Due to structures of monoculturalism, the voices, perspectives, knowledge, and cultures of those that are not centered in whiteness are devalued and ignored (Gusa, 2010). Subsequently, what “counts” as theory is often centered in monocultural understandings and disallows for the knowledge of minoritized individuals and communities.

We encourage readers to continually reflect on what theory is for them, what theories we do and do not learn, and who creates and engages with specific theories. We also encourage readers to reach beyond the confines of this book, and the field, and search for theories, frames, models, concepts, and more from other disciplines that may appropriately apply to students’ development and challenge monocultural norms. Finally, we must all consider the ways we facilitate our classrooms, research, administer tasks, and advise graduate students, and whether we perpetuate what theory “should” be or (re)envision what theory can be in order to appropriately work toward a body of scholarship that is inclusive, representative of various methodologies and epistemologies, and we can practically implement in our work in student affairs and higher education.

(Re)examine the Nature of Development

While we encourage readers to explore the concept of “theory”, we also find it imperative to consider and complicate what individuals in the field mean when they use the term development. Although people tend to use the words “growth”, “change”, and “development” interchangeably, these words are distinct from one another and have implications for how individuals think about work with college students. According to Sanford (as cited in Patton et al., 2016), development referred to the process of organizing increasing complexity. In contrast, change refers to a shift or altered status (Sanford, as cited in Patton et al., 2016), meaning that something (i.e., capacity, ability) is different than it was previously, but it isn’t necessarily more complex. Growth is similar to change in that it implies an expansion or increase in size; however, growing does not mean a person or their capacity or ability is more complex than it was previously.

While the aforementioned definitions and distinctions are helpful to make, they are power-evasive and do not account for how systems of oppression influence how individuals and institutions define the kinds and forms of development, change, and growth that are often advantageous in higher education. As readers engage with the case studies in this volume, we encourage them to consider if their aims are to promote development, change, and/or growth. Moreover, we ask them to consider how systems of power, privilege, and oppression affect these aims (see below consideration for more). In the process of doing so, readers may find it helpful to consider the following questions: How do power and systematic oppression influence how we conceptualize complexity in relation to development? Who decid...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Tables
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Part I: Introduction
• Part II: Social Identity Development
• Part III: Psychosocial, Cognitive-Structural, and Integrative Development
• Part IV: Reflecting on Moving Student Development Theory to Practice
• List of Contributors
• Index