Rebecca Jane Caldwell SACSA 2012

CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS’ INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINIMUM LEGAL DRINKING AGE AND THE AMETHYST INITIATIVE: A DISCURSIVE POLICY ANALYSIS Rebecca Jane CaldwellSACSA 2012

THANKS SACSA Award Committee University of North Carolina-Wilmington Clemson University Dissertation Committee:

Dr. Pam Havice, Chair Dr. Tony Cawthon Dr. Jason Cassidy Dr. James Satterfield

Participating CSAOs

ALCOHOL USE AMONG U.S. COLLEGE STUDENTS College students 18-24 drink more than non-

college peers (Hingson, 2010).

Percentage of college students who participated in high-risk drinking increased between 1999 and 2005 from 41.7% to 45.8% (Hingson, 2010).

Estimates of annual alcohol-related harm have been recently increased (Hingson, 2009).

ALCOHOL PREVENTION MODELS Ecological perspective combines individual

interventions with interpersonal, organizational, and environmental interventions (Glanz & Bishop, 2010).

Higher Education Center’s Environmental Management model (DeJong et al., 1998; DeJong & Langford, 2002)

NIAAA (2002) “A Call to Action” and the 3-in-1 framework, which used four tiers of effectiveness

Only half of institutions use effective individual efforts and only 1/3 work with communities (Nelson et al., 2010).

AMETHYST INITIATIVE & MLDA Announced in August 2008 with 119

signatories. Currently at 136 institutions.

Asks for the age 21 MLDA to be reconsidered.

MLDA linked to less binge drinking among 18-24 year olds, except for college students (Grucza et al., 2009; Wagenaar & Toomey, 2002).

MLDA is cited to lower alcohol-related traffic accidents, drinking rates in 18-20 year olds, and alcohol dependency (Wagenaar & Toomey, 2002; Shultz et al., 2001; Norberg et al., 2009).

CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS (CSAOS) Part of core institutional leadership team (Barr

& Sandeen, 2006; Bass, 2006; Brown, 1997; Sandeen, 2001, 1991) Scope influenced by institutional characteristics

(Heida, 2006; Palm, 1985; Tederman, 1997)

Relationship to president is key (Sandeen, 2001; Bass 2006)

Campus expert on student development (Brown, 1997)

Overall, there is limited research on this role.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM High-risk drinking remains a serious issue for

college campuses. Public health and higher education researchers hold

different conclusions about the status of effective prevention efforts.

The MLDA, while considered effective in many settings, continues to be both controversial and possibly less effective in college settings.

The Amethyst Initiative was a movement by college presidents that proposed a reconsideration of the MLDA.

CSAOs, as a primary policy implementers of the MLDA and the AI, are the subject of limited research on the topic.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS How do Chief Student Affairs Officers

interpret the Minimum Legal Drinking Age?

How has the Amethyst Initiative affected Chief Student Affairs Officers’ interpretation and implementation of the Minimum Legal Drinking Age?

THEORETIC TRADITION

Interpretivism

Discursive Approaches to Policy Analysis

Interpretive Policy Analysis

Discourse Analysis

DISCURSIVE APPROACHES TO POLICY ANALYSIS

Policy development and implementation can be understood through their relevant meaning to human actors (Bevir & Rhodes, 2003; Wagenaar, 2007).

Taken place in an environment of complexity, ambiguity, contingency and conflicts with other policies and positions (Bohman, 1996; Dryzek, 1990; Allen, 2003; Schwandt, 1997; Kekes, 1993; Wagenaar, 2002, 2007).

Embedded in a web of social meanings produced and reproduced through discursive practices (Fischer, 2003).

Focus on the languages, discourses, and rhetorical arguments used to create frames around issues (Fischer, 2003).

INTERPRETIVE POLICY ANALYSIS

4 Key Phases (Yanow, 1996, 2000): Identify artifacts that are carriers of meaning.

Identify the interpretive communities relevant to a policy that are the perceivers of meaning.

Identify the discourses through which the meanings are communicated.

Identify any point of conflict that suggests that different groups attach divergent meanings to some aspect of the policy.

CSAOS INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AI AND MLDA

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS Discourse is a specific ensemble of ideas,

concepts, and categorizations that are produced, reproduced, and transformed to give meaning to physical and social relations. (Allen, 2003; Hajer, 1993; Fischer, 2003)

Each discourse is derived from a different line of reasoning. (Fischer, 2003)

Different discourses about a problem lend themselves to different policy solutions (Clarke, 2007; Fischer, 2003)

GEE- DISCOURSE ANALYSIS METHODS Focus on both the details of language structure

and meaning in social, cultural, and political terms. (Gee, 2005, 2011)

Balances focuses on cognition, social interactions and activities, and society and institutions.

27 tools for discourse analysis, including 5 theoretical tools: Situated meaning Social languages Intertextuality Figured Worlds The “Big D” Discourse

SAMPLE DEVELOPMENTSample Goal Amethyst

InitiativeNon-

Amethyst Initiative

Institutional CharacteristicsPrivate institution 4 6 5Public institution 1 2 3Religiously affiliated 2 2 1Women’s college 1 1 1

Regional CharacteristicsNew England 2 2 5Mid-Atlantic

2 3 2

South or Midwest 1 3West 1 1

PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS

Participant

Gender Yrs in Higher

Ed.

Yrs in

Role

Region Size of Inst.

#1 Female 20+ 10 Mid-Atlantic

Under 2000

#2 Male 30 10 New England

Under 2000

#4 Male 33 24 Mid-Atlantic

Under 2000

#7 Male 40 3 Southern Over 10,000

#9 Female 19 4 New England

Under 2000

#10 Female 20-30 4 Mid-Atlantic

Under 2000

#11 Female 10-15 2 Midwest Under 2000

#15 Male 29 8 Southern Under 2000

Participant

Gender Yrs in Higher

Ed.

Yrs in

Role

Region Size of Inst.


5000-10,000


Under 2000

#6 Male 18 8 Mid-Atlantic

Under 2000


Under 2000


Under 2000

#13 Male 30+ 9 New England

5000-10,000

#14 Male 30+ 7 New England

Over 10,000

#16 Male 31+ 15 Southern Over 10,000

AI Campuses Non- AI Campuses

TRUSTWORTHINESS Member checking Progressive subjectivity:

Subjectivity journal Analytic memo after each interview

Thick, rich description in results chapter Hand-coding by transcript and question,

followed by coding with Nvivo 9. Checking rival explanations, searching for

discrepant information and alternative explanations.

Peer debriefing

AUDIT TRAIL EXAMPLEInterview

I think the emphasis there is not, you know, an anti-alcohol taskforce or ways to stop people from drinking

because I think it’s an acknowledgement that the people are going to drink, and how can we teach them drink responsibly, and how can we work with them to hopefully avoid

people being harmed, injured or people being killed. (Participant #7,

AI)

Subjectivity Journal

“Today, I heard another CSAO use a phrase “dangerous and irresponsible drinking.” Does this phrase have an

origin? Being juxtaposed with underage drinking. They are staking

their claim on the problem definition…problem definition

privileges solutions.”

Analytic Memo

“This CSAO is from a large southern institution, so the dangerous and irresponsible label is not a small

school claim.” “This CSAO is comfortable with the D & I label even

in response to a tragedy.”

Theme

Dangerous and irresponsible drinking is the problem, not underage

drinking.

AMETHYST INITIATIVE DECLARATION 6 Discourses:

Open Market of Ideas

Outdated Research

Rites of Adulthood

Effective Education

Hidden Danger

Moral Development

IT’S TIME TO RETHINK THE DRINKING AGE In 1984 Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which imposed a penalty of 10% of a state’s federal highway appropriation on any state setting its drinking age lower than 21. Twenty-four years later, our experience as college and university presidents convinces us that TWENTY-ONE IS NOT WORKING A culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking, often conducted off- campus, has developed. Alcohol education that mandates abstinence as the only legal option has not resulted in significant constructive behavioral change among our students. Adults under 21 are deemed capable of voting, signing contracts, serving on juries and enlisting in the military, but are told they are not mature enough to have a beer. By choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law. HOW MANY TIMES MUST WE RELEARN THE LESSONS OF PROHIBITION? We call upon our elected officials: To support an informed and dispassionate public debate over the effects of the 21 year-old drinking age. To consider whether the 10% highway fund incentive encourages or inhibits that debate. To invite new ideas about the best ways to prepare young adults to make responsible decisions about alcohol. We pledge ourselves and our institutions to playing a vigorous, constructive role as these critical discussions unfold. (Amethyst Initiative, 2008)

RESEARCH QUESTION 1:HOW DO CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS INTERPRET THE MINIMUM LEGAL DRINKING AGE?1. CSAOs defined dangerous and irresponsible

drinking as the focus of their alcohol abuse prevention efforts, as opposed to underage drinking;

2. CSAOs expressed a strong belief that students could be reasoned into right action regarding alcohol use through educational efforts;

3. CSAOs expressed a need to find a balance between strictness and leniency in their response to alcohol abuse on campus;

4. CSAOs expressed a range of beliefs about the changeability of their campus alcohol abuse issues;

5. CSAOs were unclear about what would happen if the MLDA was lowered; and

6. CSAOs attempted to balance their multiple roles on campus as they led alcohol abuse prevention efforts.

RESEARCH QUESTION 1: THEME 1

PROBLEM: DANGEROUS AND IRRESPONSIBLE DRINKING Drinking divided into low-risk drinking and

extreme drinking behavior.

Drinking seen as more extreme than past, particularly the CSAOs’ experiences as students.

In this viewpoint, MLDA is viewed as: Contributing to dangerous student behavior Helpful as a tool to correct student behavior Nuisance law that wastes time to enforce


STUDENTS CAN BE REASONED INTO RIGHT ACTION: EDUCATIONAL EFFORTS Educating students to be responsible was viewed

as effective. Despite NIAAA reports of ineffectiveness

MLDA is an impediment to effective alcohol education.

MLDA interferes with the ethical development of students.

Use of campus conduct system is a regrettable act used when students don’t learn from educational efforts.


BALANCING STRICTNESS & LENIENCY Expressed as balance between education and

enforcement.

Overzealous enforcement may also have consequences.

Defining which types of behaviors will be the focus of efforts.

Two CSAOs experienced presidential interference in their balancing efforts.


LACK OF CONSENSUS ON CHANGEABILITY

Four CSAOs (25%) cited significant progress on alcohol abuse issues. Two relied on MLDA; two relied on pragmatic

policies.

Other CSAOs expressed doubt about ability to make progress. Desire for more than current best practices


UNCLEAR ABOUT LOWER MLDA EFFECTS

Little effect of lower MLDA because students already ignored the law. MLDA as a possible contributor to higher alcohol

abuse CSAOs were students during a lower MLDA.

Arguments for the MLDA from public health and against from the AI were in evidence.


CSAOS BALANCES ROLES AS THEY LEAD ALCOHOL ABUSE PREVENTION EFFORTS MLDA was an impediment to positive

relationship with student body. Role modeling of responsible use and behavior

MLDA interferes with the total student development of students/transition to adulthood.

CSAOs who were more supportive of the MLDA had greater psychological distance from students.

RESEARCH QUESTION 2:HOW HAS THE AMETHYST INITIATIVE AFFECTED CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS’ INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINIMUM LEGAL DRINKING AGE?

1. AI institutions believed that they were engaging in an intellectual debate about the effectiveness of the MLDA;

2. The AI failed to capture the attention and imagination of campuses and the broader culture;

3. The CSAOs in this study displayed a broad range of involvement by their president in the decision whether or not to sign the AI; and

4. The AI was seen as counter-productive to campuses citing progress on alcohol abuse issues.


BELIEVED THAT THE AI WAS A DEBATE

Surprised and offended to be misinterpreted as being for lowering the MLDA

Debate and inquiry are core values in higher education.

The path of the AI was unclear and the leadership was lost.


AI FAILED TO CAPTURE ATTENTION

CSAOs from both AI and non-AI institutions reported that it generated little attention.

Lack of political interest in the AI by students, even when the CSAO tried to engage students

Some presidents received negative feedback.


CSAOS WERE INVOLVED DIFFERENTLY

CSAOs’ involvement ranged from a truly mutual decision with their president to no consultation and no announcement.

Only four CSAOs were supportive of the MLDA. 7 of 8 AI CSAOs supported their president’s

position. 4 of 8 Non-AI CSAOS supported their president’s

position.


AI COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE TO SUCCESS

If policy enforcement was part of a successful strategy, a CSAOs was likely to view the AI as a short-term or long-term setback. This view was held even by a CSAO who was

personally in favor of a lower MLDA.

FINDINGS LINK TO LITERATURE MLDA was not as effective on college

campuses (Wagenaar & Toomey, 2002)

Participants embraced environmental management principles (DeJong et al., 1998). Implementation of NIAAA report (2002) less so

(Nelson et al., 2010)

Affirmed higher education-public health split

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS Definition of the problem defines the

solutions. MLDA is not central to campus efforts.

The AI did not affect institutional environments. Student engagement in a debate may be key. Signing the AI was a symbolic action without

accompanying instrumental action.

The AI may have codified institutional perspective on the MLDA.

INITIAL MODEL: CSAOS INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AI AND MLDA

HOW DID THE INTERPRETIVE MODEL HOLD UP?

Tool Nuisance Detriment

“How” does a policy mean?

PROBLEM DEFINITION: UNDERAGE DRINKING VS. DANGEROUS & IRRESPONSIBLE DRINKING

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY & PRACTICE MLDA neutralizes aspects of CSAO role &

expertise. Arbitrary limit versus individual student

development and specific campus culture perspectives.

CSAOs and presidents had varying relationships related to alcohol issues.

Educational and other intuitive (but possibly ineffective) approaches still have value to CSAOs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY & PRACTICE Viewpoints on the MLDA may be a roadblock

to campus-community partnerships.

CSAOs expressed a variety of positions in the long-term struggle with alcohol abuse. Fatigue was in evidence. Psychological distance from students was

coupled with pro-MLDA enthusiasm.

Rigorous enforcement of the MLDA has costs and benefits for CSAOs.

LIMITATIONS Interviews were three years after the AI.

The AI can be considered a failure.

The AI campuses are not representative of all campuses.

AI was a presidential decision.

Further types of triangulation could have strengthened study.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Interpretive policy analysis and other discursive approaches are appropriate for college settings.

Additional research is needed about effective alcohol prevention in smaller college environments.

Participant cited non-MLDA policies that could be studied.

Rebecca Jane Caldwell SACSA 2012

Documents

Transcript of Rebecca Jane Caldwell SACSA 2012