UNDERSTANDING THE BELIEFS, SKILLS, AND BEHAVIORS OF ...

UNDERSTANDING THE BELIEFS, SKILLS, AND BEHAVIORS OF

PRACTITIONERS AND PROFESSIONALS WORKING IN STUDENT AFFAIRS:

ARE THEY EDUCATORS, LEADERS, AND MANAGERS?

by

LARRY ROBERT CORRELL-HUGHES

(Under the Direction of Diane L. Cooper)

ABSTRACT

The purposes of this study were to understand how individuals working in student

affairs view the roles of educator, leader, and manager in their professional work, and

how that may differ based on the institution type at which an individual works, the level

at which an individual works in the field, or how an individual entered the field of student

affairs. Further the purpose was to see if Creamer, Winston, and Miller’s (2001)

Domains of Student Affairs Administration Model is consistent with the beliefs, skills,

and behaviors of student affairs practitioners. For this study, a locally-designed

questionnaire was created by the researcher specifically to answer the research questions

of this study.

The researcher solicited participation from the membership of SACSA, a regional

student affairs professional organization in the southeastern United States. Regular

membership status in SACSA allowed identification of individuals working at least half-

time doing student affairs work in a college or university in the southeastern United

States. The response rate for this study was 36.69% (N = 91). The findings of this

research study lends credence to the framework, Domains of Student Affairs

Administrators Model, conceptualized by Creamer, Winston, and Miller (2001) to

explain and understand the three professional roles of individuals working in student

affairs as that of an educator, leader, and manager. No significant differences or findings

exist between professionals at public institutions versus private institutions in their

perceptions, beliefs, skills, behaviors, or preferred methods of professional development

regarding education, leadership, and management. Findings are consistent across

participants regarding the role of education. The differences that do exist are found in the

skills and behaviors of leadership and management based on level in the field, the

perceptions of master’s degree professionals of the descriptor manager or management,

as well as preferred methods of professional development. Overall, the level of

agreement on the beliefs, skills, and behavior regarding the roles of education, leadership,

and management is similar.

INDEX WORDS: Student affairs, Student services, Student affairs professionals,

Student affairs administrators, Student affairs practitioners,

University administration, Higher education administration,

University administration, Educator, Manager, Leader, Beliefs,

Skills, Behavior, Domains of Student Affairs Administration




by


B.S., Texas A&M University, 2002

M.S.Ed., Baylor University, 2007

A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

ATHENS, GEORGIA

2012

© 2012

Larry R. Correll-Hughes

All Rights Reserved




by


Major Professor: Diane L. Cooper

Committee: Laura A. Dean

William M. McDonald

Diane M. Samdahl

Electronic Version Approved:

Maureen Grasso

Dean of the Graduate School

The University of Georgia

May 2012

iv

DEDICATION

I dedicate this manuscript to Christy, Brooks, and Lucy; you are my dearest, my

doodlebug, and my little sunshine. I am forever grateful for the joy you bring to my life.

Love!

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, without the love, support, and sacrifice of my wife, friend, and

partner in life, Reverend Christy C. Correll-Hughes, this doctoral journey would not have

been possible. Thank you for believing in me, being my biggest fan, and choosing me

every day. People often asked how I did this doctoral education with young children, but

Brooks and Lucy have provided the energy to do this and I will forever be thankful for

the time with them that I have had during these three years.

Diane Cooper has been a source of consistency for me throughout this program

and has always been the advisor I needed, always available as a sounding board, holding

me to my word, providing gentle encouragement, and consistent direction. This

profession is fortunate to count her among its senior scholars and the University of

Georgia among its faculty. Laura Dean has always asked me the right questions at the

right time during this process, which profoundly affected the direction of my study.

Diane Samdahl has provided me sound counsel on the intricacies of questionnaire design.

Bill McDonald has been a mentor to me in this last year and a half and has been a

constant source of encouragement. Dick Mullendore facilitated the class in which the

topic for this dissertation became clear. Merrily Dunn and Michele Espino provided

classroom instruction throughout this program for which I am truly grateful.

The company of fellow travelers along this journey, fellow and former doctoral

students not only in my program, but in other programs at UGA and across the globe, has

helped me tremendously. Conversations both in-class and out-of-class with Dallin

vi

Young, Danny Glassman, Kara Fresk, Shannon Dean, Kay Anderson, Yancey Gulley,

and others gave me the challenge and friendship I needed to rise to this occasion. Coffee

and conversations with Tim Powers have been a mainstay of my time in Athens and

provided a connection to two of my favorite places and the continuation of a valued

friendship. There were those ahead of me in my program who provided encouragement,

my fellow doctoral students at Brandon Oaks and Milledge Avenue Baptist Church, and

my former colleagues from Baylor. All of these people were a constant reminder that

though this journey was an individual one, others understood.

Shay Davis Little has been more than a supervisor, but a great mentor to me in

these past three years, rarely passing an opportunity to make my assistantship an

educational experience. For her constant encouragement and listening ear, I am grateful.

I appreciate Gerry Kowalski and everyone I have worked with in University Housing for

the past three years for a great experience as well as the assistantship that truly made this

doctorate possible for me.

Baylor University was where my calling to work in student affairs was confirmed

and I am grateful for that transformational time and place in my life, as well as my

colleagues, friends, classmates, and faculty who are walking with me on this path that is

right, good, and honoring to God. My first group of community leaders in Brooks Hall,

Moses George, James Nortey, Bryan Watt, and Chase Nielsen, who believed I would one

day achieve this and affirmed that belief by calling me “Dr. Larry” long before this day.

Twelve years ago, I met Frank Shushok, at the time a doctoral student at the University of

Maryland. His kind words, challenge, support, and belief in me as a friend, mentor,

professor, colleague, and brother in Christ during the past decade has made a tremendous

vii

impact on my personal and professional life. I am appreciative of the faith Frank, as well

as Samuel “Dub” Oliver, and Robert C. Cloud have shown in me and my abilities,

writing recommendations on my behalf to pursue this doctoral education three years ago.

My family has played a role in this journey. Sarah Newman, my sister, has been

an inspiration to me and shown me unwavering love and support for thirty-three years

and counting. I have been blessed to live in close proximity to the Correll’s these last

few years. Gail Correll has been giving of her time, love, and support during these years.

Ailene and Burton Hughes, my parents, instilled a value for education in me that has

borne fruit beyond what they ever imagined. Hattie “Sue” Bradley and the late Edwin

Bradley, my grandparents, instilled in me a sincere work ethic, to work hard and do

things right and well, that was balanced with an appreciation for rest, leisure, and being a

parent. Milledge Avenue Baptist Church has been our family in Athens, providing

constant love, support, and encouragement to me and my family through this journey

which has included the birth of my daughter, the growth of my son, and the ordination of

my wife.

Finally, the lyrics to a song by Townend and Getty have been on my mind almost

constantly through these last three years and provides a vital acknowledgement for me.

In Christ alone my hope is found. He is my light, my strength, my song; this Cornerstone,

this solid Ground, firm through the fiercest drought and storm. What heights of love,

what depths of peace, when fears are stilled, when strivings cease! My Comforter, my All

in All, here in the love of Christ I stand.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................v

LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................x

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1

Problem ........................................................................................................3

Purpose .........................................................................................................7

Operational Definitions ................................................................................7

Research Questions ......................................................................................9

Significance of the Study ...........................................................................10

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................12

Overview of Student Affairs ......................................................................12

Educator .....................................................................................................21

Leader ........................................................................................................31

Manager .....................................................................................................41

Professional Development .........................................................................47

Summary ....................................................................................................51

3 METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................53

Instrument Development ............................................................................53

Participants .................................................................................................67

ix

Data Collection ..........................................................................................68

Data Analysis .............................................................................................71

Limitations .................................................................................................89

4 RESULTS ........................................................................................................91

Participant Demographics ..........................................................................92

Research Question 1: Positive Perceptions ................................................93

Research Question 2: Beliefs .....................................................................96

Research Question 3: Skills .....................................................................101

Research Question 4: Behavior ................................................................105

Research Question 5: Professional Development ....................................110

Summary of Results .................................................................................117

5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................118

Summary of the Research Study ..............................................................118

Recommendations for Future Research ...................................................127

Implications for Practice ..........................................................................130

Conclusion ...............................................................................................133

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................135

APPENDICES

A QUESTIONNAIRE EXCERPTS ................................................................. 157

B PARTICIPANT SOLICITATION E-MAIL ..................................................162

x

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 3.1: Example of Question Terminology ...................................................................54

Table 3.2: Confirming Citations for the DSAAM Domains and Characteristics ..............59

Table 4.1: Demographic Characteristics of Participants ..................................................92

Table 4.2: Independent Samples T-tests Regarding the Differences in Perceptions of

Domains between Professionals at Public and Private Institutions ......................94

Table 4.3: One-way ANOVA Tests Regarding the Differences in Perceptions of Domains

between Professionals at Different Levels ............................................................95

Table 4.4: One-way ANOVA Tests Regarding the Differences in Perceptions of Domains

between Professionals with Different Methods of Entry........................................96

Table 4.5: Independent Samples T-tests Regarding the Differences in Beliefs of

Importance between Professionals at Public and Private Institutions ..................98

Table 4.6: One-way ANOVA Tests Regarding the Differences in Beliefs of Importance

between Professionals at Different Levels .............................................................99

Table 4.7: One-way ANOVA Tests Regarding the Differences in Beliefs of Importance

between Professionals with Different Methods of Entry......................................100

Table 4.8: Independent Samples T-tests Regarding the Differences in Self-reported Skills

between Professionals at Public and Private Institutions ...................................102

Table 4.9: One-way ANOVA Tests Regarding the Differences in Self-reported Skills

between Professionals at Different Level ............................................................104

xi

Table 4.10: One-way ANOVA Tests Regarding the Differences in Self-reported Skills

between Professionals with Different Methods of Entry......................................105

Table 4.11: Independent Samples T-tests Regarding the Differences in Behavior between

Professionals at Public and Private Institutions .................................................107

Table 4.12: One-way ANOVA Tests Regarding the Differences in Behavior between

Professionals at Different Levels .........................................................................109

Table 4.13: One-way ANOVA Tests Regarding the Differences in Behavior between

Professionals with Different Methods of Entry ....................................................110

Table 4.14: Preferred Methods of Professional Development for Education by

Professionals in Different Institutional Types (RQ5aa) ......................................111

Table 4.15: Preferred Methods of Professional Development for Education by

Professionals at Different Levels (RQ5ab) ..........................................................112

Table 4.16: Preferred Methods of Professional Development for Education by Different

Methods of Entry (RQ5ac) ...................................................................................112

Table 4.17: Preferred Methods of Professional Development for Leadership by

Professionals in Different Institutional Types (RQ5ba) ......................................113

Table 4.18: Preferred Methods of Professional Development for Leadership by

Professionals at Different Levels (RQ5bb) ..........................................................114

Table 4.19: Preferred Methods of Professional Development for Leadership by Different

Methods of Entry (RQ5bc) ...................................................................................114

Table 4.20: Preferred Methods of Professional Development for Management by

Professionals in Different Institutional Types (RQ5ca) ......................................115

xii


Professionals in Professionals at Different Levels (RQ5cb) ...............................116


Different Methods of Entry (RQ5cc) ....................................................................116

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

During one of my final doctoral courses, the topic for the evening was a

framework by Creamer, Winston, and Miller (2001) for understanding the roles, or

domains, of a student affairs administrator. The students leading the discussion put up

three large pieces of paper, each labeled with a different role—educator, leader, or

manager—and invited the class to comment on the positives and negatives of each role.

The virtues of being an educator who is focused on student learning were extolled and

substantiated by citations of professional documents and statements. As I expected,

positive comments about leadership abounded. Manager, however, was a different story.

I sat there astonished as I heard my colleagues discuss this role. There was a hostile

reaction to the term and concept of manager. As I absorbed what my colleagues were

saying, colleagues committed to student affairs, getting PhDs in student affairs, some

things I had read just that morning were ringing through my head. In 1972, Brown

argued that student affairs people would need to be good administrators in the future.

Thirty years later, Birnbaum (2001) exhorted that higher education needs good

managers, that good management is essential and necessary, that being a good manager

is a worthy goal for those committed to the purposes of higher education. I had assumed

that being a capable manager was an established facet of a student administrator’s job

description. However, I left class that night wondering whether such negative

perceptions of management in student affairs are the norm in the profession and whether

2

these perceptions stem from the connotations of the term manager or the perceived

functions of a manager.

Student affairs work exists at every institution of higher education in the United

States in some form or fashion. The field of student affairs is represented by two primary

national professional associations as well as regional and specialty area associations.

Though many of the professional associations have roots in the early 20th

century, student

affairs has really come into its own in the last sixty years following the rapid growth of

enrollments following World War II (Dungy & Gordon, 2011). The development and

growth of generalist professional associations, as well as specialty or functional

associations, has resulted in countless opportunities for professional development,

including conferences, institutes, and journals.

An important part of any profession is agreement amongst practitioners regarding

roles, values, and purpose (Janosik, Carpenter, & Creamer, 2006a). As the field of

student affairs has grown and evolved, so have conceptualizations of what it means to be

a student affairs professional. Creamer, Winston, and Miller (2001) proposed the

Domains of Student Affairs Administration model (DSAAM), and, in doing so, asserted

that professional student affairs administrators must operate within three domains—

educator, leader, and manager—to be effective in their professional work. The purpose

of this study is to see if the DSAAM is consistent with the understandings of student

affairs practitioners regarding the following: their definition of student affairs; their

beliefs, skills, and behavior in reference to the educator, leader, and manager domains;

and, finally, their preferred methods of professional development.

3

Problem

As student affairs has developed as a profession, the professional associations

have sought to define more clearly the purposes, values, and roles of the field. Most

recently, Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education (NASPA) and College

Student Educators International (ACPA) jointly appointed the Task Force on the Future

of Student Affairs (2009). The task force offered the following definition and description

of the work of student affairs professionals:

The Student Affairs profession enhances student learning and development by

creating healthy and engaging campus environments that promote student success.

As student affairs professionals, we:

• Align our work with the mission and goals of our institution,

• Build partnerships, on and off-campus, that foster learning-centered

environments,

• Contribute to the body of knowledge and research about students,

• Create and measure learning outcomes to inform our practice and

promote quality programs,

• Cultivate campus conditions for students to meet their goals by

enhancing student access to and persistence in higher education,

• Engage in professionally competent practice and maintain ethical

standards,

• Model and teach leadership, service, and engagement,

• Nurture all students’ learning and development, recognizing the diversity

4

represented in their lived experiences, and

• Promote socially just communities through programs, standards, and

policies (para. 11).

Thus the purpose and scope of student affairs have been clearly articulated; however,

there remains a paradoxical lack of definition in the generalist field. It is important to

note that many subspecialties and functional areas exist within student affairs, and some,

such as counseling, have licensure and continuing education requirements. While CAS

standards provide a form of voluntary standardization of graduate preparation programs

(Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2009), standardization

of professional preparation programs is limited; methods of entry into the field are

diverse; certification, registry, licensure processes, and continuing education

requirements are not available for the profession as a whole; and there is a proliferation

of subspecialty areas. A paradoxical juxtaposition of both a lack of definition and an

articulated purpose and scope of the field has evolved.

Since its inception, the field of student affairs has moved through a progression of

paradigms: first student services, then student development, and now student learning

(Ender, Newton, & Caple, 1996; Manning, Kinzie, & Schuh, 2006; Sweeney, 1995;

Winston, Creamer, & Miller, 2001). Research, however, has shown that student affairs

practitioners at many institutions still operate under the student development or student

services paradigms (Davis, 2002; Hartley, 2001; Manning, Kinzie, & Schuh, 2006). The

rationale for the latest paradigm shift and emphasis on student learning has been

accompanied by the assertion that student affairs as a profession and the work of its

practitioners must be tied inextricably to the learning aspect of the educational mission of

5

colleges and universities (American College Personnel Association, 1994; Keeling, 2004;

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 1998; Task Force on the

Future of Student Affairs, 2009). This shift has come partially in response to attacks on

higher education, such as the Spellings Report (U.S. Department of Education, 2006) and

Academically Adrift (Arum & Roksa, 2011) as well as a perception in higher education of

increasing pressure from accrediting bodies (Bresciani, Moore Gardner, & Hickmott,

2009). These demands for accountability have resulted in increased attention to the

creation of assessment and learning outcomes (Bresciani, Moore Gardner, & Hickmott,

2009; Keeling, 2004, 2006), as well as “nonacademic” units of colleges and universities

seeking to align themselves with the academic or educational mission of institutions

(Hamrick, Evans, & Schuh, 2002; Sandeen & Barr, 2006). The two major student affairs

professional associations, NASPA and ACPA, emphasize the role of student affairs in the

educational process (Task Force on the Future of Student Affairs, 2010). Without

dispute, the term educator is being applied to the work of student affairs professionals

now more than ever before. Interestingly enough, Young (2007) argued that there is a

general dislike of the term manager in higher education and in student affairs

specifically. Though the term leadership is culturally popular, the driving force in

student affairs today is education, with very few calls inside the profession to focus on

management.

The professional development of staff innately focuses on professionals’

effectiveness in their roles (Komives & Carpenter, 2009). Professional development

activities are an important part of organizational and professional life (Komives &

Carpenter, 2009) and a primary concern of supervisors and professional associations

6

(Evans & Ranero, 2009). In creating professional development and training opportunities

for student affairs professionals, it is important to understand how student affairs

administrators view their roles as practitioners. In their book (which was intended to be a

text for master’s and doctoral level graduate preparation programs, as well as a

professional development reference), Winston, Creamer, and Miller (2001)

conceptualized the roles of a professional student affairs administrator within the

DSAAM. The three domains, or roles, are educator, leader, and manager. An

understanding of roles is important because professional development in student affairs is

typically without structure or requirements (Janosik, Carpenter, & Creamer, 2006b;

Roberts, 2005). Therefore, if student affairs professionals do not take ownership of the

management role, or at the very least recognize that aspects of management are a part of

the job, then it is unlikely that they will seek professional development in manger-related

areas.

Given the ways in which the profession remains undefined, the differing

paradigms of student affairs (i.e., services, development, and learning), and the current

emphasis on learning, the problem is that there may not be consensus in the beliefs, skills,

or behaviors of people working in student affairs regarding the three primary domains

(i.e., educator, leader, manager) of a student affairs professional. If this is the case, then

there is not agreement as to the roles of a student affairs professional amongst those

working in the field, and professional development may not be effective for all

individuals working in student affairs.

7

Purpose

Over the past 40 years, studies have been conducted regarding the professional

characteristics of student affairs professionals (Baier, 1992; Davis, 2002; Fey, 1991;

Newton & Richardson, 1976; Rozeboom, 2008). However, a meta-analysis by Lovell

and Kosten (2000) found that most of these studies centered solely on samples of recent

graduates of student affairs preparation programs or chief student affairs officers. There

is an emerging body of literature regarding the work of mid-level managers in student

affairs (Ackerman, 2007; Fey, 1991). However, these sample populations may not

provide a complete picture of how the profession as a whole understands the roles of

student affairs professionals or account for variations in institutional type or method of

entry into the field. Therefore, the sample for this research study included individuals

working in student affairs, regardless of level or length of time in the field, to understand

whether there was alignment with the professional training and development being

provided in student affairs.

The purpose of this study was to see if Creamer, Winston, and Miller’s (2001)

DSAAM was consistent with the understandings of student affairs practitioners; to better

understand perceptions of student affairs work by practitioners at all levels; to explore the

self-reported beliefs, skills, and behavior of student affairs professionals in reference to

the educator, leader, and manager domains; and, finally, to determine the preferred

methods of professional development.

Operational Definitions

Since this study, in part, sought to test Creamer, Winston, and Miller’s (2001)

DSAAM, I used their terms and definitions unless otherwise noted. It is important to

8

note that many terms in this study are viewed interchangeably by some individuals or to

be subsumed in the definition of another term (e.g. one person may view administration

and management as synonymous, while another person may view management as

different from administration, but a part of leadership).

Student affairs: “Although fully integrated in higher education, student affairs

programs and services function professionally as a distinguishable set of

educational and management activities that occur mostly, though not exclusively,

outside the formal classroom” (Creamer, Winston, & Miller, 2001, p. 4).

“Student affairs” is used in a general sense, not referring to a department or

division, and can be considered synonymous with student personnel work and

student services.

Roles of student affairs professionals: used synonymously with the domains (e.g.,

educator, leader, and manager).

Education: Student affairs is historically based in pragmatism—a philosophy that

individuals, knowledge, and action are linked such that the primary foundation of

knowledge is found in experience and that the uniqueness of an individual person

and his or her own self-direction is preeminent. Therefore, teaching—directly

and indirectly, through the creation of environments which facilitate experiences

of self-direction—is at the core of education for student affairs professionals.

Leadership: the creation and/or support of a vision through the marshaling of

resources to shape the college or university environment to achieve that vision.

9

Management: providing oversight of functions through human resources,

budgeting and planning, evaluation and assessment, and use of information

systems and technology.

Beliefs: the extent to which an individual considers a domain, role, or

characteristic to be important in student affairs work.

Skills: the extent to which an individual has the ability to perform a domain, role,

or characteristic in student affairs work.

Behavior: the extent to which an individual regularly performs a domain, role, or

characteristic in student affairs work.

Research Questions

The overarching question for the study was How do practitioners in the field of

student affairs view their roles?

The research questions for this study were as follows:

Do practitioners in the field of student affairs perceive their roles positively?

To what extent do practitioners in the field of student affairs report that they

believe each of the (three) domains of student affairs administration is important?

To what extent do practitioners in the field of student affairs report that they have

the skills necessary to fulfill the (three) domains of student affairs administration?

To what extent do practitioners in the field of student affairs report that their

behavior fulfills the (three) domains of student affairs administration?

What forms of professional development are used by practitioners in the field of

student affairs regarding the (three) domains of student affairs administration?

10

The independent variables for this study were institutional type, level in the field, and

method of entry into the field of student affairs.

Significance of the Study

Creating professional development and training opportunities for student affairs

professionals is a vital responsibility of supervisors (Winston & Creamer, 1998) and

professional associations (Janosik, Carpenter, & Creamer, 2006a). Therefore, it is

important to understand how student affairs administrators view their roles, skills, and

behavior as practitioners.

With the DSAAM, Creamer, Winston, and Miller (2001) asserted that a

professional student affairs administrator must perform in all three domains—educator,

leader, and manager—to be effective. Research results from this study—specifically any

disparities and discrepancies in the beliefs, skills, and behaviors of a wide variety of

individuals working in student affairs—will allow student affairs departments and

divisions, as well as professional associations, to address more effectively the needs of

the student affairs profession by providing more appropriate professional development

opportunities and initiatives for people working in the field. This study also shed light on

the most common approaches to professional development and training for education,

leadership, and management, which can inform the offerings of professional associations.

Alternatively, this study revealed very little difference among graduates of master’s level

preparation programs in student affairs in reference to their self-reported beliefs, skills,

and behavior regarding the three essential roles of a student affairs professional as

articulated by Creamer, Winston, and Miller (2001). Further, method of entry into the

field was not found to result in significant differences in responses and thus may inform

11

hiring practices and socialization in student affairs divisions depending on the method of

entry of a professional into the field. Finally, the institutional variable provided a better

understanding of the growing homogeneity within the field of student affairs.

12

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The following review of relevant literature informed my research study based on

Creamer, Winston, and Miller’s (2001) DSAAM, which asserts that the responsibilities of

a student affairs professional can be categorized in terms of three domains, roles, or

dimensions: educator, leader, and manager. The first section of this literature review

provides an overview of student affairs and emphasizes how the field has defined itself as

well as where definitions and boundaries are undefined or fluid. This opening section,

which served to ground the study with an understanding of the profession, is followed by

three distinct sections corresponding to the three primary domains of student affairs

professionals: education, leadership, and management. Each of these sections will

combine a short summary of the literature on which Creamer, Winston, and Miller (2001)

based their model with a brief overview of other literature relevant to each domain. This

review of literature for each domain both grounded the instrument design and served as a

means of exploring the validity of the model being tested. Lastly, because student affairs

professionals’ perceptions of their roles have significant implications for their

professional development, this chapter concludes with a review of literature regarding

professional development in student affairs.

Overview of Student Affairs

Historians of higher education and student affairs have long pointed to the

German model of higher education, which became increasingly influential in U.S. higher

13

education in the late 19th

and early 20th

centuries, as the impetus for student affairs as a

profession (Rhatigan, 2009; Rudolph, 1990). This predominant model resulted in the

specialization of faculty and increasing enrollments in higher education, thus stretching

the capacity of faculty to address appropriately the vital functions of out-of-class learning

(Hamrick, Evans, & Schuh, 2002; Rudolph, 1990). New forms of organization and

specialization were needed to handle the growth and increasing complexity of college life

(Rudolph, 1990).

In the field’s infancy, student affairs staff members had tentative and unclear

responsibilities (Rhatigan, 2009). “The deans were an effort to maintain collegiate and

human values in an atmosphere of increasing scholarship and specialization” (Rudolph,

1990, p. 435). The desire to support and shape student life outside of the classroom with

an official professional framework emerged with the college student personnel movement

in the 1920s (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997).

Student affairs first articulated itself as a profession through The Student

Personnel Point of View (SPPV) in 1937 (American Council on Education, 1937). In this

seminal document, early professionals asserted that the educational mission of the

university should be paramount, and they never saw themselves as standing apart from,

or in competition with, the curriculum (Hamrick, Evans, & Schuh, 2002). The field has

continued to define itself with the 1949 Student Personnel Point of View (American

Council on Education, 1949) and various other documents throughout the decades,

including Tomorrow’s Higher Education (Miller & Prince, 1976), Student Learning

Imperative (ACPA Senior Scholars, 2008; American College Personnel Association,

1994), and Learning Reconsidered (Keeling, 2004). Textbooks on student affairs also

14

serve to define the field (McClellan & Stringer, 2009; Rentz, 1996; Schuh, Jones, &

Harper, 2011). The Council for the Advancement of Standards for Student Services/

Development Programs was founded in 1979 for the purpose of developing and

promulgating standards of professional practice for the field of student affairs (Council

for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2009). This cooperative

professional organization, renamed the Council for the Advancement of Standards in

Higher Education (CAS) in 1992, now focuses on defining the standards of practice.

Perhaps most importantly, the two major generalist professional associations, NASPA

and ACPA, as well as other generalist professional associations such as the Southern

Association of College Student Affairs (SACSA) and dozens of specialty functional area

associations, actively define the field through statements, reports, and other publications.

Notably, despite this wide variety of professional organizations and activities, the

profession has remained unswervingly committed to two concepts: the development of

the whole person and the support of the academic mission of colleges and university

(Nuss, 2003).

Paradigms.

Over the past century, there have been three paradigms for student affairs that

have affected how student affairs professionals view and conduct their work: services,

development, and learning (Ender, Newton, & Caple, 1996; Manning, Kinzie, & Schuh,

2006). The three paradigms are similar to the three themes found in an analysis of

guiding philosophical statements of the student affairs profession (Evans & Reason,

2001).

15

From the outset (i.e., the 1937 Student Personnel Point of View), the student

affairs profession has maintained that the education of college students should focus on

cognitive understanding and knowledge as well as maturational development. However,

until the early 1970s, the field largely operated as a service provider (Evans & Reason,

2001). The student services operational paradigm is rooted in the assumption that those

working in student affairs are primarily concerned with provision of services to students.

Student affairs divisions operating under this paradigm are typically a very loosely

coordinated set of autonomous departments and offices that offer individual services to

customers (Manning, Kinzie, & Schuh, 2006).

The theory base of student affairs really began in the 1960s when practitioners

began to recognize that student development could be enhanced through manipulation of

campus environments with an understanding of students’ readiness to be challenged in a

supportive environment (Sanford, 1966). Theoretical frameworks of student

development were created surrounding students’ cognitive development (King &

Kitchner, 1994; Perry, 1999; Piaget, 1950); psychosocial and identity development

(Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Erikson, 1980; Josselson, 1996); person–environment

interaction (Moos, 1976; Strange, 2003); personality and learning styles (Holland, 1997;

Kolb, 1984); and a breadth of application theories (Astin, 1984; Schlossberg, 1989). The

Tomorrow’s Higher Education (Miller & Prince, 1976) project defined student

development as the focus of the student affairs profession and subsequently endorsed an

operational paradigm of the profession. Student affairs professionals working under an

operational paradigm coordinate and offer services in a way that is intentionally

educational for students and their development (Manning, Kinzie, & Schuh, 2006).

16

In recent years, there has been a growing focus on student learning with a major

impetus being the Student Learning Imperative (American College Personnel

Association, 1994). This document called for student learning to be the central focus of

the student affairs profession. Learning does not know the bounds of a classroom; in

fact, the overall paradigm shift from teaching–centered to learning–centered higher

education began in earnest in the mid-1990s (Barr & Tagg, 1995). Learning also played

a central role in Learning Reconsidered (Keeling, 2004) and the more recent Today’s

Vision for Student Affairs set forth by the Task Force on the Future of Student Affairs

(2009). Student affairs professionals working under a student learning paradigm focus

primarily on facilitating student learning through collaborative means (Manning, Kinzie,

& Schuh, 2006).

Through joint statements and reports of the professional associations, as well as

texts and scholarly articles, leaders in the student affairs field have articulated a

philosophy of student affairs work that has progressed and evolved over time. Woodard,

Love, and Komives (2000) analyzed key documents throughout the history of the student

affairs profession and found a strong belief in holistic education; the uniqueness,

potential, dignity, and worth of individuals; student responsibility for learning and

behavior; and learning occurring in diverse ways and places. However, research has

found that divisions of student affairs across the country may operate in any of the

paradigms though the majority of chief student affairs officers viewed the student

learning paradigm as the ideal (Davis, 2002).

17

Paradoxical lack of definition.

While student affairs has defined itself in many ways over the past century, there

are still factors which contribute to a persisting and paradoxical lack of definition of the

profession. Some of these factors stem from the interdisciplinary nature of student

affairs. The profession emerged simultaneously from counseling and educational

administration, which resulted in a continual quest for the profession to define itself in

relationship to other professions (Klein, 1989). International and regional professional

associations for the general profession of student affairs exist, but so do a myriad of

professional associations for functional areas within student affairs. Clement and Rickard

(1992) acknowledged that the growth of specialty areas has been useful and necessary but

lamented the resulting fragmentation of the field. Further, there is no universal

agreement on exactly which functional areas are considered “student affairs,” and

organizational structures vary widely on college and university campuses (Hamrick,

Evans, & Schuh, 2002; Manning, Kinzie, & Schuh, 2006). Functional areas that are

considered part of student affairs on one campus may not be on the next.

For this reason, Sweeney (1995) posited a challenging question to the counseling

profession, a parent profession of student affairs: Is student affairs truly a unified

profession with specializations, or more accurately, “a federation of separate disciplines

using similar knowledge, skills, and research?” (p. 123). Given the proliferation of

specialty areas and corresponding functional area professional associations, Blimling and

Whitt (1999), as well as Bloland, Stamatakos, and Rogers (1994), have made similar

assertions about student affairs.

18

Method of entry into student affairs.

The profession’s struggle for identity is perhaps linked to the diverse methods of

entry into student affairs practice. There are three methods of entry into the field of

student affairs: professional preparation programs, allied professions, and other avenues

(Winston & Creamer, 1997). Of the three, both allied professions and other avenues have

the most potential to exacerbate the profession’s paradoxical lack of definition.

Columbia University’s Teacher’s College began the first professional preparation

program in student affairs related work in 1914 (Nuss, 2003). Today, professional

preparation programs exist at over 135 universities in the United States, based primarily

in counseling or educational administration (National Association of Student Personnel

Administrators, 2011). The method of entry into the field that is assumed to be dominant

is for individuals to make a decision to enter the field and, immediately following their

bachelor’s degree, complete a graduate preparation program, and begin working in entry

level positions in student affairs. Much of the literature in student affairs makes allusions

to this assumed dominant method of entry without much commentary on other methods

of entry into the field (Evans & Phelps Tobin, 1998; Tull, Hirt, & Saunders, 2009).

Sandeen (2001b) asserted that most people working in the field have now completed

graduate programs; however, no research is cited to support this claim. Similarly, Collins

(2009) proposed a model of socialization into student affairs which takes for granted that

practitioners have completed graduate degrees and entered the field, either through this

assumed dominant method or a conscious decision to pursue a career in student affairs

after completing a master’s degree in another field. At times, however, the literature in

19

the student affairs field will acknowledge other methods of entry into the profession,

primarily as allied professionals or “falling into” the field.

Allied professionals are individuals who work within student affairs and do not

have a graduate degree in student affairs or a related field, but their degrees are in line

with the work that they are doing (e.g., a person with a public health degree working with

alcohol and drug education or someone with a recreation and leisure degree working with

intramurals) (Winston & Creamer, 1997). Current literature is not clear as to whether

allied professionals identify with the student affairs profession though this does appear to

be an entry point for some individuals who subsequently move to positions of increasing

and broad responsibility (Tull, Hirt, & Saunders, 2009).

Some have termed the unintentional career decision to work in student affairs

“falling into” student affairs or accepting a position without career intentions (Bryan,

1977). These individuals often tell stories of discovering student affairs while getting a

master’s degree in an unrelated field or simply applying for a job at a local university.

Young (1998) posited that the desire to help people is the impetus for many people who

come to work in student affairs. Logically, many allied professionals may fall into

student affairs as well. Other avenues into student affairs include attaining a job within

student affairs at entry level without an advanced degree as well as mid-career moves into

student affairs. For some, student affairs becomes a career while for others it is a

temporary stop until they figure out what they want to do permanently (Bender, 2009).

One of the primary reasons individuals are able to “fall into” student affairs is that some

employers are primarily looking for personal qualities and human relations skills

20

(Burkard, Cole, Ott, & Stoflet, 2005; Carpenter & Carpenter, 2009), and there is not

currently any method of credentialing student affairs professionals.

Some professions, such as medicine, counseling, social work, and teaching, have

requirements for continuing professional education. No such method exists for attaining

and tracking professional development credits in student affairs despite studies that have

found a perceived need and interest in a system to do so (Dean, Woodard, & Cooper,

2007; Janosik, Carpenter, & Creamer, 2006b). Though some voices in the field of

student affairs have called for certification and/or continuing professional education

requirements for student affairs professionals, this has not yet occurred (Janosik,

Carpenter, & Creamer, 2006a).

Though professional graduate programs exist and are increasing in number,

student affairs remains a profession into which there are multiple points of entry.

Individuals may enter the field at any level, with or without an advanced degree in

student affairs or a related field. Thus, there is diverse preparation, training, and

socialization into the field of student affairs (Kuk & Cuyjet, 2009).

Summary.

Student affairs, as a profession, has grown and evolved over the last century and

is continuing to define itself. However, the boundaries of the field remain undefined as

do methods of entry into the field. In the midst of the paradox of definition and lack of

definition, there a few frameworks (Brown, 1972; Garland, 1985) that have been

proposed throughout the history of student affairs to help practitioners understand the

roles of student affairs professionals. The DSAAM (Creamer, Winston, & Miller, 2001)

21

is composed of the roles of educator, leader, and manager. The next three sections of this

literature review explore each of these roles individually.

Educator

Introduction of educator domain.

Creamer, Winston, and Miller (2001, p. 8) conceptualized the educator role of a

student affairs administrator as the following:

The fundamental domain of student affairs administration as it enters the twenty-

first century is education, carried out in an integrated and collaborative manner

with faculty and staff members from other major institutional organizational units.

Student affairs administration is conducted within institutions of higher learning

with rich traditions of transmitting knowledge and culture to students through

conventional pedagogical modes, such as lecture, laboratory work, and library

research. Even though for most student affairs practitioners teaching occurs

outside the traditional classroom most of the time, nevertheless it is committed to

precisely the same purposes as the instruction occurring in the conventional

classroom. (Creamer, Winston, & Miller, 2001, p. 8)

To arrive at their conceptualization of the educator domain, the authors traced the history

of the student affairs profession, focusing on the 1937 Student Personnel Point of View

(American Council on Education, 1937) and the work of Lloyd-Jones and Smith (1954),

which argued that student affairs work was educational in a deeper sense than typical

classroom teaching. The changing relationship between students and institution is briefly

discussed by Creamer, Winston, and Miller (2001) and followed up with a synopsis of the

22

adoption of student development and the subsequent adoption of student learning

paradigms.

The philosophical foundation of student affairs is rooted in a short discussion of

Dewey’s (1938) pragmatism. Pragmatism centers on the belief that individuals,

knowledge, and action are linked such that the primary foundation of knowledge is

experience, and the uniqueness of an individual person is preeminent. Creamer, Winston,

and Miller (2001) later discussed the importance of understanding culture and applying

Senge’s (1990) learning organization concept to student affairs practice as well as the

concept of teaching, grounded in the work of Baxter Magolda (2001), and the

applicability of Chickering and Gamson’s (1991) seven principles of good practice for

teachers. Creamer, Winston, and Miller (2001) concluded with a litany of ways in which

student affairs administrators teach or have an educational role on campuses: lecturing,

demonstrating, coaching, facilitating, learning, researching, evaluating, and structuring.

(For a more extensive understanding of the literature base of the educator domain of

Creamer, Winston, and Miller’s [2001] model, refer to pages 8–15 of their chapter as

well as Part IV: Teaching and Inquiring of The Professional Student Affairs

Administrator (Winston, Creamer, & Miller, 2001).) The remainder of this section of the

literature review will explore the concept of education and the role of an educator in

higher education and student affairs. This literature review is intended to serve as a

foundation for affirming or refuting the conceptualization of an educator in the DSAAM.

Higher education.

In order to affirm or refute the conceptualization of an educator in the DSAAM, I

must first explore the concept of education and the role of an educator in higher

23

education and student affairs. Clearly, the primary purpose of a college or university is to

educate students, to provide opportunities for learning and development both inside and

outside a classroom. This learning and development is for both individual and communal

purposes. To provide an education effectively, according to Bogue and Aper (2000), it is

vital to understand the developmental and philosophical underpinnings as well as the

philosophical tensions surrounding education. The philosophical tensions inherent in

today’s education are “culture versus utility; depth versus breadth; student versus subject;

election versus prescription; mind versus body; rationality versus morality; theory versus

application; and integration versus specialization” (Bogue & Aper, 2000). Educators

must have a clear philosophy of education and how it impacts their teaching and learning

(Moore & Marsh, 2007).

Philosophies of education.

Brubacher and Rudy (1997) provided a conceptualization of the philosophical

approaches to higher education that has greatly influenced the enterprise today and thus

shaped what it means to be an educator. Mental discipline is the philosophical

underpinning of liberal education. As a result, liberal educators prized intellectual and

theoretical subjects, as well as Latin and Greek, and maintained that mental abilities, such

as memory, reason, and imagination, can be transferred from studies to any occupation in

life (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Budd, 2009). There was also a perceived moral

dimension to the subject matter of liberal education in that students were taught

persistence and courage.

Over time, several other educational approaches developed in response to these

foundational principles. Humanists, for example, attacked the notion of transferability as

24

a means of including subjects which had no direct use in professional life (Brubacher &

Rudy, 1997) and instead advocated a more utilitarian approach to education. This

approach was given life with the passage of the Morrill Act of 1862, which created

agricultural and mechanical colleges across the country. Rationalism developed in

reaction to humanism due not only to the decreasing influence of mental discipline in

education but also to the economic depression of the 1930s and the growth of

communism (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). The central thesis of rationalism was that there

are perennial and enduring truths which must be imparted to students by immersing them

in the great books, not just select knowledge or mental discipline: “Education implies

teaching. Teaching implies knowledge. Knowledge is truth. Truth is everywhere the

same. Hence education should be the same everywhere” (Hutchins, 1936, p. 66).

Pragmatism, on the other hand, did not see imparting perennial truths through

immersion in the wisdom of the ages as the ideal method of education (Brubacher &

Rudy, 1997). Rather, Dewey and his colleagues argued that concepts could not be taught

apart from their context and that experience was a key element of the educational process

(Bode, 1935; Dewey, 1938). “Value-free” higher education, which is rooted in the

German university model, was another philosophical approach to higher education.

Adherents to this approach asserted that truth must be free of values and unaffected by

the personal bias of the investigator or teacher (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997).

Throughout the philosophical shifts in higher education, there were also shifts and

changes in methods of education. Much of the literature of the time centered on the

subject of how an educator motivates a student to learn. Self-education in college was

seen as the true education (Lowell, 1930) and, therefore, creating in a student the desire

25

to put forth the effort for education was part of an educator’s role (Brubacher & Rudy,

1997). Others thought that students should be genuinely interested in the subject matter

(Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Weingartner, 1992), and thus the elective system was born

into American higher education as a method of educating through the provision of

choices which were meaningful and interesting to the students.

Alternatively, helping students to understand a unity of knowledge and

interconnectedness between classes and subject matter became increasingly popular in

higher education throughout the 20th

century (Budd, 2009; Klein, 1989). This resulted in

the formation of interdisciplinary colleges, courses, and even survey courses.

Furthermore, individualized curriculum—in which students’ interests and abilities were

initially assessed so that educators could suggest a personalized set of activities, courses,

and readings for each student’s exploration—ensured that each student would be

challenged according to his or her own needs and deficiencies (Brubacher & Rudy,

1997).

In the 1960s, the role of an educator became that of making the curriculum and

subject matter relevant to students. An educator must stoke students’ primary motivation

by showing the direct relationship or connection between the learning tasks and the

personal longings and ambitions of a student (Meiklejohn, 1932). Dewey’s problem

method became popular in inciting the interests of students through presenting students

with complex world problems to consider. Activity, or the ability to apply knowledge,

came to be seen as not only a means of spurring on student interest but also as a mode of

understanding knowledge more deeply (Katz & Henry, 1988). Thus providing

meaningful activity became a part of an educator’s role.

26

Students can learn in many ways, without a designated teacher, from watching

others, experiencing, and seeking out knowledge on their own. In contrast to this sort of

self-led learning, formal education is structured in some way and has a cumulative nature

(Budd, 2009; Neusner & Neusner, 2000; Weingartner, 1992). A teacher creates

conditions which determine whether or not student learning will take place (Weingartner,

1992). Teaching in the classroom is typically thought of as the primary source of

learning in higher education (Weingartner, 1992). Teaching in a classroom setting may

include lecturing or facilitating discussion. For example, discussion in and of itself does

not qualify as an educational experience; discussion must be married to reflection,

analysis, and/or critique (Neusner & Neusner, 2000; Weingartner, 1992). Stating what

one thinks, in oral or written form, can clarify what one actually knows and believes, but

it is in the act of interpreting the construction of arguments and what others have stated

that discussion becomes a means of education (Budd, 2009; Neusner & Neusner, 2000).

An educator must consider learners, not only where they are starting from—so as to not

talk over their heads—but also as the learning process progresses, checking for

comprehension and connection of relationships (Budd, 2009; Katz & Henry, 1988).

Rather than simply imparting a conclusion to students, an educator should help students

understand the process of inquiry or the sequence of an argument leading to a conclusion

and thus how concepts are interconnected (American Association for the Advancement of

Science, 1990; Weingartner, 1992).

Providing information to help students make educational choices is also a

fundamental part of teaching (Benjamin, Earnest, Gruenewald, & Arthur, 2007).

Guidance, supervision, constructive criticism, and evaluation are hallmarks of teaching

27

(Neusner & Neusner, 2000; Weingartner, 1992). Budd (2009) argued that, though

conceptualizing a teacher as a guide has become popular, no one word or metaphor can

fully capture everything teaching entails; at different times, lecture, discussion,

application, and reflection are all methods of educating students.

Through all of these philosophical shifts, no coherent central philosophy persisted

in American higher education. However, aspects of different philosophies can be seen in

higher education today and in what various individuals believe it means to be an

educator. An influential educational philosophy, which was emerging as Brubacher and

Rudy last revised their volume, is the learner-centered paradigm, which builds on some

aspects of the earlier philosophies and methods. The learner-centered paradigm

introduced by Barr and Tagg (1995) has gained wide credence in higher education

(Harris & Cullen, 2010; Smith, 2010). The paradigm emphasizes student learning and

construction of knowledge as the means of education rather than teacher-delivered

knowledge. At its core, the learner-centered paradigm does not assume that students are

all the same and that they assimilate knowledge and understanding at the same rate but

instead focuses on the individual learner and assessing when he or she has achieved

specific outcomes (Harris & Cullen, 2010).

Individual backgrounds and experiences are believed to influence the learning

process, which is an inherently collaborative endeavor. Constructivist philosophy is

influential in the learner-centered paradigm, which views knowledge as constructed by

the learner rather than merely received, a process which is greatly influenced by prior

knowledge and experience as well as interaction with others (von Glaserfeld, 1996).

Central to education, then, is fostering collaboration and social learning opportunities as

28

well as problem solving, contextual relevance, and active engagement (Harris & Cullen,

2010).

In learner-centered education, design, and stewardship of the learning

environment is the teacher’s responsibility, and learners are in control of their own

learning. Educators should encourage and support the natural curiosity of learners

(Weimer, 2002). The teacher’s role in the learner-centered paradigm is that of a guide or

facilitator of learning (Weimer, 2002). As “community” is the metaphor for a learner-

centered learning environment, the educator has prime responsibility for fostering a sense

of community among learners (Harris & Cullen, 2010).

Therefore, involvement and engagement in the learning activities are central to

the educational process (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2005). To foster involvement and

engagement, teachers must convey authenticity (Cranton, 2006) and engender trust (Bain,

2004) from the students. An essential role of a teacher in the learner-centered paradigm

is providing information to help students make educational choices (Benjamin, et al.,

2007). Finally, crucial to educating students within a learner-centered environment is

assessing and evaluating student learning (Harris & Cullen, 2010).

Education in student affairs.

Student affairs professionals must understand and acknowledge the educational

philosophies, values, and beliefs they hold (Moore & Marsh, 2007). Further, Bogue and

Aper (2000) asserted that understanding the developmental purposes for higher education

(Chickering & Reisser, 1993) is essential to providing an education effectively.

Understanding developmental purposes as well as the process of development is

considered a strength of the student affairs profession (Benjamin, et al., 2007).

29

Student affairs is historically based in pragmatism—a belief that individuals,

knowledge, and action are linked—such that the primary foundation of knowledge is

found in experience and that the uniqueness of an individual and his or her self-direction

is preeminent (Creamer, Winston, & Miller, 2001). Therefore, teaching, directly and

indirectly, through the creation of environments that facilitate experiences of self-

direction is at the core of education for student affairs professionals.

A principle of good practice in student affairs is the building of supportive and

inclusive communities (Blimling & Whitt, 1999), which is a hallmark of the learning-

centered paradigm (Harris & Cullen, 2010). Blimling and Whitt (1999) argued that

student affairs professionals play an essential educational role if the learning-centered

paradigm is accurate. In the learning-centered paradigm, the purpose of college or

university is the creation of communities and experiences that are conductive to

collaboration and knowledge construction. One possibility is the structuring of peer

group environments in ways that support the achievement of educational goals (Barr &

Tagg, 1995).

Student life staff teach by serving as an example (Neusner & Neusner, 2000).

While providing services and helping students, people can teach students simultaneously

(Neusner & Neusner, 2000). However, for student affairs professionals teaching requires

careful planning and preparation as well as an acknowledgement of the indeterminate and

uncertain nature of the task (Moore & Marsh, 2007). Knowledge and subject mastery are

requisite as is the ability to communicate (Moore & Marsh, 2007). Another principle of

good practice articulated by Blimling and Whitt (1999) is to set and communicate high

expectations for student learning. Communicating expectations, as noted by Moore and

30

Marsh (2007), can take the form of trusting students with responsibility. A corollary of

high expectations is constructive feedback and evaluation (Blimling & Whitt, 1999).

Connotations can often degrade our perceptions of the seriousness of educational

activities. “Orientation, advising, counseling, when stripped of the connotations that

have become routine, are serious activities, presupposing neither stupidity nor disease in

those served—only a certain ignorance and relative immaturity” (Weingartner, 1992, p.

114). Weingartner argued that orientation, advising, and counseling are educational in

that they help students comprehend and manage the breadth of educational choices in a

college or university. For education to occur, a certain level of physical and

psychological well-being must also be maintained (Weingartner, 1992).

Student affairs must provide services that are educational for the student as well

as supportive of the overall educational enterprise, explicitly or implicitly. Motivating

student involvement, sensitivity, and wisdom is also part of teaching (Moore & Marsh,

2007). Extracurricular activities, for example, provide a place for learning and

experimentation that is coupled with supervision, guidance, and the removal of some of

the more disastrous consequences that might happen in the real world (Weingartner,

1992). Student affairs staff must not only provide a wide variety of educational choices

and opportunities but also motivate students through encouragement; harnessing

enthusiasm and knowledge; and taking advantage of those educational choices and

opportunities (Weingartner, 1992). Another principle of good practice in student affairs

is the forging of educational partnerships (Blimling & Whitt, 1999), partially because this

demonstrates the interconnectedness of knowledge and learning to students. Overall,

student affairs professionals must create a supportive environment for exploration.

31

Leader

Introduction of leader domain.

In their model, Creamer, Winston, and Miller (2001) conceptualized the

leadership role of a student affairs administrator as the following:

Student affairs administrators are designated institutional leaders by virtue of their

formal placement in the organizational structure. They also serve to create and

sustain visions for the campus community and act to shape institutional

environments to achieve these visions. (p. 15)

Creamer, Winston, and Miller (2001) viewed leadership, at its core, as the creation and/or

support of a vision through the marshaling of resources to shape the college or university

environment to achieve that vision.

To arrive at their conceptualization of leadership, the authors paired a discussion

of Caple and Newton’s (1991) seven propositions of leadership in higher education with

the concept of a learning organization (Senge, 1990). Leadership in a knowledge-based

society is conceived of as fundamentally different from leadership in the industrial era

(Allen & Cherrey, 2000), which means that leadership is fundamentally about

relationships and networking to facilitate the exchange of knowledge (Allen & Cherrey,

2000; Komives, Lucas, & McMahon, 1998). Creamer, Winston, and Miller (2001) then

tied the ethical principles of the profession of student affairs to the role of leadership.

The authors then identified the foundational elements and behavioral characteristics of

leadership, based on the work of Clement and Rickard (1992) and Yukl (1998),

respectively. Some of the behavioral characteristics, adapted in part from Yukl (1998),

are planning and organizing, motivating and inspiring, delegating, managing conflict, and

32

networking. (For a more extensive understanding of the literature base of the leader

domain of Creamer, Winston, and Miller’s [2001] model, refer to pages 15–20 of their

chapter as well Part V: Leading and Visioning of The Professional Student Affairs

Administrator (Winston, Creamer, & Miller, 2001).) In the remainder of this section of

the literature review on leadership, I will explore the concept of leadership and the role of

a leader both in general and in the context of student affairs. This literature review is

intended to serve as a foundation for affirming or refuting the conceptualization of an

educator in the DSAAM.

General leadership literature.

Leadership is popular; it is a zeitgeist to which people aspire. With a plethora of

professional literature, workshops, institutes, and academic and professional books on the

subject, the notion of leadership permeates American culture, higher education, and

virtually every professional and academic field (Sandeen, 2001a). The terms “leadership”

and “leader” permeate mission statements, program descriptions, and job descriptions.

Leadership is not, however, a new concept. The term “leader” first entered the English

language in the 1300s, but the term “leadership” only emerged in the 1800s and only then

as a reference to political influence (Komives, Lucas, & McMahon, 2007).

Bennis’ (1959) observation over fifty years ago still resonates today: “Always it

seems, the concept of leadership eludes us or turns up in another form to taunt us again

with its slipperiness and complexity. So we have invented an endless proliferation of

terms to deal with it… and still the concept is not sufficiently defined” (p.259).

Birnbaum (2011) recently argued that “calling for leadership is easy. But despite

thousands of essays, research studies, and other scholarly and practical works, the fact

33

remains that little is actually known about the phenomenon we refer to as ‘leadership’”

(p. 308). Though hundreds of definitions of leadership exist, many publications about

leadership do not actually contain a precise definition of the concept (Komives, Lucas, &

McMahon, 2007).

This difficulty in defining leadership may be due in part to social construction of

the perspectives and concepts of leadership, which persist concurrent to new evolutions

and conceptualizations of leadership (Komives, 2011). Unexamined assumptions of

leadership theories can contribute to confusion, a point which Rost (1991) illustrated by

combining many of the pervading assumptions of leadership into a single satirical and

cynical definition of leadership: “Leadership is great men and women with certain

preferred traits influencing followers to do what the leaders wish in order to achieve

group/organizational goals that reflect excellence defined as some kind of higher level of

effectiveness” (p. 180). Another factor contributing to the difficulty of defining

leadership is the use of equally imprecise but related and overlapping terms in the

conceptualization and usage of the term leadership (Yukl, 2010). Using the terms

management, administration, control, supervision, power, and authority, for example, can

provide as much confusion as clarity when trying to understand and define leadership.

Leadership is inherently interdisciplinary (Klein, 1989; Komives, Lucas, &

McMahon, 2007), and research has been conducted regarding leadership in a wide variety

of fields. Interest shows no signs of abating (Yukl, 2010). The disagreements over

leadership are so widespread that some researchers have questioned its usefulness as a

construct to be studied (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003). Yukl (2010) noted that, in a

review of leadership research, he found most conceptions of leadership share little in

34

common other than assumption that leadership is a process of intentional influence

exerted to accomplish something. Further, he found that deep disagreement exists over

the identification of leaders and processes of leadership, especially regarding the nature

of influence (i.e., exertion on, intended purpose, the manner of, and the outcomes of

influence). In general, within American society and culture, a highly romanticized and

heroic view of leadership dominates (Bligh, Kohles, & Pillai, 2011; Meindl, Ehrlich, &

Dukerich, 1985). Therefore, faith in leadership lies in the potential, not necessarily the

actual ability or effectiveness of people in roles of leadership. This view affects not only

what people believe leaders are able to accomplish but also the general effects leaders

may have on organizations and life.

Authors have conceptualized different ways of grouping the leadership

approaches of the last century. Hackman and Johnson (1996) identified three themes of

leadership definitions: The first centers on the exercise of influence, the second centers

on group context, and the third emphasizes the collaborative nature of the leader/follower

relationship. Yukl (2010) alternatively offered a way of classifying leadership theories

based on the level of conceptualization or the constructs used to understand leaders and

the influence they have on others. The levels of conceptualization are described as the

individual level, didactic level, group level, or organizational level. Other attempts to

organize the literature center on either the type of variable most emphasized in a theory

(e.g., characteristics of the leader, followers, or situation) or the types of leadership

characteristics (e.g., traits, behavior, and power) (Yukl (2010). Birnbaum (2011) drew on

the work of Yukl (1981) and Bass (1985) to articulate five basic approaches to leadership

35

theory over the last century: trait theories, power and influence theories, behavioral

theories, contingency theories, and symbolic and cultural theories.

Trait theory is one of the earliest approaches for studying leadership and is based

on the idea that some people are born with natural leadership traits that are not possessed

by the general population (Komives, 2011). This type of leadership theory is concerned

with understanding and identifying those natural leadership traits which comprise an

individual’s ability to take on and succeed in positions of leadership (Birnbaum, 2011).

The trait approach was very popular in the 1930s and -40s and waned when research

failed to demonstrate any causal connection between traits and leadership outcomes.

However, there has been a resurgence of trait research in recent years focusing on values

relevant to ethical leadership (Yukl, 2010).

Power and influence theories conceptualize leadership in terms of where power is

derived from, the amount of power available to leaders, and the ways in which leaders

exert influence over others through interactions that are either unilateral or reciprocal

(Birnbaum, 2011). Power and influence theories are largely based on research that

assumes the power and influence are exerted only by the leader, without much

consideration for the followers or constituents (Kellerman, 2008; Yukl, 2010).

Behavioral theories are primarily concerned with the things that leaders do

(Birnbaum, 2011). Behavioral theories became popular in the 1950s as enthusiasm for

the trait approach waned. Research and literature on behavioral theories follow the

patterns of activity in managerial roles and identify effective leadership behavior

(Komives, Lucas, & McMahon, 2007; Yukl, 2010). A major criticism of behavioral

36

approaches is that they ignore the situational variables and group processes (Komives,

2011).

To understand leadership, contingency theories focus on the importance of factors

unique to a situation (e.g., the nature of a task, followers, the external environment)

(Birnbaum, 2011). Contingency theories, sometimes referred to as situational leadership,

posit that in any given situation (a) the situation determines who will emerge as a leader,

(b) leaders will act differently, and (c) requirements for leadership behavior vary, leading

to criticisms of ambiguity (Komives, Lucas, & McMahon, 2007; Yukl, 2010).

A final category of leadership theories is symbolic and cultural theories. This

category of theories assumes that leadership is socially attributed, intertwined with the

culture, and a way for people to understand the causality of outcomes and, in doing so,

make sense of an equivocal, changing, and increasingly complicated world (Birnbaum,

2011; Schein, 1992). Komives (2011) described these theories as systems theories and

noted that their holistic approach makes results difficult to measure. There is an

increasing movement toward integrative approaches to leadership theories, in which

multiple leadership variables (e.g., traits, process of influence, behavior, outcomes, and

situational) are combined in a theory (Yukl, 2010).

Leadership in higher education.

Leadership in higher education has historically been associated with college and

university presidents, especially those who are credited with having made a distinct and

lasting imprint on the institution (e.g., Charles Eliot at Harvard University and Robert

Hutchins at the University of Chicago) (Clement & Rickard, 1992). Accordingly, the

literature and research traditionally focuses on college and university presidents.

37

Looking beyond the college or university presidency for leadership in higher education

can be difficult given the role of faculty and governance structures (Birnbaum, 2011;

Bolman & Deal, 2008). Power and authority, two key aspects of leadership in many

theories (Yukl, 2010), can look very different in organizations of higher education

compared to business. Although much can be learned from the leadership theories of

business and other industries, higher education has a distinctive combination of goals,

tasks, employees, governance structures, values, technologies, and history that makes it

unlike any other organization (Birnbaum, 1988; Bolman & Gallos, 2011). Leaders in

higher education, Birnbaum (2011) argued, are subject to constraints, both inside and

outside of the institution, that limit their effectiveness and result in highly symbolic rather

than instrumental roles. An in-depth look at how colleges and universities function

substantiates these arguments.

In his seminal work, Birnbaum (1988) proposed five models through which

practitioners can understand the organizational environment and resulting implications

for leadership. Depending on the size and mission of the institution, it may be either a

bureaucracy, collegium, political system, or organized anarchy, and all of these models

rely heavily upon positional leadership to function. Birnbaum (1988) also included the

concept of a cybernetic institution, which integrates the four lenses and is based on the

idea that self-correcting mechanisms exist to monitor the functioning of an institution and

provide negative feedback to participants when things are not going well. Leadership in

a cybernetic organization is focused on responding to disruptions as well as subtle

interventions and modifications rather than dramatic changes. Birnbaum (1988) made

this assertion in part because he viewed the transactional nature of leadership to be just as

38

important as the transformational nature. Transactional leadership theory is akin to

bartering; given the expectations of followers in any situation, a leader works to meet

their needs and emphasizes the means by which that is accomplished (Rogers, 2003).

Burns (1978) proposed transformational leadership theory as a type of leadership

which moves beyond transactions and the notion of exchange to actually changing the

expectations of followers by emphasizing the ends sought by the leader and tapping the

motivations of followers to change what they value in the ends or means. This is also

evident in later writings where he proposed social exchange theory as particularly suited

to understanding leadership in higher education due to the reciprocal relationship

whereby a leader provides needed services to the group in exchange for compliance and

approval with his or her demands (Birnbaum, 2011).

Bolman and Gallos (2011) offered a way of viewing college and university

leadership based on their translation of Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four organizational

frames for higher education. The structural frame becomes the challenge to build clarity

and capacity in colleges and universities with the role of a leader being that of an analyst

and architect who determines how work responsibilities are divided and subsequently

coordinated (Bolman & Gallos, 2011). The political frame becomes the challenge to

respect and manage differences in colleges and universities with the role of a leader being

that of a compassionate politician who determines the key players, what their interests

are, and how much power players are likely to wield in bargaining and negotiation

(Bolman & Gallos, 2011). The human resources frame becomes the challenge to foster a

caring and productive campus with the role of a leader being that of a servant, catalyst,

and coach. Lastly, the symbolic frame becomes the challenge to keep the faith and

39

celebrate the mission with the role of a leader being that of a prophet and artist who

builds on the past to create a vision for the future, leads by example, and leverages the

power in ritual and ceremony (Bolman & Gallos, 2011).

Leadership in student affairs.

In order to be successful leaders in a college or university, student affairs

professionals must understand leadership in the context of the unique governance

structure and culture of higher education as well as the channels for shaping institutional

opinions and decisions (Clement & Rickard, 1992). Caple and Newton (1991) offered

the following seven propositions for effective leadership in student affairs: has awareness

of responsibility within a system; has the ability to articulate and act in accordance with

identified values; acts in ways which demonstrate respect for people; acts as a model for

others; has the ability to determine when and how to assert influence and power; has

awareness of how the system relates with its large environment; and has ability to inspire

people to achieve higher levels of functioning.

Some of Caple and Newton’s (1991) propositions were affirmed and echoed in a

qualitative study of fifteen long-serving chief student affairs officers (Sandeen, 2001a).

Findings from this study included the importance of understanding institutional context;

having the courage to move forward in face of expected opposition and controversy;

using highly visible or traumatic events to advance policy and change; acting with

integrity; dealing with people fairly; gaining support of peers; and understanding culture

and who is influential (Sandeen, 2001a). Researchers concluded that there was no fixed

formula for successful leadership in student affairs as all of the study participants

40

exhibited highly personalized leadership styles and borrowed liberally and eclectically

from leadership theories (Sandeen, 2001a).

However, several leadership approaches—all in some way linked to

understanding culture, emphasizing the importance of relationships, and creating positive

outcomes or change—are recommended in the literature as ideal for student affairs.

Trimtabbing is a metaphor for leadership Love and Estanek (2004) offered as particularly

apt for understanding leadership outside of positional authority. A trimtab is the small

rudder on a ship which serves to direct the main rudder which in turn steers the ship with

little effort, which is akin to being behind the scenes where policy is written to be most

influential, not simply approving policy. This requires an understanding of the dynamics

of a college or university in order to find places of greatest influence, which are not

necessarily in the form of titles. Collaborative leadership is articulated as ideal for

student affairs because leadership is viewed as a process in which a group of people

endeavor together to foster change and transformation, a hallmark of student affairs

(Astin & Astin, 2000; Rogers, 2003). Pervasive leadership differs in that it is

characterized by individually generated relationships, interactions, and actions between

the people throughout an institution. These relationships are all focusing on struggling

together to exert influence, foster organizational learning, and achieve positive changes

which are intended to serve and benefit the common good of the college or university

(Love & Estanek, 2004). The Social Change Model of Leadership Development has

been the approach to leadership most utilized by curricular and co-curricular leadership

development programs (Komives, 2011). The model focuses on bringing about positive

social change based on individual values, group values, and the values of the society or

41

community through a purposeful, collaborative, and values-based process (Komives,

Lucas, & McMahon, 2007). Though leadership can be defined in many ways and a

variety of leadership theories from general or business literature are influential in higher

education and student affairs (Collins, 2001; Kouzes & Posner, 2007; Senge, 1990), the

definitions of leadership being offered as appropriate for student affairs professionals

share some common threads of understanding culture, emphasizing the importance of

relationships, and creating positive outcomes or change.

Manager

Introduction of manager domain.

In their model, Creamer, Winston, and Miller (2001) conceptualized the manager

role of a student affairs administrator as the following: “The management function of

student affairs administration consists of providing oversight to all major functions of

student affairs. Management is essentially about the stewardship of resources, including

people, facilities, money, and information” (p. 21). To arrive at this conceptualization of

the manager domain, the authors discussed at length Total Quality Management, also

called Continuous Quality Improvement (Bryan, 1996; Denning, 1986), which is a

comprehensive management philosophy focused on quality and improvement. The

authors also discuss aspirational management (Rogers & Ballard, 1995), which places

primary value in people and assumes ambiguity in the external environment.

Management of human resources, institutional planning, assessment of programs,

budgeting, environmental assessment, and use of technology and information systems are

highlighted as areas about which student affairs administrators must be knowledgeable.

Creamer, Winston, and Miller then concluded their chapter with the behavioral

42

characteristics of managers, which are as follows: supervising, planning, decision

making, controlling, representing, coordinating, and consulting. (For a more extensive

understanding of the literature base of the educator domain of Creamer, Winston, and

Miller’s [2001] model, refer to pages 21–28 of their chapter as well as Part III:

Managing and Administering of The Professional Student Affairs Administrator

(Winston, Creamer, & Miller, 2001).) In the remainder of this section of the literature

review, I will provide a review of general management literature, concepts of

management in higher education, and finally management in student affairs. This

literature review is intended to serve as a foundation for affirming or refuting the

conceptualization of an educator in the DSAAM.

General management literature.

Though its origins are in industrial production, management theory is pervasive in

service sectors as well and can be found in higher education and student affairs under the

label “administration” (Creamer & Frederick, 1991). Some authors argued that

management is a fundamental part of globalization (Foskett & Lumby, 2003), is

fundamentally indispensable in a modern organization, and is the universal mechanism

for organizing work (Deem, Hillyard, & Reed, 2007).

There are a variety of perspectives in the literature regarding what management

actually involves. A framework of the roles of a manager was delineated by Mintzberg

(1973) as interpersonal roles, informational roles, and decisional roles.

Though some have asserted that the basic concepts of management— such as

organization for production, efficiency, and harmony—originated in antiquity (Creamer

& Frederick, 1991), Taylor (1911) initiated the systematic study of management that is

43

considered to be the seminal research on the subject. Taylor’s approach, focusing on

exactly how something should best be done to achieve maximum efficiency, specifically

in manufacturing, became known over time as “scientific management” (Birnbaum,

2001). In addition to scientific management, there are many models and schools of

thought regarding management which have emerged in the last century. Creamer and

Frederick (1991) grouped these into five schools of thought, the first of which is the

classic scientific model, or scientific management. The second is the human relations

model, which is defined by an understanding of the motivation of people through meeting

their needs (Follet, 1941; Rothelisberger & Dixon, 1941). The third model is the

behavioral science model, which is based on the understanding that workers desire to find

self-fulfillment on the job (Likert, 1967; Maslow, 1964; Simon, 1947). The fourth model

is management process, which asserts that the principles of management are universal

(Drucker, 1954; Mooney & Reilly, 1931). The fifth and final model is quantitative,

which can be understood as mathematical models explaining patterns of decision in

management (Cooper, 1926; Johnson, 1953; Owen, 1925).

In more recent decades, several other management philosophies have become

popular. Total Quality Management (TQM) became sensationally popular in a wide

range of industries, including higher education, throughout the 1990s (Birnbaum, 2001).

This management philosophy was really a resurgence of scientific management in that it

focused on increasing quality of products through the elimination of variation in the

manufacturing process (Birnbaum, 2001; Denning, 1986). Deming is considered the

father of TQM, having exported the philosophy to the Japanese manufacturing industry

after World War II, and the philosophy was then reintroduced to the United States in the

44

mid-1980s. Business Process Reengineering was introduced in the early 1990s as a

radical rethinking not only of how organizations work but also how developments in

information technology made possible and required a complete rethinking of

organizations (Bryant, 1998; Hammer, 1990). Collins (2001) conducted a management

study of corporations to understand what caused companies to move from good to great

and found that focusing on whatever it is that the organization does best, which he termed

“hedgehogs,” leads the organization to become great. Another management philosophy

is the Theory of Constraints, which is based on the idea that at least one constraining

process limits the achievement of an organization’s goal; therefore, management should

focus on eliminating or reducing the effect of the constraint to increase productivity or

output (Goldratt, 1997). Similarly, the Six Sigma management philosophy seeks to

increase quality through the reduction of errors in manufacturing (Schroeder & Mikel,

2006). Using a sequence of steps and defined targets, experts on quality and statistical

methods within the organization control the improvement processes which are key to Six

Sigma. There are actually many management texts in print today, and Yukl (2010) was a

major influence on Creamer, Winston, and Miller’s understanding of management; his

text continues to be a popular voice on the subject of management with his book recently

going into its 7th

edition.

Management in higher education.

Many in academia shudder when they hear the word “manager”; to them it is an

anathema (Deegan, 1981) and, at a minimum, cause for suspicion and skepticism

(Amaral, Fulton, & Larsen, 2003). This is the result of the evolution of colleges and

universities. The tradition of faculty governance, accepted for centuries without much

45

question, is rooted in the concept of individual academic freedom and the thought that

only experts in specialized disciplines could effectively govern other experts (Amaral,

Fulton, & Larsen, 2003; Birnbaum, 2011). Often in institutions of higher education,

clarity and agreement of mission and goals is difficult to discern, authority and decision-

making can be diverse, and resources can be inflexible, all leading to difficulties applying

business management techniques (Birnbaum, 2011).

Difficulty in applying management techniques from the business sector has not

stopped people from trying, though. Over the last 100 years, there have been several

management techniques and philosophies widely applied in higher education. Ur-

Management was a simplistic form of management that was common in colleges and

universities in the middle of the 20th century because of its political approach to

budgeting, or focusing on inputs and incremental budgeting (Birnbaum, 2001). In the

decades immediately following World War II, the focus of higher education was on

expansion, not management and efficiency (Bogard, 1972).

The argument for professionalized management is linked to demands for

increased institutional efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability to counterbalance the

complexity of organizations (Birnbaum, 2001). One of the first texts on college and

university administration was Knowles (1970) two-volume text with over 2,800 pages

filled with examples of how scientific management could be applied to the management

of colleges and universities. In the intervening years, college and university

administrations have adopted the language of business and become more focused on data.

By the end of the 1970s, a number of information-system driven management and

planning methods became prevalent on college and university campuses. Birnbaum

46

(2001) argued that this allowed administrators to view the institution as a collection of

parts for the first time. Administrators could deconstruct a college, strengthening,

abandoning, or contracting out various parts and functions. Even though the goals of

higher education can be difficult to measure, which makes the application of business

management philosophies problematic (Birnbaum, 2011), higher education institutions

have followed many popular management philosophies to some extent in the past fifty

years.

In recent decades, the increasing separation between academic and administrative

roles has been exacerbated by the increasing growth in the number of administrators

(Amaral, Fulton, & Larsen, 2003). In their study of academic administrators, Deam,

Hillyard, and Reed (2007) found an unease with the term manager; even though the

participants assented that their role had management responsibilities, they preferred to

think of themselves as “academic leaders.” Fears of bureaucratic incompetence, big

brother types, and losing freedom and intellectual vigor are often cited in opposition to

concepts of management (Amaral, Fulton, & Larsen, 2003; Deegan, 1981). Birnbaum

(2000) dubbed these management fads because there is often little that resembles actual

business management theory or ideas at work in higher education (Amaral, Fulton, &

Larsen, 2003; Birnbaum, 2001; Fincher, 2003).

Management in student affairs.

In addition to the literature regarding management in higher education, some

literature exists specifically regarding management in student affairs. Specifically

addressing student affairs, Deegan (1981) identified six categories of management

functions: planning, organizing, budgeting, staffing, directing, and evaluating. Collins

47

(2001) found that competent managers are primarily concerned with the organization of

people and resources in order to accomplish determined objectives efficiently and

effectively. Fincher (2003) provided a helpful framework which groups the aspects of

management into three categories: conceptual aspects, including planning, organizing,

and developing; interpersonal aspects, including communicating, consulting,

coordinating, and directing; and technical aspects, including reviewing, reporting,

assessing, or evaluating. Fundamentally, though, management is about the stewardship

of resources, including people, facilities, money, and information (Barr & McClellan,

2011; Creamer, Winston, & Miller, 2001; Fincher, 2003; Foskett & Lumby, 2003;

Kretovics, 2011; Simpson, 1991). How student affairs professionals understand the

domains of their professional work—educator, leader, and manager—has implications for

the types and nature of professional development opportunities that they seek out.

Professional Development

How student affairs professionals understand the three domains of their

professional work—educator, leader, and manager—has significant implications for the

types and nature of the professional development opportunities they seek out.

Professional development, in and of itself, is largely accepted without question as a good

and necessary aspect of the working world. While the basic rationale for professional

development is undisputed, critiques typically center on methodology, cost effectiveness,

time requirements, and degree of individual responsibility (DeCoster & Brown, 1991).

Based on a synthesis of literature, DeCoster and Brown (1991) offered a framework with

the following six purposes for professional development: facilitating interaction with

colleagues and associates, developing functional skills and specific competencies,

48

promoting self-understanding and self-actualization, gaining exposure to innovative

programs, providing opportunities for professional renewal, and conveying theoretical

and philosophical knowledge.

A traditional conception of professional development focuses on skill and

knowledge acquisition which can then be applied to practice (Carpenter & Stimpson,

2007). Within the larger framework of the six purposes for professional development,

DeCoster and Brown (1991) also emphasized the development of five personal qualities:

self-assessment, supervision and performance evaluation, mentoring relationships,

structured learning opportunities and professional participation, and service and

contributions (DeCoster & Brown, 1991).

Professional development has evolved from a conceptual scheme of lifelong

education in the 1960s to a tool for relicensure in the 1970s, to broad and detailed

programs in a wide variety of professions in the 1980s (Cervero, 2000). In the 1990s,

however, professional development was “devoted mainly to updating practitioners about

the newest developments, which are transmitted in a didactic fashion and offered by a

pluralistic group of providers (workplaces, for-profits, and universities) that do not work

together in any coordinated fashion” (Cervero, 2000, p. 4). There is also growing

concern regarding the disconnected nature between most graduate and professional

preparation programs and professional development programs (Knox, 2000).

There are three alternative viewpoints regarding professional development. First,

regardless of the field, people often view professional development as a product (e.g., a

conference to attend or book to read), rather than a long-term and ongoing process

(DeCoster & Brown, 1991). Second, professional development is often approached in a

49

haphazard and almost unconscious manner. Lastly, some scholars have argued that

professional development should be approached with conscious intentionality, though not

prescriptive rigidity (Carpenter & Stimpson, 2007; Dirkx, Gilley, & Gilley, 2004). All

professional development activities should be built upon an essential foundation of

individual motivation (Jackson, Moneta, & Nelson, 2009).

Individual motivation must be paired with an understanding of and appreciation

for the fact that professional development is mutually beneficial for the individual and the

organization of which participants are a part (Jackson, Moneta, & Nelson, 2009). Other

scholars have asserted that, because professional development must benefit the

organization, it is therefore a critical component of supervision, and it is incumbent upon

supervisors and supervisees to plan professional development activities intentionally and

purposefully (Carpenter & Stimpson, 2007; Winston & Creamer, 1998).

Further, Dirkx, Gilley, and Gilley (2004) asserted that professional development

is a process that must include application to practice because the context of practice is

unique and the knowledge, skill, and personal quality development resulting from

professional development activities is both contextual and subjective (Dirkx, Gilley, &

Gilley, 2004). Therefore, professional development divorced from any consideration of

the context of practice or conscious long-term development can be problematic.

Development of student affairs professionals.

Professional development is an inherent part of any profession and, as such, is

expected of student affairs professionals. This expectation is found in the general

standards of CAS: “Programs and services must provide access to continuing and

advanced education and professional development opportunities” (Council for the

50

Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2009, p. 32). In addition, SACSA

explicitly includes professional development as the purpose of the association. The Task

Force on the Future of Student Affairs (2010), a joint task force of ACPA and NASPA,

asserted that it is the responsibility of professional associations to assure high quality

student affairs work regardless of the method of entry of an individual and that the

provision of professional development opportunities is a responsibility of those

associations. Not only is continual professional development expected by the profession,

but also it is viewed by some as a partial answer to the challenges of professionalism in

the field of student affairs (Carpenter & Stimpson, 2007).

As a result, Janosik (2002) proposed The Student Affairs Professional

Development Curriculum, which is a matrix of six topical areas developed to guide

professional development for student affairs professionals. Since then an ACPA steering

committee proposed a set of eight competencies (Love, et al., 2007). Most recently, in

2010, a joint report issued by ACPA and NASPA identified eight competency areas for

student affairs practitioners which might serve as a basis for credentialing in the future:

advising and helping, assessment, evaluation and research; equity, diversity, and

inclusion; ethical professional practice; history, philosophy, and values; human and

organizational resources; law, policy, and governance; leadership; personal foundations;

and student learning and development (Joint Task Force on Professional Competencies

and Standards, 2010).

Professional development in student affairs can obviously take on many different

forms. In a recent study of NASPA Region III members, Roberts (2007) found that

across topics and professional levels, student affairs practitioners preferred professional

51

conference sessions, on-campus workshops, seminars and institutes, and conversations

and mentoring as primary sources of professional development. Chief student affairs

officers utilize professional journals and books as professional development much more

so than other professional levels. Overall, to increase their knowledge, skill, and ability,

very few of the study participants reported having used professional conference major

speakers, preconference sessions, association-sponsored institutes, academic coursework

outside of a degree program, or higher education periodicals (Roberts, 2007).

In addition to conferences, professional associations are increasingly offering

other avenues for professional development, including institutes, webinars, and certificate

programs. Institutes include the Association of College and University Housing Officers-

International’s (ACUHO-I) James Grimm National Housing Training Institute, SACSA’s

Mid-Manager’s Institute, and NASPA’s Alice Manicur Symposium among others. In a

time of declining resources, webinars can be a cost effective way to obtain professional

development, and examples include NASPA’s Investing in Our Future series. ACUHO-I

has created a certificate program, with options in occupancy management or assessment

already available. The Georgia College Personnel Association has begun a certificate

program to provide a student affairs foundation for individuals who do not have a

master’s degree in student affairs. These are just a few examples of the many ways

professional associations provide professional development opportunities outside of

conferences and journals.

Summary

This review of relevant literature informed this research study based on Creamer,

Winston, and Miller’s (2001) DSAAM, which asserted that the responsibilities of a

52

student affairs professional can be conceptualized in terms of three domains, roles, or

dimensions: educator, leader, and manager. The literature reviewed in this chapter served

both as a foundation for this study as well as its methodology, specifically regarding the

design of the instrument.

The first section of this literature review provided an overview of student affairs

and emphasized how the field has defined itself as well as where definitions and

boundaries are undefined or fluid. This opening section served both to ground the study

and interpretation of findings with an understanding of the profession and to inform the

selection of variables of the study. Each of the sections centering on the DSAAM

framework combined a short summary of the literature on which Creamer, Winston, and

Miller (2001) based their model with a brief overview of other literature relevant to each

domain. This review of literature for each domain both grounded the instrument design

and served as a means of exploring the validity of the model being tested. Despite a wide

variety of perspectives in the literature regarding each domain, the literature did validate

Creamer, Winston, and Miller’s usage in their framework. Lastly, literature regarding

professional development in the field of student affairs was reviewed to inform both the

instrument design and the implications of the results of the study.

53

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

This chapter examines the methodology of this study, including development of

the survey instrument, recruitment and selection strategies, and methods of collecting and

analyzing the resulting data to answer the research questions of this study. The study

design was quantitative because it was concerned with understanding how many people

sharing demographic characteristics also share attitudes and behaviors (Gay & Airasian,

2003).

Instrument Development

Through this study, I collected data to determine how individuals working in

student affairs view their roles and the extent to which the DSAAM holds up to the

experiences of practitioners. I developed a locally-designed, or self-designed,

questionnaire as the survey instrument to collect data for this study (see Appendix A).

Designing a questionnaire for this study was necessary because there was no existing

questionnaire that directly fit the purposes of this study (Creswell, 2005; Schuh &

Upcraft, 2001). The model proposed by Creamer, Winston, and Miller (2001) contained

a framework of three domains—educator, leader, and manager—each supported and

defined by behavioral characteristics. Therefore, questions directly addressing those

three domains and the behavioral characteristics as defined by Creamer, Winston, and

Miller (2001) comprised the majority of items on the questionnaire. Throughout this

chapter, the term “item” is used to refer to a set of questions that served as the basis for

54

assessing the research questions regarding beliefs of importance, skills, and behavior in

each domain. Table 3.1 provides an example of an item and how terminology was used

for the questionnaire. A review of literature in the areas of the student affairs

profession—education, leadership, and management—as well as professional

development was conducted to inform the creation of the questionnaire.

Table 3.1

Example of Questionnaire Terminology

Descriptor Domain Behavioral

Characteristic

Defining

Examples

Questions

Item Educator Advising Listening to

Interests and

Concerns

This is important in student

affairs work.

I have the skills to do this.

I do this in my work.

Question creation.

The questionnaire was composed of six sections. Through this study, I hoped to

gain a fuller understanding of the beliefs, skills, and behaviors of student affairs

professionals regarding each of the Domains of Student Affairs Administration.

Therefore, utilizing an attitude scale was appropriate for this questionnaire because it is

an affective self-report measure (Gay & Airasian, 2003). The vast majority of the

questions on the questionnaire utilized a true Likert scale. A Likert scale is a specific

type of five-point rating scale that follows statements, and the participant is asked to

determine his or her level of agreement. The following ordered responses—Strongly

Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree—correspond to

the following point value with positive statements: SA = 1, A = 2, NAD = 3, D = 4, SD

= 5. A score of 1 or 2 indicated agreement, and a score of 4 or 5 indicated disagreement;

55

therefore, a low cumulative score across all items, or a specific subset of items, indicated

overall agreement.

Section 1.

Through the first section of the questionnaire—Professional and Institutional

Information—I sought not only demographic information but also to introduce

participants to the study and get them into the appropriate frame of mind to respond to the

remainder of the questionnaire. Some questions traditionally seen on questionnaires were

not asked of participants in this study, including race and ethnicity, sex and gender, age,

and marital status, as this information was not pertinent to the research questions.

Information from this section allowed for data analysis of differences according to

institutional type, method of entry into student affairs, and level in the field. These were

the three key independent variables in this study.

The first question of the section, regarding whether the participant was currently

working at a public or private institution, was used to obtain the information for the

institutional type variable. The fourth question of the section, regarding the participant’s

work level within student affairs, was included with the choices of senior level, mid-

level, entry level, and faculty to obtain the information for the level in the field variable.

The sixth question of the section—regarding possible methods of entry into the student

affairs profession, including professional preparation programs, allied professions, and

other avenues (Winston & Creamer, 1997)—was included to obtain the information for

the method of entry variable. For flow of the questionnaire, other questions regarding the

institutional mission and size; the focus and nature of the participant’s current position,

drawing on the work of Moneta (2005) and Young (2007); and the participant’s length of

56

time in the field were included in the questionnaire but not included in the data analysis.

Four open-ended questions were included to assist the participant in thinking about the

subject matter of the study but were not included in data analysis. Two were regarding

the participant’s reason for entering the field of student affairs and whether his or her

experience had matched his or her expectations, followed by two questions regarding the

participant’s future in the field of student affairs..

Section 2.

The items in the second section of the instrument—Domains of Student Affairs

Administration—focused on understanding the participant’s initial perceptions regarding

each of the three domains based on how he or she defines educator, leader, and manager.

The literature review regarding the student affairs profession revealed that student affairs

professionals may hold positive views of their educational role and negative views of

their management role (Taub & McEwen, 2006; White, Webb, & Young, 1990; Young,

2007). Prior to any definitions of educator, manager, or leader in the questionnaire, the

participant was asked to identify, using a Likert scale, the extent to which he or she

agreed or disagreed that each domain was a positive and accurate description of his or her

work in questions one and two, respectively. For flow of the questionnaire, questions

asked the participant to rank the role, or domain, out of which he or she predominantly

operated at work as well as which role he or she preferred.

Section 3.

The third section—Understanding Beliefs, Skills, and Behavior—was composed

of items regarding the beliefs, skills, and behavior of student affairs professionals. When

creating a questionnaire, reviewing the literature can not only reveal assumptions and

57

bias inherent in a researcher’s experience (Gillham, 2008) but also bolster content

validity. The review of literature in the areas of education, leadership, and management

revealed support for the behavioral characteristics and examples identified by Creamer,

Winston, and Miller (2001).

Individuals often define the concepts of educator, leader, and manager differently,

as was evidenced by the review of literature, which preceded this chapter. Overlap

between the domains was also evident. Leadership was sometimes viewed as a

component of management (Mintzberg, 1973), whereas others, including Creamer,

Winston, and Miller (2001), saw leadership as distinct from management (Yukl, 2010).

Benke and Disque (1990) identified the key qualities of educators as being empathetic,

being creative, accepting differences, maintaining confidentiality, communicating

effectively, knowing change strategies, leading, and mediating conflicts while Young

(2007) argued that these are also important characteristics of managers. Within the

DSAAM, some behavioral characteristics were shared among domains (e.g., planning

and organizing), but Creamer, Winston, and Miller defined those characteristics

differently through the examples. The review of literature confirmed support for the

attribution of the behavioral characteristics in their respective domains in the DSAAM.

Despite a wide variety of perspectives therein, the literature did validate Creamer,

Winston, and Miller’s usage. Therefore, because this study sought, in part, to evaluate

the framework of the DSAAM, the items for the questionnaire were exclusively

generated using the domains, characteristics, and examples outlined by the original

authors.

58

For the third section, thirty-four items were generated based on Creamer,

Winston, and Miller’s (2001) behavioral characteristics and the examples that define

those characteristics in each of the three domains. Table 3.2 compares the domains,

behavioral characteristics, defining examples, and corresponding citations of supporting

literature. According to Creamer, Winston, and Miller, the educator domain is comprised

of the following eleven characteristics: advising, coaching, collaborating, demonstrating,

evaluating, facilitating, learning, lecturing, modeling, researching, and structuring. The

leader domain is comprised of the following fourteen characteristics: clarifying roles and

objectives, consulting, delegating, developing and mentoring, informing, managing

conflict and team building, monitoring, motivating and inspiring, networking, planning

and organizing, problem solving, recognizing, rewarding, and supporting. The manager

domain is comprised of the following nine characteristics: administering, consulting,

controlling, coordinating, decision making, monitoring indicators, planning and

organizing, representing, and supervising. Each item in this section of the questionnaire

was composed of a behavioral characteristic and a corresponding defining example with

three questions regarding the participant’s beliefs, skills, and behavior concerning the

characteristic.

The participant was asked to rate his or her level of agreement with three

statements for each behavioral characteristic. The first statement was intended to gauge

the participant’s beliefs regarding the importance of the characteristic in the work of

student affairs professionals. The second statement was meant to gauge, through self-

report, whether the participant had the skills necessary to do these tasks. With the third

statement it was hoped to gauge the extent to which the participant performed these tasks

59

Table 3.2

Confirming Citations for the DSAAM Domains and Characteristics

Domain Characteristic Description Citations

Educator Advising

Listening to interests and

concerns; aiding in identification

of available resources; explaining

institutional rules and

procedures, or laws; initiating

cooperative problem solving;

challenging unexamined

assumptions, beliefs, and

prejudices; providing emotional

support

Bain, 2004;

Benjamin, Earnest,

Gruenewald, &

Arthur, 2007; Budd,

2009; Cranton,

2006; Katz & Henry,

1988; Weingartner,

1992

Coaching

Showing how to do something;

offering suggestions; providing

feedback about quality of

performance; providing

opportunities for practice in

achieving mastery; helping

perfect an activity; praising

exemplary performance

Blimling & Whitt,

1999; Budd, 2009;

Harris & Cullen,

2010; Katz & Henry,

1988; Neusner &

Neusner, 2000;

Weingartner, 1992

Collaborating

Engaging jointly with others to

accomplish a goal; joining

individual or group in solving a

problem or learning new

material; participating as an

equal in a collective process

Blimling & Whitt,

1999; Budd, 2009;

Harris & Cullen,

2010; Magolda &

Quaye, 2011;

Neusner & Neusner,

2000; von

Glaserfeld, 1996

Demonstrating

Displaying behavior or

manipulating equipment to

explicate a principle, teach a

process, or explain an approach

Blimling & Whitt,

1999; Katz & Henry,

1988; Roper, 2003;

Weingartner, 1992

Evaluating

Providing critique of ideas,

performance, or product

reflecting a comparison with a

standard of excellence; correcting

mistakes or errors

Blimling & Whitt,

1999; Budd, 2009;

Harris & Cullen,

2010; Katz & Henry,

1988

60

Facilitating

Assisting an individual or group

to make meaning of experiences;

encouraging expression of

feelings and examination of

effects on others; encouraging

discussion of ideas and

exploration of implications;

enabling democratic decision

making

Barr & Tagg, 1995;

Blimling & Whitt,

1999; Budd, 2009;

Harris & Cullen,

2010; King, 2003;

Magolda & Quaye,

2011; Neusner &

Neusner, 2000;

Weimer, 2002

Learning

Gaining knowledge and skill

through study and/or self-

analysis; being a life-long learner

Budd, 2009;

Komives, 1998;

Lowell, 1930;

Magolda & Quaye,

2011; Neusner &

Neusner, 2000;

Weingartner, 1992

Lecturing

Making oral presentations of

facts, theories or information;

relating personal experiences;

telling how to do something;

providing illustrative examples or

approaches; reporting research

findings

Budd, 2009;

Magolda & Quaye,

2011; Roper, 2003;

Weingartner, 1992

Modeling

Showing by example; allowing

self to be observed

Dalton, Crosby,

Valente, &

Eberhardt, 2009;

King, 2003; Neusner

& Neusner, 2000;

Roper, 2003;

Weingartner, 1992

Researching

Seeking understanding of facts,

theories, or conditions through

systematic inquiry

Komives, 1998;

Moore & Marsh,

2007

Structuring

Providing assignments or tasks

designed to explicate subject

matter; creating exercises and

opportunities for practice;

identifying resources; offering a

framework for examination of

ideas, beliefs, values, and

research methods and findings;

creating or reinforcing

psychosocial environment

conducive to learning

Barr & Tagg, 1995;

Blimling & Whitt,

1999; Budd, 2009;

Magolda & Quaye,

2011; Moore &

Marsh, 2007;

Neusner & Neusner,

2000; Weingartner,

1992

61

Leader

Clarifying

Roles &

Objectives

Assigning tasks; providing

direction on how to do work,;

clearly communicating

responsibilities, task objectives,

deadlines, and performance

expectations

Bolman & Gallos,

2011; Caple &

Newton, 1991;

House & Mitchell,

1974; Yukl, 2010

Consulting

Checking with people before

making changes that affect them;

encouraging suggestions for

improvement; inviting

participation in decision making;

incorporating the ideas of others

in decisions

Bolman & Gallos,

2011; Caple &

Newton, 1991;

House & Mitchell,

1974; Komives,

Lucas, & McMahon,

2007; Sandeen,

2001a; Yukl, 2010

Delegating

Allowing subordinates to have

substantial responsibility and

discretion in carrying out

activities, handling problems, and

making important decisions

Birnbaum, 1988;

Bolman & Gallos,

2011; Caple &

Newton, 1991; Yukl,

2010

Developing &

Mentoring

Providing coaching and helpful

career advice; doing things to

facilitate staff's skill acquisition,

professional development, and

career advancement

Bolman & Gallos,

2011; House &

Mitchell, 1974;

Rogers, 2003;

Sandeen, 2001a;

Yukl, 2010

Informing

Disseminating relevant

information about decisions,

plans, and activities; answering

questions and requests for

information

Hackman &

Johnson, 1996;

Yukl, 2010; House

& Mitchell, 1974;

Sandeen, 2001a;

Bolman & Gallos,

2011

Managing

Conflict &

Team Building

Facilitating constructive

resolution of conflict;

encouraging cooperation,

teamwork, and identification

with the unit

Astin & Astin, 2000;

Bolman & Gallos,

2011; Komives,

2011; Rogers, 2003;

Sandeen, 2001a;

Yukl, 2010

62

Monitoring

Gathering information about

work activities and external

conditions; checking on the

progress and quality of work;

evaluating performance of

individuals and units

Birnbaum, 1988;

Bolman & Gallos,

2011; Yukl, 2010

Motivating &

Inspiring

Using influence techniques that

appeal to emotion or logic to

generate enthusiasm,

commitment to work tasks,

compliance with requests for

cooperation, assistance, support,

or resources

Bolman & Gallos,

2011; Burns, 1978;

Caple & Newton,

1991; Kellerman,

2008; Sandeen,

2001a; Yukl, 2010

Networking

Socializing informally;

developing contacts with persons

who are sources of information

or support; maintaining contact

over time

Bolman & Gallos,

2011; Love &

Estanek, 2004;

Sandeen, 2001a;

Yukl, 2010

Planning &

Organizing

Determining long-term

objectives and strategies,

allocating resources according to

priorities, assign responsibilities

to staff; determining how to

improve coordination and

effectiveness of organizational

unit

Bolman & Gallos,

2011; Burns, 1978;

Caple & Newton,

1991; House &

Mitchell, 1974;

Komives; 2011;

Love & Estanek,

2004; Sandeen,

2001a; Yukl, 2010

Problem

Solving

Identifying and analyzing work-

related problems; acting

decisively to implement solutions

Birnbaum, 1988;

Bolman & Gallos,

2011; Caple &

Newton, 1991;

Komives, 2011;

Komives, Lucas, &

McMahon, 2007;

Love & Estanek,

2004; Yukl, 2010

Recognizing

Providing praise and recognition

for effective performance,

significant achievements, and

special contributions

Bolman & Gallos,

2011; Burns, 1978;

House & Mitchell,

1974; Rogers, 2003;

Yukl, 2010

63

Rewarding

Providing or recommending

tangible rewards for effective

performance, significant

achievement, and demonstrated

competence

Bolman & Gallos,

2011; House &

Mitchell, 1974;

Rogers, 2003; Yukl,

2010

Supporting

Acting friendly and considerate;

being patient and helpful;

showing empathy and support

when someone is upset or

anxious; listening to complaints

and problems; looking out for

someone's interests

Bolman & Gallos,

2011; House &

Mitchell, 1974;

Komives, 2011;

Rogers, 2003;

Sandeen, 2001a;

Yukl, 2010

Manager Administering

Performing basic activities such

as locating information on

policies and procedures;

analyzing routine information,

and maintaining detailed and

accurate records and documents

Barr & McClellan,

2011; Brown, 1972;

Mathis & Jackson,

2002; Yukl, 2010

Controlling

Developing schedules; assessing

benefits and costs of programs

and services; analyzing

operational effectiveness

Barr & McClellan,

2011; Deem,

Hillyard, & Reed,

2007; Fincher,

2003; Foskett &

Lumby, 2003;

Kretovics, 2011;

Maydew, 1992;

Yukl, 2010

Consulting

Keeping current with

developments in the field;

introducing new techniques and

technologies into the

organization; acting as an expert

advisor or trouble-shooter for

others in the institution

Brown, 1972;

Foskett & Lumby,

2003; Kretovics,

2011; Maydew,

1992; Yukl, 2010

Coordinating

Communicating with internal and

external publics; meeting

schedules and deadlines; solving

problems; maintaining smooth

working relationships with peers;

mediating disagreements and

conflicts between key individuals

Appleton, 1991;

Deegan, 1981;

Deem, Hillyard, &

Reed, 2007; Fincher,

2003; Kretovics,

2011; Shattock,

2003; Yukl, 2010

64

Decision

Making

Making decisions in unstructured

situations with incomplete

information; authorizing

deviations from policy to meet

demands of new situation

Barr & McClellan,

2011; Fincher, 2003;

Goonan &

Blechman, 1999;

Kretovics, 2011;

Simpson, 1993;

Yukl, 2010

Monitoring

Indicators

Monitoring internal and external

factors and forces that may affect

the unit, division, or institution

and students

Fincher, 2003;

Foskett & Lumby,

2003; Kretovics,

2011; Shattock,

2003; Yukl, 2010

Planning &

Organizing

Formulating short-term plans;

developing budgets; translating

long-term plans into operational

goals; recommending and

developing policies and

procedures

Barr & McClellan,

2011; Deegan, 1981;

Fincher, 2003;

Foskett & Lumby,

2003; Koontz et al.,

1984; Kretovics,

2011; Deem,

Hillyard, & Reed,

2007; Schuh, 1990;

Yukl, 2010

Representing

Answering questions; responding

to complaints; promoting a

positive image of the unit,

division, and institution

Barr & McClellan,

2011; Ellis & Moon,

1991; Fincher, 2003;

Foskett & Lumby,

2003; Yukl, 2010

Supervising

Improving the performance of

subordinates by working with

them to analyze work behaviors

and developing strategies to build

on strengths and overcome

weaknesses

Fincher, 2003;

Foskett & Lumby,

2003; Goonan &

Blechman, 1999;

Kretovics, 2011;

Yukl, 2010

N = 34

regularly. All three of these statements utilized a Likert scale response format. The

behavioral characteristics were randomized per individual participant in order to mitigate

potential participant bias due to the ways in which each was categorized by Creamer,

Winston, and Miller (2001) as being tied to the educator, leader, or manager domains.

65

Additionally, three questions, each corresponding to one of the domains (educator,

leader, manager), also utilized these statements to assess the participant’s level of

agreement with the overall domains in order to provide an additional measure of validity

for the constructs of the instrument. In total, this section was comprised of thirty-four

items corresponding to the characteristics and corresponding examples, with each item

containing three questions and three domain-based items, which resulted in 111 total

questions for this section.

Section 4.

The fourth section of the questionnaire—Perspectives—contained a total of two

questions, which asked the participant to rank the role, or domain, out of which he or she

predominantly operated at work as well as which role he or she preferred. The behavioral

characteristics identified by Creamer, Winston, and Miller (2001) were provided in this

item as a way of defining the domains for the participant. There were two purposes for

repeating the item at this point in the questionnaire: (1) to check to see how the

participant defined the terms educator, leader, and manager and (2) to provide an

indicator of the possible effect of completing the instrument. Two open-ended questions

were also included in this section for flow of the questionnaire. Further, the two

questions were intended to help understand how useful the participant found the domains

as a framework for describing his or her work.

Section 5.

The fifth section of the questionnaire—Professional Development—contained a

total of three questions, one for each domain, regarding the methods by which the

participant sought professional development. Each question included the behavioral

66

characteristics that comprise the corresponding domain. The answer choices were drawn

from the review of literature, with the work of Roberts (2005, 2007) being most

influential. The behavioral characteristics identified by Creamer, Winston, and Miller

(2001) were provided in these questions as a way of defining the domains for the

participant.

Section 6.

The sixth section of the questionnaire—Feedback and Comments—was

comprised of a single open-ended question to encourage the participant to give any

additional comments or feedback. Though it was not included for data analysis purposes,

this section gave the participant the ability to offer feedback on the subject of the

questionnaire and the questionnaire itself. This was deemed prudent given that this was a

self-designed questionnaire being used for the first time.

Validity.

Validity is associated with a measure’s appropriateness, and reliability is

associated with a measure’s consistency. Both are important for determining the

suitability of a test. A valid test is always reliable, but a reliable test is not always valid

(Gay & Airasian, 2003). (For further discussion on reliability, see the Data Analysis

section of this chapter.) Validity of this instrument was determined prior to the collection

of data while reliability was determined after data was collected.

Validity, or the degree to which a questionnaire accomplishes its purposes, is the

most important characteristic that a questionnaire or research instrument can possess

(Gay & Airasian, 2003). Though not psychometrically sound, face validity is often

67

utilized as an initial screening procedure to determine whether the questionnaire or test

appears to measure what it claims to measure.

Face validity should always be used in conjunction with content validity (Gay &

Airasian, 2003). Content validity, comprised of item validity and sampling validity, is

the extent to which a questionnaire measures the intended area of content. Item validity

primarily determines whether the questions are relevant to measure the intended subject

matter while sampling validity determines how well the questionnaire covers the total

area of content to be measured. Content validity is determined by expert judgment in

which reviewers assess both the process of development and the instrument itself to make

a determination of item and sampling validity; then reviewers determine whether content

validity is strong (Gay & Airasian, 2003). A self-developed questionnaire should not be

utilized in a research study unless it has been pretested on 5 to 10 participants similar to

study participants and validity and reliability have been established. Six student affairs

professionals who meet the geographic and professional requirements for this study

viewed the instrument and agreed that it appeared to measure understanding of the three

Domains of Student Affairs Administration, its questions were relevant to the subject

matter, and it sufficiently covered the total area of content. In addition, four experts in

student affairs and/or questionnaire design further established content validity (Creswell,

2005) by reviewing both the plan and the questionnaire’s construction procedure as part

of the dissertation prospectus process.

Participants

The target population for this study was individuals working at least half time in

the field of student affairs at institutions of higher education in the southeastern region of

68

the United States. The sample included a broad range of individuals, given that the

variables of analysis were institutional type, method of entry into student affairs, and

level in the field. The participant pool was comprised of only professional level staff, not

administrative, facilities-related, or technical support staff. Full-time graduate students

and faculty were also excluded from this study. The sample was obtained from the

membership of the Southern Association of College Student Affairs (SACSA).

SACSA (2011) is a regional generalist professional association for student affairs

and exists for the professional development of individuals engaged in the student affairs

profession. Membership in SACSA is open to any professional in the southeast United

States (Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi,

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, or

the District of Columbia). Additionally, in order to be a member, at least half of an

individual’s work must be devoted to an aspect of college student affairs work. Student

and associate memberships in SACSA are available for graduate students and individuals

not meeting professional or geographic membership criteria of the organization. SACSA

maintains e-mail addresses for all current members, and, upon approval of the research

study by the SACSA Research and Executive Committees on January 27, 2012, the

organization provided a list of e-mails for 269 members meeting the criteria of this study.

The sample of participants for this study was solicited through SACSA as an accessible

population who meet the basic criteria of the study (Fink, 2006).

Data Collection

Data collection began only after approval for this study had been obtained from

the University of Georgia (UGA) institutional review board on January 05, 2012, for

69

project number 2012-10449-0. On February 2, 2012, an e-mail was sent to 269 SACSA

members working at least half time in a professional student affairs role at a college or

university in the southeastern United States. The initial e-mail contained a description of

the study, an institutional review board consent statement, and a link to the questionnaire

(see Appendix B). The survey was conducted using the Web-based survey tool Survey

Monkey, and the questionnaire was available for two weeks. After the initial solicitation

of participation was sent, a reminder e-mail was sent on February 8, 2012. After two

weeks, access to the electronic questionnaire was turned off on February 16, 2012.

Security.

Establishing measures to enhance security is an important concern when

conducting any human subject-based research. A dedicated folder was created on the

Survey Monkey account of the UGA College of Education Office of Information

Technology for this study. The account was password protected, and use was limited to

graduate researchers who had completed the Secure UGA information technology

security modules. No IP addresses of survey participants were collected or retained as

part of the data analysis. As an added measure of data security, the data was removed

from the Survey Monkey account within one month of the conclusion of data collection.

Also, although electronic communications could not be guaranteed to be completely

secure, communications to and from the Survey Monkey account utilized a Secure SSL

connection. The introductory e-mail contained a warning to study participants regarding

the nature of security regarding electronic communications. E-mail communications to

participants were sent from the researcher’s institutional e-mail account.

70

Electronic format.

Participants responded to the questionnaire in an electronic format. Though paper

instruments have traditionally been the predominant method for conducting a

questionnaire-based survey, in recent years, electronic or Internet-based surveys have

become increasingly popular. Paper-based surveys can involve significant costs, such as

those incurred through postage, printing, and data entry (Wright, 2005). The data, when

collected electronically, is collected at the convenience of the participant and

automatically entered into a spreadsheet, allowing for a condensed timeline for collection

and analysis, elimination of the time and cost of data entry, and the reduction of data

errors involved in the data entry process. Electronic questionnaires also offer ease of data

collection and cost effective distribution to participants over significant distances

(Wright, 2005). Problems inherent in electronic survey research—such as invalid

addresses, multiple response from an individual, and participants misrepresenting

themselves regarding the criteria for the study—are also present in mail-based survey

research (Wright, 2005). Further, this population is very likely to have access to

computers and use electronic communications. Because of the advantages of cost and

convenience to both the researcher and the participants, an electronic questionnaire was

employed for this study.

Response rate.

It is important to note that response to paper-based questionnaires between the

1960s and the 1990s declined from 60 percent to about 20 percent (Dey, 1997). Though

response rates for electronic questionnaires tend to be lower than paper-based

questionnaires, the rate is not typically considerably lower. Sax, Gilmartin, and Bryant

71

(2003) found paper response rates ranged from 22–24 percent while response rates for

online data collection ranged from 17–20 percent. In an effort to improve the response

rate to this questionnaire (see Wright, 2005), participants were informed that the study

results would be shared with the professional organization, and potentially its

membership, at a future conference or in an edition of the journal.

Care must be taken when calculating the response rate to reduce the sample

number by the number of invalid or inactive e-mail addresses (Wright, 2005). The

response rate was calculated using the number of initial e-mails sent (n = 269), and then

subtracting the bounced back (or invalid) e-mail addresses (n = 8), as well as the

participants who returned the questionnaire but were ineligible because they indicated

that they were faculty or no longer working in higher education (n=13), resulting in an

effective N= 248. Of the questionnaires returned in which participants met the criteria

for the study (n=122), 91 questionnaires were usable and 18 questionnaires were

unusable because of incomplete data. The effective response rate was thus 36.69%

(91/248).

Data Analysis

At the conclusion of data collection, the data was cleaned and analyzed using

version 19 of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The procedures for data

analysis outlined below represent the means of answering the following research

questions, which were all designed to inform the overarching question of this study, How

do practitioners in the field of student affairs view their roles?:

RQ1: Do practitioners in the field of student affairs perceive their roles

positively?

72

RQ2: To what extent do practitioners in the field of student affairs report that they

believe each of the (three) domains of student affairs administration are

important?


have the skills necessary to fulfill the (three) domains of student affairs

administration?

RQ4: To what extent do practitioners in the field of student affairs report that their


RQ5: What forms of professional development are used by practitioners in the

field of student affairs regarding the (three) domains of student affairs

administration?

Each research question had the following three independent variables: (1) method of

entry into the field of student affairs, (2) work level in the field of student affairs, and (3)

type of institution at which the participant was employed.

Research question 1.

Research Question 1, “Do practitioners in the field of student affairs perceive

their roles positively?” was answered using the following three sub-questions for each

domain with three corresponding sub-questions for each independent variable. The

question in Section 2 of the instrument, which pertained to the description of the

participant’s work as positive, was analyzed as the dependent variable.

RQ1a: Is there a significant difference between practitioners regarding their

perception of the descriptor “educator” as positive?

73

RQ1aa: Is there a significant difference between practitioners of different

institutional types regarding their perception of the descriptor “educator” as positive? An

independent samples t-test was used to test for a significant difference between

practitioners who are at public or private institutions in perceptions of the descriptor

“educator” as positive.

RQ1ab: Is there a significant difference between practitioners of different levels

regarding their perception of the descriptor “educator” as positive? A one-way analysis

of variance test was used to test for a significant difference between senior level, mid-

level, or entry level practitioners in perceptions of the descriptor “educator” as positive.

RQ1ac: Is there a significant difference between practitioners with different

methods of entry regarding their perception of the descriptor “educator” as positive? A

one-way analysis of variance test was used to test for a significant difference between

practitioners who entered the field with a master’s degree, as an allied professional, or via

another method in perceptions of the descriptor “educator” as positive.

RQ1b: Is there a significant difference between practitioners regarding their

perception of the descriptor “leader” as positive?

RQ1ba: Is there a significant difference between practitioners of different

institutional types regarding their perception of the descriptor “leader” as positive? An




RQ1bb: Is there a significant difference between practitioners of different levels

regarding their perception of the descriptor “leader” as positive? A one-way analysis of

74

variance test was used to test for a significant difference between senior level, mid-level,

or entry level practitioners in perceptions of the descriptor “educator” as positive.

RQ1bc: Is there a significant difference between practitioners with different

methods of entry regarding their perception of the descriptor “leader” as positive? A one-

way analysis of variance test was used to test for a significant difference between



RQ1c: Is there a significant difference between practitioners regarding their

perception of the descriptor “manager” as positive?

RQ1ca: Is there a significant difference between practitioners of different

institutional types regarding their perception of the descriptor “manager” as positive? An




RQ1cb: Is there a significant difference between practitioners of different levels

regarding their perception of the descriptor “manager” as positive? A one-way analysis

of variance test was used to test for a significant difference between senior level, mid-

level, or entry level practitioners in perceptions of the descriptor “educator” as positive.

RQ1cc: Is there a significant difference between practitioners with different

methods of entry regarding their perception of the descriptor “manager” as positive? A

one-way analysis of variance test was used to test for a significant difference between



75


Research Question 2, “To what extent do practitioners in the field of student

affairs report that they believe each of the (three) domains of student affairs

administration are important?” was answered using the following three sub-questions for

each domain with three corresponding sub-questions for each independent variable.


beliefs of the importance of the educator domain of student affairs

administration?

A reliability test on the questions in Section 3 of the questionnaire—

Understanding Beliefs, Skills, and Behavior—was conducted using Cronbach’s alpha

estimate of internal consistency. Results showed that the behavioral characteristics in the

educator domain (educating, advising, coaching, collaborating, demonstrating,

evaluating, facilitating, learning, lecturing, modeling, researching, and structuring) for

questions regarding importance in student affairs administration have a good reliability

rating. Therefore, a variable for the educator domain was created using the means of the

behavioral characteristic responses. This educator domain scale-important was used as

the dependent variable for Research Question 2a.


institutional types regarding their beliefs of the importance of the educator domain of

student affairs administration? An independent samples t-test was used to test for a

significant difference between practitioners who are at public or private institutions in

beliefs of the importance of the educator domain of student affairs administration.

76


regarding their beliefs of the importance of the educator domain of student affairs

administration? A one-way analysis of variance test was used to test for a significant

difference between senior level, mid-level, or entry level practitioners in beliefs of the

importance of the educator domain of student affairs administration.


methods of entry regarding their beliefs of the importance of the educator domain of

student affairs administration? A one-way analysis of variance test was used to test for a

significant difference between practitioners who entered the field with a master’s degree,

as an allied professional, or via another method in beliefs of the importance of the

educator domain of student affairs administration.


beliefs of the importance of the leader domain of student affairs

administration?




leader domain (clarifying roles and objectives, consulting, delegating, developing and

mentoring, informing, managing conflict and team building, monitoring, motivating and

inspiring, networking, planning and organizing, problem solving, recognizing, rewarding,

and supporting) for questions regarding importance in student affairs administration have

a good reliability rating. Therefore, a variable for the leader domain was created using

77

the means of the behavioral characteristic responses. This leader domain scale-important

was used as the dependent variable for Research Question 2b.


institutional types regarding their beliefs of the importance of the leader domain of



beliefs of the importance of the leader domain of student affairs administration.


regarding their beliefs of the importance of the leader domain of student affairs



importance of the leader domain of student affairs administration.


methods of entry regarding their beliefs of the importance of the leader domain of student

affairs administration? A one-way analysis of variance test was used to test for a


as an allied professional, or via another method in beliefs of the importance of the leader

domain of student affairs administration.


beliefs of the importance of the manager domain of student affairs

administration?


Understanding Beliefs, Skills, and Behavior— was conducted using Cronbach’s alpha

78


manager domain (administering, controlling, consulting, coordinating, decision making,

monitoring indicators, planning and organizing, representing, and supervising) for

questions regarding importance in student affairs administration have a good reliability

rating. Therefore, a variable for the manager domain was created using the means of the

behavioral characteristic responses. This manager domain scale-important was used as

the dependent variable for Research Question 2c.


institutional types regarding their beliefs of the importance of the leader domain of



beliefs of the importance of the manager domain of student affairs administration.


regarding their beliefs of the importance of the manager domain of student affairs



importance of the manager domain of student affairs administration.


methods of entry regarding their beliefs of the importance of the manager domain of

student affairs administration? A one-way analysis of variance test was used to test for a


as an allied professional, or via another method in beliefs of the importance of the

manager domain of student affairs administration.

79



affairs report that they have the skills necessary to fulfill the (three) domains of student

affairs administration?” was answered using the following three sub-questions for each

domain with three corresponding sub-questions for each independent variable.

RQ3a: Is there a significant difference between practitioners regarding the

necessary skills in the educator domain of student affairs administration?


Understanding Beliefs, Skills, and Behavior— was conducted using Cronbach’s alpha




questions regarding the necessary skills in student affairs administration have a good

reliability rating. Therefore, a variable for the educator domain was created using the

means of the behavioral characteristic responses. This educator domain scale-skills was

used as the dependent variable for Research Question 3a.


institutional types regarding their self-reported skills in the educator domain of student

affairs administration? An independent samples t-test was used to test for a significant

difference between practitioners who are at public or private institutions in self-reported

skills in the educator domain of student affairs administration.


regarding their self-reported skills in the educator domain of student affairs

80


difference between senior level, mid-level, or entry level practitioners in self-reported

skills in the educator domain of student affairs administration.


methods of entry regarding their self-reported skills in the educator domain of student



as an allied professional, or via another method in self-reported skills in the educator



self-reported skills in the leader domain of student affairs administration?









the means of the behavioral characteristic responses. This leader domain scale-skills was

used as the dependent variable for Research Question 3b.


institutional types regarding their self-reported skills in the leader domain of student

81



skills in the leader domain of student affairs administration.


regarding their self-reported skills in the leader domain of student affairs administration?

A one-way analysis of variance test was used to test for a significant difference between

senior level, mid-level, or entry level practitioners in self-reported skills in the leader



methods of entry regarding their self-reported skills in the leader domain of student



as an allied professional, or via another method in self-reported skills in of the leader



self-reported skills in the manager domain of student affairs administration?






questions regarding skills in student affairs administration have a good reliability rating.

Therefore, a variable for the manager domain was created using the means of the

82

behavioral characteristic responses. This manager domain scale-skills variable was used

as the dependent variable for Research Question 3c.


institutional types regarding their self-reported skills in the leader domain of student



skills in the manager domain of student affairs administration.


regarding their self-reported skills in the manager domain of student affairs



skills in the manager domain of student affairs administration.


methods of entry regarding their self-reported skills in the manager domain of student



as an allied professional, or via another method in self-reported skills in the manager




affairs report that their behavior fulfills the (three) domains of student affairs

administration?” was answered using the following three sub-questions for each domain

with three corresponding sub-questions for each independent variable.

83


behavior in the educator domain of student affairs administration?






questions regarding their self-reported behavior in student affairs administration have a

good reliability rating. Therefore, a variable for the educator domain was created using

the means of the behavioral characteristic responses. This educator domain scale-

behavior was used as the dependent variable for research question 4a.


institutional types regarding their self-reported behavior in the educator domain of



self-reported behavior in the educator domain of student affairs administration.


regarding their self-reported behavior in the educator domain of student affairs



behavior in the educator domain of student affairs administration.


methods of entry regarding their self-reported behavior in the educator domain of student

84



as an allied professional, or via another method in self-reported behavior in the educator



self-reported behavior in the leader domain of student affairs administration?









the means of the behavioral characteristic responses. This leader domain scale-behavior

was used as the dependent variable for research question 4b.


institutional types regarding their self-reported behavior in the leader domain of student



behavior in the leader domain of student affairs administration.


regarding their self-reported behavior in the leader domain of student affairs

85



behavior in the leader domain of student affairs administration.


methods of entry regarding their self-reported behavior in the leader domain of student



as an allied professional, or via another method in self-reported behavior in of the leader



self-reported behavior in the manager domain of student affairs

administration?






questions regarding behavior in student affairs administration have a good reliability

rating. Therefore, a variable for the manager domain was created using the means of the

behavioral characteristic responses. This manager domain scale-behavior variable was

used as the dependent variable for research question 4c.


institutional types regarding their self-reported behavior in the leader domain of student

86



behavior in the manager domain of student affairs administration.


regarding their self-reported behavior in the manager domain of student affairs



behavior in the manager domain of student affairs administration.


methods of entry regarding their self-reported behavior in the manager domain of student



as an allied professional, or via another method in self-reported behavior in of the

manager domain of student affairs administration.


Research Question 5, “What forms of professional development are used by

practitioners in the field of student affairs regarding the (three) domains of student affairs

administration?” was answered using the following procedure. The questions in Section

6 of the instrument, which pertained to professional development, were analyzed.

Analysis of variance and t-tests were used as appropriate to test for a significant

difference between the responses based on the independent variables.



87

administration?” was answered using the following three sub-questions for each domain

with three corresponding sub-questions for each independent variable.

RQ5a: What forms of professional development are used by practitioners in the

field of student affairs regarding the educator domain of student affairs

administration?

The question in Section 6 of the instrument, which pertained to the preferred

forms of professional development for the educator domain, was analyzed as the

dependent variable.

RQ5aa: What forms of professional development are used by practitioners of

different institutional types regarding the educator domain of student affairs

administration? A crosstab analysis was used to obtain the frequencies of each form of

professional development.

RQ5ab: What forms of professional development are used by practitioners of

different levels regarding the educator domain of student affairs administration? A

crosstab analysis was used to obtain the frequencies of each form of professional

development.

RQ5ac: What forms of professional development are used by practitioners with

different methods of entry regarding the educator domain of student affairs



RQ5b: What forms of professional development are used by practitioners in the

field of student affairs regarding the leader domain of student affairs

administration?

88


forms of professional development for the leader domain, was analyzed as the dependent

variable.

RQ5ba: What forms of professional development are used by practitioners of

different institutional types regarding the leader domain of student affairs administration?

A crosstab analysis was used to obtain the frequencies of each form of professional

development.

RQ5bb: What forms of professional development are used by practitioners of

different levels regarding the leader domain of student affairs administration? A crosstab

analysis was used to obtain the frequencies of each form of professional development.

RQ5bc: What forms of professional development are used by practitioners with

different methods of entry regarding the leader domain of student affairs administration?

A crosstab analysis was used to obtain the frequencies of each form of professional

development.

RQ5c: What forms of professional development are used by practitioners in the

field of student affairs regarding the manager domain of student affairs

administration?


forms of professional development for the manager domain, was analyzed as the

dependent variable.

RQ5ca: What forms of professional development are used by practitioners of

different institutional types regarding the manager domain of student affairs

89



RQ5cb: What forms of professional development are used by practitioners of

different levels regarding the manager domain of student affairs administration? A

crosstab analysis was used to obtain the frequencies of each form of professional

development.

RQ5cc: What forms of professional development are used by practitioners with

different methods of entry regarding the manager domain of student affairs



Limitations

This study examined the effects of method of entry into the field of student

affairs, work level in the field of student affairs, and institutional type. Though there was

no indication in the literature to lead me to believe this is the case, it is possible that

factors not examined in this study (including race and ethnicity, sex and gender, and age)

may have had an unanticipated effect on the beliefs, skills, and behavior of individuals

working in student affairs.

Furthermore, using a professional organization to solicit participation in this study

may have resulted in some response bias. There has never been any research to indicate

this, but members of SACSA may have been predisposed to viewpoints or beliefs that

differed from the general population of student affairs practitioners and professionals.

This possible limitation may be tempered by the selection of SACSA; since it does have

90

lower membership costs than national professional associations, it may actually attract a

wider variety of professionals in economically difficult times.

A further limitation of the study could be that participants’ motivation for

responding was unknown; while some individuals may have chosen to respond, others

with like characteristics may have chosen to ignore the questionnaire. Therefore, it

cannot be guaranteed that the results are completely representative. Overall, the

limitations of this study are fairly typical of survey research and surveying SACSA

membership is a solid strategy for the purposes of this study.

91

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to understand how individuals working in student

affairs view the roles of educator, leader, and manager. This was accomplished through

the following five research questions:

RQ1: Do practitioners in the field of student affairs perceive their roles

positively?


believe each of the (three) domains of student affairs administration are

important?


have the skills necessary to fulfill the (three) domains of student affairs

administration?

RQ4: To what extent do practitioners in the field of student affairs report that their


RQ5: What forms of professional development are used by practitioners in the

field of student affairs regarding the (three) domains of student affairs

administration?

Each research question had the following three independent variables: (1) type of

institution at which the participant was employed, (2) work level in the field of student

affairs, and (3) method of entry into the field of student affairs. In this chapter, a

92

summary of participant demographics will be provided as well as the results of the

statistical analysis used by the researcher to address each of the study’s research questions.

Participant Demographics

The 91 participants in the study were members of SACSA and worked in the field

of student affairs at a college or university in the southeastern United States. Table 4.1

provides participants’ demographic and professional characteristics. A majority of the

participants (62.6%) worked at public institutions while the remainder (37.4%) worked at

private institutions. Almost half (46.2%) of participants indicated that they were

Table 4.1

Demographic Characteristics of Participants

Variable N Percent

Institutional Type

Public Institution 57 62.6%

Private Institution 34 37.4%

Level in Field

Senior Level 31 34.1%

Mid-Level 42 46.2%

Entry Level 18 19.8%

Entry Method

Master's Degree in Student Affairs 59 64.8%

Allied Professional 16 17.6%

Other Method of Entry 16 17.6%

Institution Size

1,500 or fewer students 13 14.3%

1,501–5,000 students 18 19.8%

5.001–10,000 students 16 17.6%

10,001–20,000 students 18 19.8%

20,001 or more students 26 28.6%

Time in Field

3 years or fewer 15 16.5%

4–7 years 20 22.0%

8–15 years 22 24.2%

16–25 years 11 12.1%

26 or more years 23 25.3%

93

currently mid-level in the field while 34.1% indicated they are senior level and 19.8%

indicated that they are entry level. A majority (64.8%) of participants indicated that they

obtained a master’s degree in student affairs as their entry into the field while the

remainder was split evenly between allied professionals and other methods of entry at

17.6%. Information on institutional size and length of time in the field of student affairs

was also collected but not analyzed in the study.

Research Question 1: Positive Perceptions

Research Question 1, “Do practitioners in the field of student affairs perceive

their roles positively?” was answered using the three sub-questions for each domain

(RQ1a: educator; RQ1b: leader; RQ1c: manager) and three corresponding sub-questions

for each independent variable. The question in Section 2 of the instrument, which

pertained to the description of participants’ work as positive, was analyzed as the

dependent variable.

Independent samples t-tests were used to test for a significant difference between

practitioners based on institution type (public; private) in perception of the domain

descriptor (RQ1aa: educator; RQ1ba: leader; RQ1ca: manager) as positive. Prior to

calculating the test statistics, Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances was used to determine

that the population variances between the institution types were equal. At the α = .05 level,

the variances were not significantly different; therefore, the assumption of homogeneity of

variances was satisfied for each of the tests. The independent samples t-tests did not yield

significant results at the α = .05 level (see Table 4.2). Therefore, the researcher was unable

to determine any difference between professionals based on institution type in perception

94

of the domain descriptor educator (RQ1aa), leader (RQ1ba), or manager (RQ1ca) as

positive.

Table 4.2

Independent Samples T-tests Regarding the Differences in Perceptions of Domains

between Professionals at Public and Private Institutions

RQ Domain Group Descriptives T-test Results n Mean SD t df p

RQ1aa Educator -0.911 1, 89 0.365

Public 57 1.160 0.368

Private 34 1.240 0.431

RQ1ba Leader 0.041 1, 89 0.967

Public 57 1.300 0.462

Private 34 1.290 0.462

RQ1ca Manager 1.130 1, 89 0.262

Public 57 2.140 0.990

Private 34 1.910 0.830

One-way analysis of variance tests were used to test for a significant difference in

perception of the descriptor (RQ1ab: educator; RQ1bb: leader; RQ1cb: manager) as

positive between practitioners’ level in the field (senior level; mid-level; entry level).

Significant results were yielded at the p < .05 level for the three groups on the educator

(RQ1ab) descriptor, F(2,88) = 3.14, p = .048. However, post-hoc comparisons using the

Bonferroni adjustment did not indicate a significant difference between any of the groups. A

one-way ANOVA did not yield significant results at the p < .05 level for the three groups on

the leader (RQ1bb) or manager (RQ1cb) descriptor (see Table 4.3). Therefore, the researcher

was unable to determine any difference between practitioners’ level in the field in

perception of the descriptor educator (RQ1ab), leader (RQ1bb), or manager (RQ1cb) as

positive.

95

Table 4.3

One-way ANOVA Tests Regarding the Differences in Perceptions of Domains between

Professionals at Different Levels

RQ Domain Group Descriptives ANOVA Results N Mean SD df F p

RQ1ab Educator 2, 88 3.136 0.048

Senior Level 31 1.130 0.341

Mid-Level 42 1.140 0.354

Entry Level 18 1.390 0.502

RQ1bb Leader 2, 88 1.208 0.304


Mid-Level 42 1.360 0.485

Entry Level 18 1.330 0.485

RQ1cb Manager 2, 88 0.062 0.940


Mid-Level 42 2.050 0.936

Entry Level 18 2.000 1.029


perception of the descriptor (RQ1ac: educator; RQ1bc: leader; RQ1cc: manager) as

positive between practitioners based on method of entry into the field (master’s degree;

allied professional; other method). A one-way ANOVA yielded significant results at the p

< .05 level for the three groups on the manager (RQ1cc) descriptor, F (2,88) = 4.831, p =

.010. Post-hoc comparisons using the Bonferroni adjustment indicated that the mean for the

master’s entry group (M = 2.250, SD = .958) was significantly different from the allied

professionals group (M = 1.500, SD = .632), p = .011. However, the mean for the other

methods of entry group (M = 1.880, SD = .397) was not significantly different from the

master’s or allied professionals group (see Table 4.4). Therefore, the researcher was able to

determine a significant difference between practitioners based on method of entry into the

field in perception of the descriptor manager (RQ1cc) as positive. Allied professionals

96

had significantly more positive perceptions of the term “manager or management as a

descriptor of their work. However, analysis did not yield significant results at the p < .05

level for the three methods of entry on the educator or leader descriptor. Therefore, the

researcher was unable to determine a significant difference between practitioners based on

method of entry into the field in perception of the descriptors educator (RQ1ac) or leader

(RQ1bc) as positive.

Table 4.4

One-way ANOVA Tests Regarding the Differences in Perceptions of Domains between

Professionals with Different Methods of Entry

RQ Domain Group Descriptives ANOVA Results

N Mean SD df F p RQ1ac Educator 2, 88 0.261 0.771

Master's 59 1.170 0.378

Allied 16 1.190 0.403

Other 16 1.250 0.447

RQ1bc Leader 2, 88 0.320 0.727

Master's 59 1.290 0.457

Allied 16 1.250 0.447

Other 16 1.380 0.500

RQ1cc Manager 2, 88 4.831 0.010

Master's 59 2.250 0.958

Allied 16 1.500 0.632

Other 16 1.880 0.885

Research Question 2: Beliefs


affairs report that they believe each of the (three) domains of student affairs

administration are important?” was answered using the three sub-questions for each

97

domain (RQ2a: educator; RQ2b: leader; RQ2c: manager) and three corresponding sub-

questions for each independent variable.



estimate of internal consistency. A reliability rating of .700 or better is considered

acceptable, and .800 or better is considered good or preferable (Gay & Airasian, 2003).

Results showed that the behavioral characteristics in the educator domain (educating,

advising, coaching, collaborating, demonstrating, evaluating, facilitating, learning,

lecturing, modeling, researching, and structuring) for questions regarding importance in

student affairs administration had a good reliability rating, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.871 on

12 items. Results showed that the behavioral characteristics in the leader domain

(leading, clarifying roles and objectives, consulting, delegating, developing and



and supporting) for questions regarding importance in student affairs administration had a

good reliability rating, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.893 on 15 items. Results showed that the

behavioral characteristics in the manager domain (managing, administering, controlling,

consulting, coordinating, decision making, monitoring indicators, planning and

organizing, representing, and supervising) for questions regarding importance in student

affairs administration had a good reliability rating, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.816 on 10

items. Since the reliability rating was good for each of these set of questions, it was

permissible to analyze the data as a scale (Gay & Airasian, 2003). Therefore, a scale

variable was created using the means of the behavioral characteristic responses for each

98

of the respective sets of questions for the educator, leader, and manager domains, which

in turn were used as the dependent variables for RQ2a, RQ2b, and RQ2c, respectively.

Independent samples t-tests were used to test for a significant differences between

practitioners based on institution type (public; private) in beliefs of the importance of

each of the domains of student affairs administration (RQ2aa: educator; RQ2ba: leader;

RQ2ca: manager). Prior to calculating the test statistics, Levene’s Test for Equality of

Variances was used to determine that the population variances between the institution types

were equal. Independent samples t-tests did not yield any significant results at the α = .05

level for RQ2aa, RQ2ba, and RQ2ca (see Table 4.5). Therefore, the researcher was unable to

determine any difference in beliefs of importance regarding any of the three domains based

on whether an individual works at a public or private institution. Additionally, when

independent samples t-tests were conducted on each of the individual behavioral

characteristics which made up each scale variable, no statistically significant differences were

found based on institutional type.

Table 4.5

Independent Samples T-tests Regarding the Differences in Beliefs of Importance between

Professionals at Public and Private Institutions

RQ Domain Group Descriptives T-test Results

N Mean SD t df p RQ2aa Educator -1.394 85 0.167

Public 55 1.397 0.365

Private 32 1.521 0.453

RQ2ba Leader -1.699 88 0.093

Public 57 1.266 0.290

Private 33 1.384 0.363

RQ2ca Manager -1.432 85 0.156

Public 56 1.323 0.311

Private 31 1.429 0.363

99

A one-way analysis of variance test was used to test for a significant difference

between practitioners’ level in the field (senior level; mid-level; entry level) in beliefs of

the importance of each of the domains of student affairs administration (RQ2ab:

educator; RQ2bb: leader; RQ2cb: manager). One-way analysis of variance tests did not

yield any significant results at the p < .05 level for RQ2ab, RQ2bb, or RQ2cb (see Table

4.6). Therefore, the researcher was unable to determine any difference in beliefs of

importance regarding any of the three domains based on the level in the field of

professionals. However, when one-way analysis of variance tests were conducted on each of

the individual behavioral characteristics which made up each scale variable, the only

significant differences were found based on level in the field for lecturing in the educator

domain and motivating and inspiring, as well as consulting in the leader domain.

Table 4.6

One-way ANOVA Tests Regarding the Differences in Beliefs of Importance between


RQ Domain Group Descriptives ANOVA Results N Mean SD df F p

RQ2ab Educator 2, 84 0.785 0.459


Mid-Level 42 1.494 0.419

Entry Level 18 1.431 0.410

RQ2bb Leader 2, 87 1.486 0.232

Senior Level 30 1.233 0.306 Mid-Level 42 1.365 0.334

Entry Level 18 1.304 0.309

RQ2cb Manager 2, 84 0.813 0.447

Senior Level 29 1.297 0.342 Mid-Level 41 1.393 0.334

Entry Level 17 1.394 0.313

100

One-way analysis of variance tests were used to test for a significant difference

between practitioners based on method of entry into the field (master’s degree; allied

professional; other method) in beliefs of the importance of each of the domains of student

affairs administration (RQ2ac: educator; RQ2bc: leader; RQ2cc: manager). One-way

analysis of variance tests did not yield any significant results at the p < .05 level for RQ2ac,

RQ2bc, or RQ2cc (see Table 4.7). Therefore, the researcher was unable to determine any

difference in beliefs of importance regarding any of the three domains based on the method

of entry of professionals. Additionally, when one-way analysis of variance tests were

conducted on each of the individual behavioral characteristics which made up each scale

variable, no statistically significant differences were found based on method of entry.

Table 4.7

One-way ANOVA Tests Regarding the Differences in Beliefs of Importance between



N Mean SD df F p RQ2ac Educator 2, 84 0.103 0.903

Master's 56 1.452 0.408

Allied 16 1.401 0.384

Other 15 1.450 0.422

RQ2bc Leader 2, 87 0.365 0.695

Master's 58 1.289 0.310

Allied 16 1.329 0.339

Other 16 1.363 0.359

RQ2cc Manager 2, 84 0.174 0.841

Master's 56 1.354 0.331

Allied 15 1.407 0.351

Other 16 1.344 0.335

101

Research Question 3: Skills


affairs report that they have the skills necessary to fulfill the (three) domains of student

affairs administration?” was answered using the three sub-questions for each domain

(RQ3a: educator; RQ3b: leader; RQ3c: manager), and three corresponding sub-questions

for each independent variable. A reliability test on the questions in Section 3 of the

questionnaire—Understanding Beliefs, Skills, and Behavior—was conducted using

Cronbach’s alpha estimate of internal consistency. A reliability rating of .700 or better is

considered acceptable and .800 or better is considered good or (Gay & Airasian, 2003).

Results showed that the behavioral characteristics in the educator domain (educating,

advising, coaching, collaborating, demonstrating, evaluating, facilitating, learning,

lecturing, modeling, researching, and structuring) for questions regarding the necessary

skills in student affairs administration had a good reliability rating, Cronbach’s alpha =

0.872 on 12 items. Results showed that the behavioral characteristics in the leader

domain (leading, clarifying roles and objectives, consulting, delegating, developing and



and supporting) for questions regarding importance in student affairs administration had a

good reliability rating, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.889 on 15 items. Results showed that the

behavioral characteristics in the manager domain (managing, administering, controlling,

consulting, coordinating, decision making, monitoring indicators, planning and

organizing, representing, and supervising) for questions regarding skills in student affairs

administration had a good reliability rating, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.852 on 10 items.

102

Since the reliability rating was good each of these sets of questions, it was permissible to

analyze the data as a (Gay & Airasian, 2003). Therefore, a scale variable was created

using the means of the behavioral characteristic responses for each of the respective sets

of questions for the educator, leader, and manager domains, which in turn were used as

the dependent variables for RQ3a, RQ3b, and RQ3c, respectively.

Independent samples t-tests were used to test for a significant difference between

practitioners based on institution type (public; private) in self-reported skills in each of

the domains of student affairs administration (RQ3aa: educator; RQ3ba: leader; RQ3ca:

manager). Prior to calculating the test statistics, Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances was

used to determine that the population variances between the institution types were equal. At

the α = .05 level, the variances were not significantly different; therefore, the assumption of

homogeneity of variances was satisfied. The independent samples t-tests did not yield any

significant results at the α = .05 level for RQ3aa, RQ3ba, or RQ3ca (see Table 4.8).

Therefore, the researcher was unable to determine any difference in self-reported skills

regarding any of the three domains based on whether an individual works at a public or

private institution. Additionally, when independent samples t-tests were conducted on each

of the individual behavioral characteristics which made up each scale variable, no statistically

significant differences were found based on institutional type.

Table 4.8

Independent Samples T-tests Regarding the Differences in Self-reported Skills between


RQ Domain Group Descriptives T-test Results

N Mean SD t df p RQ3aa Educator -0.618 85 0.538

Public 55 1.600 0.443

103

Private 32 1.659 0.402

RQ3ba Leader -0.575 86 0.567

Public 55 1.503 0.397

Private 33 1.552 0.359

RQ3ca Manager 0.109 84 0.913

Public 55 1.644 0.496

Private 31 1.632 0.397


self-reported skills in each of the domains of student affairs administration (RQ3ab:

educator; RQ3bb: leader; RQ3cb: manager) based on participants’ level in the field

(senior level; mid-level; entry level). A one-way analysis of variance test did not yield

any significant results at the p < .05 level for RQ3ab (see Table 4.9). Therefore, the

researcher was unable to determine a difference in self-reported skills regarding the

educator domain based on participants’ level in the field. Additionally, when one-way

analysis of variance tests were conducted on each of the individual behavioral characteristics

which made up the educator scale variable, no statistically significant differences were found

based on level in the field.

However, a one-way analysis of variance test yielded significant results at the p <

.05 level for the three groups on the leader domain (RQ3bb), F (2,87) = 5.282, p = .007.

The post-hoc comparisons using the Bonferroni adjustment indicated that the mean for

senior level (M = 1.343, SD = .330) was significantly different from mid-level (M =

1.621, SD = 0.373), p = .007. However, the mean for entry level (M = 1.582, SD = .397)

was not significantly different from senior level or mid-level. Therefore, the researcher was

able to determine a difference that senior level individuals in student affairs more strongly

agree that they have the skills to fulfill the leader role in their work than do entry level

professionals. Furthermore, a one-way analysis of variance test yielded significant results at

104

the p < .05 level for the three groups on the manager domain (RQ3cb), F (2,85) = 4.155, p =

.019. Post-hoc comparisons using the Bonferroni adjustment indicated that the mean for

senior level (M = 1.446, SD = .362) was significantly different from mid-level (M = 1.707,

SD = .482) at p = .056 and that the mean entry level (M = 1.794, SD = .470) at p = .038.

However, the mean for mid-level was not significantly different from entry level. Therefore,

the researcher was able to determine a difference that senior level individuals in student

affairs more strongly agree that they have the skills to fulfill the manager role in their work

than do mid-level or entry level professionals.

Table 4.9

One-way ANOVA Tests Regarding the Differences in Self-reported Skills between



N Mean SD df F p RQ3ab Educator 2, 84 0.867 0.424


Mid-Level 42 1.613 0.398

Entry Level 18 1.732 0.486

RQ3bb Leader 2, 85 5.282 0.007


Mid-Level 41 1.621 0.373

Entry Level 18 1.582 0.397

RQ3cb Manager 2, 83 4.155 0.019


Mid-Level 41 1.707 0.482

Entry Level 17 1.794 0.470


self-reported skills in each of the domains of student affairs administration (RQ3ac:

educator; RQ3bc: leader; RQ3cc: manager) between practitioners based on method of

entry into the field (master’s degree; allied professional; other method). A one-way

105

ANOVA did not yield any significant results at the p < .05 level for the three groups for

RQ3ac, RQ3bc, or RQ3cc (see Table 4.10). Therefore, the researcher was unable to

determine any difference in self-reported skills regarding any of the three domains based on

an individual’s method of entry. However, when one-way analysis of variance tests were

conducted on each of the individual behavioral characteristics which made up each scale

variable, the only significant differences were found based on method of entry for controlling

in the manager domain.

Table 4.10

One-way ANOVA Tests Regarding the Differences in Self-reported Skills between



N Mean SD df F p

RQ3ac Educator 2, 84 0.025 0.975

Master's 56 1.622 0.465

Allied 16 1.604 0.333

Other 15 1.639 0.387

RQ3bc Leader 2, 85 0.023 0.977

Master's 56 1.520 0.405

Allied 16 1.508 0.353

Other 16 1.538 0.343

RQ3cc Manager 2, 83 0.384 0.683

Master's 55 1.638 0.499

Allied 15 1.567 0.294

Other 16 1.713 0.460

Research Question 4: Behavior


affairs report that they behave in a way that fulfills the (three) domains of student affairs

administration?” was answered using the three sub-questions for each domain (RQ4a:

educator; RQ4b: leader; RQ4c: manager) and three corresponding sub-questions for each

106

independent variable. A reliability test on the questions in Section 3 of the

questionnaire—Understanding Beliefs, Skills, and Behavior—was conducted using

Cronbach’s alpha estimate of internal consistency. A reliability rating of .700 or better is

considered acceptable and .800 or better is considered good or preferable (Gay &

Airasian, 2003). Results showed that the behavioral characteristics in the educator

domain (educating, advising, coaching, collaborating, demonstrating, evaluating,

facilitating, learning, lecturing, modeling, researching, and structuring) for questions

regarding self-reported behavior in student affairs administration had a good reliability

rating, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.830 on 12 items. Results showed that the behavioral

characteristics in the leader domain (leading, clarifying roles and objectives, consulting,

delegating, developing and mentoring, informing, managing conflict and team building,

monitoring, motivating and inspiring, networking, planning and organizing, problem

solving, recognizing, rewarding, and supporting) for questions regarding importance in

student affairs administration had a good reliability rating, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.882 on

15 items. Results showed that the behavioral characteristics in the manager domain

(managing, administering, controlling, consulting, coordinating, decision making,


questions regarding behavior in student affairs administration had a good reliability

rating, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.798 on 10 items. Since the reliability rating was good for

each of these sets of questions, it was permissible to analyze the data as a scale (Gay &

Airasian, 2003). Therefore, a scale variable was created using the means of the

behavioral characteristic responses for each of the respective sets of questions for the

107

educator, leader, and manager domains, which in turn were used as the dependent

variables for RQ4a, RQ4b, and RQ4c, respectively.

Independent samples t-tests were used to test for a significant difference in self-

reported behavior in each of the domains of student affairs administration (RQ4aa:

educator; RQ4ba: leader; RQ4ca: manager) based on institution type (public; private).

Prior to calculating the test statistics, Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances was used to

determine that the population variances between the institution types were equal. At the α =

.05 level, the variances were not significantly different; therefore, the assumption of

homogeneity of variances was satisfied. The independent samples t-test did not yield

significant results at the α = .05 level for RQ4aa, RQ4ba, or RQ4ca (see Table 4.11).

Therefore, the researcher was unable to determine any difference in behaviors regarding any

of the three domains based on whether an individual works at a public or private institution.

However, when independent samples t-tests were conducted on each of the individual

behavioral characteristics which made up each scale variable, the only significant differences

were found based on method of entry for networking in the leader domain.

Table 4.11

Independent Samples T-tests Regarding the Differences in Behavior between


RQ Domain Group Descriptives T-Test Results

N Mean SD t df p

RQ4aa Educator -1.425 72 0.158

Public 47 1.761 0.461

Private 27 1.923 0.489

RQ4ba Leader -0.224 83 0.823

Public 53 1.664 0.508

Private 32 1.688 0.383

RQ4ca Manager -0.210 81 0.834

108

Public 54 1.754 0.583

Private 29 1.779 0.414

One-way analysis of variance tests were used to test for a significant difference

between participants’ level in the field (senior level; mid-level; entry level) in self-

reported behavior in each of the domains of student affairs administration (RQ4ab:

educator; RQ4bb: leader; RQ4cb: manager). A one-way ANOVA did not yield significant

results at the p < .05 level for the three groups for the educator domain (see Table 4.12).

Therefore, the researcher was unable to determine a difference in self-reported behavior

regarding the educator domain (RQ4ab) based on participants’ level in the field. However,

when one-way analysis of variance tests were conducted on each of the individual behavioral

characteristics which made up the educator scale variable, significant differences were found

based on level in the field for coaching, facilitating, lecturing, researching, and modeling in

the educator domain.

On the leader domain (RQ4bb), however, a one-way analysis of variance test yielded

significant results at the p < .05 level for the three groups, F (2,82) = 6.552, p = .002. Post-

hoc comparisons using the Bonferroni adjustment indicated that the mean for senior level (M

= 1.443, SD = .338) was significantly different from mid-level (M = 1.742, SD = .404) at p =

.02 and that the mean for entry level (M = 1.890, SD = .613), at p = .004. However, the mean

for mid-level was not significantly different from entry level. Therefore, the researcher was

able to determine that senior level individuals in student affairs more strongly agree that they

do the work of the leader role than do mid-level or entry level professionals. Furthermore, a

one-way analysis of variance test yielded significant results at the p < .05 level for the three

groups on the manager domain (RQ4cb), F (2,80) = 8.032, p = .001. Post-hoc comparisons

using the Bonferroni adjustment indicated that the mean for entry level (M = 2.14, SD = .656)

109

was significantly different from senior level (M = 1.522, SD = .413) at p = .001 and mid-

level (M = 1.775, SD = .456) at p = .042. However, the mean for senior level was not

significantly different from mid-level. Therefore, the researcher was able to determine a

difference that senior level and mid-level individuals in student affairs more strongly agree

that they do the work of the manager role in their work than do entry level professionals.

Table 4.12

One-way ANOVA Tests Regarding the Differences in Behavior between Professionals at

Different Levels


N Mean SD df F p

RQ4ab Educator 2, 71 2.594 0.082


Mid-Level 37 1.836 0.417

Entry Level 13 2.039 0.569

RQ4bb Leader 2, 82 6.552 0.002


Mid-Level 40 1.742 0.404

Entry Level 17 1.890 0.613

RQ4cb Manager 2, 80 8.032 0.001


Mid-Level 40 1.775 0.456

Entry Level 16 2.138 0.656


self-reported behavior in each of the domains of student affairs administration (RQ4ac:

educator; RQ4bc: leader; RQ4cc: manager) based on the method of entry into the field

(master’s degree; allied professional; other method). A one-way ANOVA did not yield

any significant results at the p < .05 level for the three groups for RQ4ac, RQ4bc, or RQ4cc

(see Table 4.13). Therefore, the researcher was unable to determine any difference in self-

reported behaviors regarding any of the three domains based on the method by which an

110

individual entered the profession. Additionally, when one-way analysis of variance tests

were conducted on each of the individual behavioral characteristics which made up the scale

variables, no statistically significant differences were found based on level in the field.

Table 4.13

One-way ANOVA Tests Regarding the Differences in Behavior between Professionals

with Different Methods of Entry


N Mean SD df F p

RQ4ac Educator 2, 71 0.305 0.738

Master's 46 1.848 0.538

Allied 13 1.731 0.347

Other 15 1.811 0.364

RQ4bc Leader

Master's 55 1.678 0.520 2, 82 0.008 0.992

Allied 14 1.662 0.382

Other 16 1.667 0.308

RQ4cc Manager 2, 80 0.315 0.731

Master's 53 1.766 0.583

Allied 15 1.680 0.423

Other 15 1.833 0.420

Research Question 5: Professional Development



administration?” was answered utilizing the following sub-questions (RQ5a: educator;

RQ5b: leader; RQ5c: manager) with corresponding sub-questions for each independent

variable. The questions in Section 5 of the instrument, which pertained to the preferred

forms of professional development for the each of the domains, were analyzed as the

dependent variable. A crosstab analysis was used to obtain the frequencies of each form

of professional development. Tables 4.14– 4.22 illustrate the responses to the questions

111

about methods that student affairs practitioners, by level, utilized for professional

development in each domain. Participants were able to select up to three areas, so the

frequency percentages do not add up to 100%.

For the educator domain (RQ5a), as shown in Table 4.14, both professionals at

public and private institutions appeared to utilize discussion with colleagues, conference

sessions, and professional journals. As shown in Table 4.15, senior level and mid-level

professionals also appeared to utilize discussion with colleagues, conference sessions,

and professional journals. Entry level professionals, however, utilized colleagues,

conference sessions, and mentors. Furthermore, as shown in Table 4.16, both

practitioners with a master’s degree and allied professionals appeared to utilize

discussion with colleagues, conference sessions, and professional journals. Professionals

who entered through other methods, however, utilized discussion with colleagues,

conference sessions, and on-campus workshops.

Table 4.14

Preferred Methods of Professional Development for Education by Professionals in

Different Institutional Types (RQ5aa)

Method Public Private

N Percentages N Percentages

Academic course 6 10.50% 3 8.80%

Association institute 15 26.30% 7 20.60%

Books 8 14.00% 7 20.60%

Conference session 28 49.10% 18 52.90%

Discussion with colleagues 35 61.40% 17 50.00%

Higher education news 8 14.00% 3 8.80%

Mentor 15 26.30% 12 35.30%

On-campus workshop 10 17.50% 8 23.50%

Online course 2 3.50% 1 2.90%

Professional journals 23 40.40% 13 38.20%

Webinar 11 19.30% 6 17.60%

112

n=91

Table 4.15

Preferred Methods of Professional Development for Education by Professionals at

Different Levels (RQ5ab)

Method Senior Level Mid-Level Entry Level

N Percentages N Percentages N Percentages

Academic course 2 6.50% 6 14.30% 1 5.60%

Association institute 8 25.80% 10 23.80% 4 22.20%

Books 3 9.70% 7 16.70% 5 27.80%

Conference session 14 45.20% 22 52.40% 10 55.60%

Discussion with

colleagues 18 58.10% 25 59.50% 9 50.00%

Higher education

news

3 9.70% 8 19.00% 0 0.00%

Mentor 6 19.40% 14 33.30% 7 38.90%

On-campus workshop 5 16.10% 9 21.40% 4 22.20%

Online course 1 3.20% 1 2.40% 1 5.60%

Professional journals 11 35.50% 20 47.60% 5 27.80%

Webinar 7 22.60% 7 16.70% 3 16.70%

n = 91

Table 4.16

Preferred Methods of Professional Development for Education by Different Methods of

Entry (RQ5ac)

Method Master’s degree Allied Other


Academic course 6 10.20% 1 6.30% 2 12.50%


Books 10 16.90% 5 31.30% 0 0.00%


Discussion with

colleagues 37 62.70% 7 43.80% 8 50.00%

Higher education

news 7 11.90% 3 18.80% 1 6.30%

Mentor 18 30.50% 4 25.00% 5 31.30%

On-campus

workshop 6 10.20% 4 25.00%

8 50.00%

Online course 0 0.00% 2 12.50% 1 6.30%

113


Webinar 11 18.60% 3 18.80% 3 18.80%

n = 91

For the leader domain (RQ5b), as shown in Table 4.17, professionals at both

public and private institutions appeared to utilize discussion with colleagues, mentors,

and conference sessions. As shown in Table 4.18, senior level professionals appeared to

utilize discussion with colleagues, conference sessions, mentors, and association

sponsored institutes. Mid-level and entry level professionals, however, utilized mentors,

conference sessions, and discussion with colleagues. As shown in Table 4.19, master’s

degree professionals and allied professionals, as well as those who entered via other

methods, appeared to utilize discussion with colleagues, mentors, and conference

sessions.

Table 4.17

Preferred Methods of Professional Development for Leadership by Professionals in

Different Institutional Types (RQ5ba)





Books 10 17.50% 11 32.40%




Mentor 29 50.90% 18 52.90%




Webinar 7 12.30% 1 2.90%

n = 91

114

Table 4.18

Preferred Methods of Professional Development for Leadership by Professionals at

Different Levels (RQ5bb)



Academic course 0 0.00% 1 2.40% 2 11.10%

Association

institute 12 38.70% 14 33.30% 2 11.10%

Books 6 19.40% 12 28.60% 3 16.70%


Discussion with

colleagues 18 58.10% 28 66.70% 9 50.00%

Higher education

news 6 19.40% 4 9.50% 0 0.00%

Mentor 12 38.70% 22 52.40% 13 72.20%

On-campus

workshop 4 12.90% 5 11.90% 2 11.10%

Online course 0 0.00% 1 2.40% 1 5.60%

Professional journal 7 22.60% 12 28.60% 5 27.80%

Webinar 2 6.50% 6 14.30% 0 0.00%

n = 91

Table 4.19

Preferred Methods of Professional Development for Leadership by Different Methods of

Entry (RQ5bc)



Academic course 0 0.00% 2 12.50% 1 6.30%


Books 16 27.10% 3 18.80% 2 12.50%


Discussion with

colleagues 38 64.40% 7 43.80% 10 62.50%

Higher education

news 7 11.90% 2 12.50% 1 6.30%

Mentor 29 49.20% 8 50.00% 10 62.50%

On-campus

workshop 4 6.80% 2 12.50% 5 31.30%

Online course 1 1.70% 1 6.30% 0 0.00%


115

Webinar 5 8.50% 3 18.80% 0 0.00%

n = 91

For the manager domain (RQ5c), as shown in Table 4.20, professionals at both

public and private institutions appeared to utilize discussion with colleagues, mentors,

and conference sessions. As shown in Table 4.21, senior level and mid-level

professionals utilized discussion with colleagues, conference sessions, and mentors.

Entry level professionals, however, appeared to utilize mentors, discussion with

colleagues, and conference sessions. As shown in Table 4.22, master’s degree

professionals, as well as those who entered via other methods, appeared to utilize

discussion with colleagues, conference sessions, and mentors. Alternatively, allied

professionals appeared to utilize mentors, professional journals, and books.

Table 4.20

Preferred Methods of Professional Development for Management by Professionals in

Different Institutional Types (RQ5ca)





Books 10 17.50% 8 23.50%




Mentor 23 40.40% 19 55.90%




Webinar 11 19.30% 5 14.70%

n = 91

116

Table 4.21

Preferred Methods of Professional Development for Management by Professionals at

Different Levels (RQ5cb)



Academic course 2 6.50% 2 4.80% 1 5.60%


Books 8 25.80% 9 21.40% 1 5.60%


Discussion with

colleagues 16 51.60% 22 52.40% 10 55.60%

Higher education news 5 16.10% 6 14.30% 1 5.60%

Mentor 12 38.70% 19 45.20% 11 61.10%


Online course 0 0.00% 3 7.10% 0 0.00%


Webinar 6 19.40% 9 21.40% 1 5.60%

n = 91

Table 4.22

Preferred Methods of Professional Development for Management by Different Methods

of Entry (RQ5cc)



Academic course 4 6.80% 1 6.30% 0 0.00%


Books 8 13.60% 6 37.50% 4 25.00%


Discussion with

colleagues 36 61.00%

4 25.00% 8 50.00%

Higher education

news 9 15.30% 3 18.80% 0 0.00%

Mentor 23 39.00% 12 75.00% 7 43.80%


Online course 1 1.70% 2 12.50% 0 0.00%


Webinar 11 18.60% 4 25.00% 1 6.30%

n = 91

117

Summary of Results

Data was collected using a locally-designed instrument, which gathered specific

demographic and institutional information; information regarding participants’

perceptions of the positive meaning of the terms educator, leader, and manager; self-

reported beliefs, skills, and behaviors of participants regarding education, leadership, and

management in their professional roles; and information regarding methods of

professional development. The response rate for this study was 36.69% (n = 91). The

researcher utilized descriptive statistics, independent samples t-tests, and one-way

analysis of variance methods to address the five research questions. No significant

differences were found on any research question regarding institutional type. When

analyzing the data using the level in the field variable, significant differences were found

in ratings of skill and behavior for leadership and management. Analysis showed

differences based on method of entry into the field of student affairs, regarding

perceptions of the terms manager and management as positive descriptors, with master’s

degree professionals rating the term as more negative than allied or other professionals.

Regardless of the topic or the variable, the preferred methods of professional

development overwhelmingly contained some combination of professional conference

sessions, discussion with colleagues, and mentors.

118

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter provides a summary of the research study (including additional

limitations that became evident upon data analysis), a discussion of the results,

recommendations for future research, and implications for practice.

Summary of the Research Study

The purpose of this study was to understand how student affairs practitioners view

the roles of educator, leader, and manager in their professional work and how those

perceptions may differ based on an individual’s employing institution type, level in the

field, or method of entry into the field. For this study, the researcher created a locally-

designed questionnaire, which contained six sections of information designed specifically

to answer five research questions. In the first section of the questionnaire, Professional

and Institutional Information, the researcher sought not only to obtain demographic

information but also to introduce the participant to the study and get him or her into the

appropriate frame of mind to respond to the remainder of the questionnaire. The items in

the second section of the instrument, Domains of Student Affairs Administration, focused

on understanding the participant’s initial perceptions regarding each of the three domains,

based on how he or she defines educator, leader, and manager. The third section,

Understanding Beliefs, Skills, and Behavior, was composed of questions regarding the

participant’s behavioral characteristics (i.e., beliefs, skills, and behavior), as described by

Creamer, Winston, and Miller (2001). These were later used to created scales for each

119

domain. The fourth section of the questionnaire, perspectives, solicited information

regarding how participants would rank their predominant domain. The fifth section of

the questionnaire, Professional Development contained questions regarding the methods

by which the participant sought professional development for each domain.

The researcher solicited participation from the membership of SACSA, a regional

student affairs professional organization in the southeastern United States. Regular

membership status in SACSA, open to individuals working at least half-time doing

student affairs work in a college or university in the southeastern United States, provided

the parameters for the study. The participation of 248 individuals was solicited by e-mail

to complete the online questionnaire and there were 91 usable responses, which yielded

an effective response rate for this study of 36.69% (n=91). .

The researcher utilized independent samples t-tests and one-way analysis of

variance tests to address how student affairs practitioners perceive the terms educator,

leader, and manager. Independent samples t-tests and one-way analysis of variance tests

were also used to address research questions regarding practitioners’ beliefs regarding the

importance of education, leadership, and management to student affairs as well as self-

reported skills and behavior. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the preferred

methods of professional development for education, leadership, and management.

Additional limitations.

In addition to the limitations addressed in Chapter 3, during data collection and

analysis, the researcher became aware of potential additional limitations. This study’s

sample size of 91 participants is representative enough to draw conclusions based on the

statistical analysis. However, in the future, researchers may seek to find alternative ways

120

of attracting the participation of entry level participants since the dataset was

predominantly made up of mid-level professionals, more so than the commonly

acknowledged makeup of the field of student affairs.

Further, that there was not much variability in many of the responses. This lack

of variability has the potential to mask statistically significant differences in the research

questions in which no statistically significant difference was found in this study. Though

the researcher originally intended to analyze the data based on more detailed institutional

type information, the researcher could not make any distinctions beyond public and

private due to the small number of responses for institutional descriptors (e.g., religiously

affiliated, community/technical college). Given the changing landscape of higher

education, the options also should have included “for-profit” and “online” as institutional

descriptors. It is unlikely, though, that significant numbers of individuals would have

selected those options.

Discussion of findings.

As discussed in previous chapters, the literature contained many references to the

importance of education, leadership, and management in student affairs work; however,

very little of the information was rooted in actual research rather than conjecture and/or

the stated values of the field. In contrast, this study resulted in concrete indications of

how student affairs practitioners perceived education, leadership, and management.

Results both indicating and not indicating significant differences provide useful findings.

Educator.

In recent years, there has been an increasing focus on facilitating and promoting

student learning. Creamer, Winston, and Miller (2001) posited three professional roles of

121

student affairs administrators, one of which was the educator role. Results from this

study showed that student affairs professionals’ views regarding the educator role were

consistent across institutional type, level in the field, and method of entry into the field.

The participants in the study rated a strong agreement on all research questions,

indicating that they believe “educator” and “education” are positive descriptors (mean =

1.19); the educator role is important in student affairs work (mean = 1.44); they have the

skills to fulfill their role as an educator (mean = 1.62); and they regularly do the work of

an educator (mean = 1.82). This positive affirmation of the educator role should be

encouraging to the field of student affairs. The focus on student learning, and thereby

education, has not been in vain but has become widely accepted among student affairs

professionals as a valued part of their work on college and university campuses. Though

it has been affirmed by statements from the major professional associations (ACPA

Senior Scholars, 2008; American College Personnel Association, 1994; Joint Task Force

on Student Learning, 1998; Keeling, 2004; Task Force on the Future of Student Affairs,

2010), this ideology, then, is not merely derived from the opinions of a few gatekeepers.

Student affairs professionals at large agree that the educator role is integral.

The forms of professional development primarily used by professionals for the

educator role (discussion with colleagues, mentors, professional conferences, and

professional journals), as identified by study participants, indicate how the educator role

has become so positively affirmed in the student affairs profession. Discussion with

colleagues and mentoring relationships can play powerful roles in socialization or

enculturation of professional values (Strayhorn, 2009; Tull, 2009). Professional journals

and conferences are often a primary focus of the activity of a professional association,

122

and the influence of these activities as a source of professional development for student

affairs professionals is reflected in these results.

Leader.

Leadership, which has increased in popularity in recent years in both the culture

and profession of student affairs, was posited by Creamer, Winston, and Miller (2001) as

another primary role of student affairs administrators. Results from this study showed

that student affairs professionals’ views were fairly consistent across institutional type,

level in the field, and method of entry into the field. The participants in the study rated

agreement on all research questions that they believe “leader” and “leadership” are

positive descriptors (mean = 1.30); the leader role is important in student affairs work

(mean = 1.31); they have the skills to fulfill their role as a leader (mean = 1.52); and they

regularly do the work of a leader (mean = 1.63). This positive affirmation of the role of

leader is in line with literature in general (Sandeen, 2001a) and bodes well for the student

affairs profession. Even during tough economic times and budget cuts, professionals

identify themselves as having the skills to lead on college and university campuses,

which could stave off some attacks on the mission of student affairs. Notable findings

are that senior Level professionals more strongly agree they have the skills to lead (mean

= 1.34) than mid-level (mean = 1.62) or entry level (mean = 1.58) professionals. Senior

level professionals also more strongly agree they lead regularly in their work as student

affairs professionals (mean = 1.44) than mid-level (mean = 1.74) or entry level (mean =

1.89) professionals. Given the nature of senior level work, this finding confirms what

may be intuitive: As practitioners progress through their careers, rising higher, they

123

would have more leadership experiences and thus develop more leadership skills;

otherwise, they may not remain at the senior level.


leader role (discussion with colleagues, professional conferences, and mentors) are

similar to those utilized for the educator role. Interesting patterns can be seen in the

usage of professional development in that use of mentors decreases as a practitioner

moves from entry level to senior level. The converse is true for association institutes.

Practitioners who enter the field with master’s degrees in student affairs or as an allied

professionals are much more likely to utilize association institutes than those who entered

through other methods. Likewise, the converse is true in virtually equal percentages that

those who enter the field through other methods are much more likely to utilize on-

campus workshops as a source of professional development regarding leadership. Given

these differences in professional development choices, consideration should be given to

how individuals are recruited for association institutes. Also, given the high importance

placed on mentors as a source of professional development, perhaps professional

associations could provide more formal training on how to be effective mentors in

relation to leadership.

Manager.

Even though there is an inherent component of administration in the field of

student affairs and Creamer, Winston, and Miller (2001) posited the manager role as a

primary responsibility of student affairs administrators, Young (2007) and Brown (1972)

identified negativity toward management among student affairs professionals. Results

from this study showed that the views of student affairs professionals were fairly

124

consistent across institutional type, level in the field, and method of entry into the field.

The participants in the study rated agreement on all research questions, the extent to

which they believe “manager” and “management” are positive descriptors (mean = 2.05);

the manager role is important in student affairs work (mean = 1.36); they have the skills

to fulfill their role as a manager (mean = 1.64); and they regularly do the work of a

manager (mean = 1.76). The finding that management was perceived less positively than

education or leadership was both meaningful and in line with Young’s (2007) assertions.

Interestingly, there was a notable difference between participants’ perceptions of

the descriptors “manager” and “management” and participants’ perceptions of the

importance of management obligations, self-reported management skills, and performing

management actions at work. Thus it appears founded that the terms manager and

management carry negative implications for some student affairs professionals,

specifically among those who enter the field with a master’s degree in student affairs

(mean = 2.25), which was significantly less positive than allied professionals (mean =

1.50) and those with other entry methods (mean = 1.88). However, since there were no

statistically significant differences for method of entry regarding the importance, skills,

or behaviors of the management role, it is logical to conclude that the negativity toward

management is based in the terminology and understanding of the terminology, not in the

actual actions of management. Though this study does not prove causality, the findings

of less positive perceptions of the descriptors manager and management among those

who entered the field with a master’s degree in student affairs forces one to consider how

recruitment into the field or master’s degree programs might be contributing to this

negative perception.

125

Other notable findings were that senior level professionals more strongly agree

that they have the skills to manage (mean = 1.45) than mid-level (mean = 1.71) or entry

level (mean = 1.79) professionals. Also, senior level professionals more strongly agree

that they manage regularly in their work as student affairs professionals (mean = 1.52)

than mid-level (mean = 1.77) professionals and mid-level professionals significantly

more so than entry level (mean = 2.14) professionals. As with the leadership findings,

these results seem to confirm what may be intuitive: as practitioners progress through

their careers, rising higher, they will have more management experiences and thus

develop more management skills.


management role (discussion with colleagues, professional conferences, and mentors) are

similar to those utilized for both the education and leadership roles. Virtually identical to

the pattern observed with professional development for leadership, the usage of mentors

decreases as a practitioner moves from entry level to senior level while the converse is

true for association institutes. Also, entry level professionals rely less on conference

sessions and books for professional development regarding management issues than their

mid-level and senior level counterparts, which is interesting to note. Practitioners who

enter the field with master’s degrees in student affairs utilize association institutes less

than those who enter through other methods or are allied professionals. Allied

professionals rely on mentors, professional journals, and books at a higher rate than either

master’s degree or other entry method professionals while discussions with colleagues

are much lower by comparison. Again, given these differences in professional

development choices, consideration should be given to how individuals are recruited for

126

association institutes. Moreover, given the high importance placed on mentors as a

source of professional development, perhaps professional associations should provide

more formal training on how to be effective mentors regarding management.

While master’s degree programs or recruiting methods might be the source of

negative perceptions of the manager and management descriptors, it is also quite possible

that, because so much professional development for those same individuals is coming

from discussion with colleagues, these practitioners may be getting caught up in a self-

perpetuating cycle of negativity. This line of reasoning is especially feasible when taking

into account that allied professionals have the most positive perception of the manager

and management descriptors, and they rely on books and journals at a higher rate than

discussion with colleagues.

Summary.

Though many of the results of this study did not yield findings of significant

differences, some of the results were compelling and informative nonetheless. The fact

that no significant differences or findings existed between professionals at public

institutions and private institutions in terms of perceptions, beliefs, skills, behaviors, or

preferred methods of professional development regarding education, leadership, and

management was compelling in its own right. Findings were consistent across the board

with all research questions regarding the role of education. Differences did exist in terms

of leadership and management skills and behaviors, based on level in the field,

perceptions of master’s degree professionals of the descriptors manager and management,

and preferred methods of professional development. Overall, the level of agreement in

127

terms of beliefs, skills, and behavior regarding the roles of education, leadership, and

management were fairly similar.

Recommendations for Future Research

First and foremost, the researcher recommends that other possible research

questions be explored using the existing dataset. Similar data analysis can be conducted

using the institutional size or a number of other variables from the professional and

institutional information section of the questionnaire. Further analysis of the individual

behavioral characteristics could be conducted to understand how differences in beliefs,

skills, and behavior might differ at that level, rather than just the educator, leader, and

manager levels. Significant light might be shed upon the findings if the question

regarding the descriptor as positive were compared to the descriptor as accurate using a

paired samples t-test. Furthermore, the amount of positive perception of the descriptors

educator, leader, and manager could be analyzed as a potential predictor of beliefs skills

and behavior on the respective domains using a regression analysis. The perceptions of

the descriptors could be compared to the educator, leader, and manager definitions in the

behavioral characteristics using a paired samples t-test to provide further verification of

the conclusion that the terms manager and management are perceived more negatively

than the actions. Also, the preferences in the Domains of Student Affairs Administration

and the preferences in the Perspectives sections of the questionnaire could also be

compared using a paired samples t-test. Analysis of participants’ intention to be working

in student affairs as well as the importance of factors in their future careers might shed

additional light upon the results of this study and provide additional insight regarding the

commitment of practitioners who enter the field through various means. Any or all of

128

this additional data analysis could illuminate and bolster the findings of this research

study.

Beyond further analysis of the existing dataset, the exploratory nature of this

study left additional areas that researchers could address in the future. First and foremost,

this study’s affirmation that student affairs practitioners overall, and specifically those

who begin with master’s degrees in student affairs, hold a less positive view of the terms

manager and management deserves additional attention from researchers. Perhaps this

negativity originates in our recruitment and selection processes for our master’s degree

programs, in that the individuals do not see management as an inherent or positive aspect

of the work of student affairs. Alternately, perhaps graduate students in the programs are

not developing an appreciation for how management contributes to the mission of student

affairs. To both of these ends, this study’s questionnaire could be given to cohorts of

students in master’s degree programs as a pre-test upon acceptance into the program and

post-test upon graduation from the program. Further, though methodologically

challenging, this questionnaire could be given to professionals upon their entry into the

field and then again within a few years as a post-test. Beyond the student affairs master’s

degree programs, perhaps the negativity toward the term management originates

elsewhere in the academy, and student affairs practitioners are adopting this attitude in an

effort to identify more closely with the educational mission and nature of colleges and

universities. Future research could also be conducted to understand perceptions and

interrelationships between administration, management, leadership, education, and other

terms used in this study.

129

Regardless of whether it is originating in the recruitment of individuals into

master’s degree programs, student affairs master’s degree programs, or the academy at

large, the role and effectiveness of mentoring and discussion with colleagues as forms of

professional development need to be researched and explored further. Due to the

personal and informal nature of these two interactions, there is potential for the

perpetuation of both positive and negative attitudes, beliefs, and values a topic worthy of

researchers’ attention.

Future researchers could also expand the study to obtain a larger sample, which

would allow for two-way analysis of variance tests on some of the independent variables

in order to determine if there were differences that may have been masked by conducting

only one-way analysis of variance tests. Conducting this research at a number of selected

institutions of varying sizes, types, and missions could yield more extensive results and

overcome a stated limitation of the sample, that differences could be shielded by

professional organization membership. This may be because if professionals identify

enough with the field to belong to a professional organization, then maybe they have

assimilated the beliefs that are normative in the field of student affairs. Given the

diversity of functional areas in student affairs, researchers should also consider exploring

this topic to consider functional areas as either an additional variable or simply studying

specific functional areas. Finally, the questions the researcher asked in this study could

be asked of others in the academy in reference to the roles of student affairs

administrators in order to determine whether student affairs professionals’ self-reported

beliefs, skills, and behavior are in line with how they are perceived on campus.

130

It is striking that there is no difference in the self-reported beliefs and skills by

method of entry. Researchers should consider further exploring the methods of entry into

student affairs, which would perhaps create a better and more useful framework than

master’s, allied, and other. Also, researchers should consider exploring the issue of skills

beyond simply self-reported skills because it may be that professionals with a master’s

degree are under-rating their skills while others and allied professionals are over-rating

their skills. Finally, given the recent adoption of the Professional Competency Areas for

Student Affairs Practitioners (2010) , researchers should consider incorporating those

competencies into future research on this topic.

Implications for Practice

These research results have implications for professional practice and the practice

of professional associations in the field of student affairs. Creamer, Winston, and Miller

(2001) proposed the DSAAM, and, in doing so, asserted that professional student affairs

administrators must operate within three domains—educator, leader, and manager—to be

effective in their professional work. Based on the results of this study, the DSAAM

appears to be consistent with the beliefs, skills, and behaviors of practitioners in student

affairs. Therefore, though it was proposed over a decade ago, the DSAAM appears to

remain relevant and useful for researchers, practitioners, and professional associations in

conceptualizing the work of student affairs professionals. However, absent any concerted

or intentional effort to destigmatize the term, professional associations should consider

how the perception of the descriptors manager and management may impact professional

development choices, and focus on the tasks or actions of management so that the

terminology does not deter student affairs practitioners from utilizing those resources.

131

Perhaps this is why allied professionals utilize books and professional journals at higher

rates; they could be more likely to seek out general literature on management, which

would be labeled as such, if they have a more positive perception of the terms.

Because education and leadership are seen as inherently positive aspects of

student affairs work and are, therefore, valued regardless of level in the field or method

of entry into the field of student affairs, there should also be an intentional focus on and

valuing of management as a positive aspect of student affairs work. The manager role

should not be something that is merely tolerated or done begrudgingly. The newly

adopted Professional Competency Areas for Student Affairs Practitioners (2010), jointly

adopted by NASPA and ACPA, provides a potential starting point for this focus. Though

it does not utilize the same three categories (i.e., education, leadership, and management)

as Creamer, Winston and Miller’s (2001) DSAAM, there are direct connections between

the DSAAM domains and many of the competency areas (e.g. advising and helping;

assessment, evaluation, and research; human and organizational resources; law, policy,

and governance; leadership; personal foundations; and student learning and

development). Alternately, CAS standards include management more overtly than do the

competencies, and as such, provide a possible framework for future research in this

area(Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2009). .

Both mentoring and discussion with colleagues, or staff-peer relationships, are

discussed in the context of the socialization process into student affairs administration by

Tull (2009) and Strayhorn (2009), respectively. Though mentoring does receive some

attention as a form of professional development (Zachary, 2001), discussion with

colleagues generally does not. Given that the results of this study showed an

132

overwhelming use of “discussion with colleagues” and “mentors” as forms of

professional development, professional associations and divisions of student affairs need

to consider seriously how to harness and influence the power of these interactions as

methods of professional development. Just as they are making efforts to influence the

dialogue between students as an educational initiative on college and university

campuses, student affairs professionals also need to consider how they can shape the

dialogue between colleagues. Professional associations and divisions of student affairs

should consider providing formal mentor training for members and staff. Further, the

methods of recruitment for association institutes should be reviewed in light of the

disparity between methods of entry into student affairs.

This research also holds some implications for hiring practices in student affairs.

First, though research in the field has shown some differences practitioners’ work at

different institutional types as a result of differences in institutional missions (Hirt, 2006),

no differences were found based on institutional type in this study. When considering

applicants who are coming from a different institutional type, committees and hiring

supervisors should temper prejudices, as the applicants’ beliefs, skills, and experiences

performing tasks are likely very similar to their own. Another implication for the field of

student affairs is that it is possible for individuals not to have a master’s degree in student

affairs and yet still hold the same beliefs and self-reported skill levels as those who do.

Even though this study did not find any significant differences in the beliefs, skills, or

behaviors of student affairs practitioners based on their method of entry into the field, the

conclusion that a master’s degree in student affairs is unnecessary or inconsequential

would be imprudent. A stated limitation of this research study is that since there are no

133

known studies which have sought to illuminate the demographic landscape of the field of

student affairs, it is not possible to compare the demographic information to the field at

large since there are practitioners who are allied or entered through other methods.

Therefore, it may be that the allied and other professionals who are members of a

professional organization have been acculturated into the field more so than those who

choose not to join a professional association.

Conclusion

The researcher surveyed practitioners in the field of student affairs and who were

members of SACSA. The participants provided the researcher with sufficient

information to fulfill the purposes of this study, which were to understand how student

affairs practitioners view the roles of educator, leader, and manager in their professional

work; how those perceptions may differ based on the institution type at which an

individual works, the level at which an individual is working in the field, or the method

of entry an individual chose to enter the field; and whether the DSAAM was consistent

with the beliefs, skills, and behaviors of student affairs practitioners.

Further data analysis and future research could further illuminate the findings of

this study in important ways. This exploratory study also provides justification for future

research in a number of areas, including extending the research to the campus level to

obtain a clearer understanding that is not potentially masked by the self-selection of

professional association membership. Research can also be conducted regarding the

general demographic makeup of the field of student affairs, the effectiveness of

mentoring and discussion with colleagues as forms of professional development, and the

source of negativity toward the terms manager and management.

134

This research study also yields implications for practice. Professional

associations should consider how the term management is used in professional

development initiatives as well as how that perception might be changed in the future.

Further, given the prevalence of mentors and discussion with colleagues as professional

development, professional associations and divisions of student affairs should consider

how to bolster the value and quality of those experiences. Additionally, the lack of

differences between institutional type and method of entry into student affairs should

counter some prejudices that may exist in hiring practices. Finally, this research study

lends credence to the framework Domains of Student Affairs Administrators Model,

conceptualized by Creamer, Winston, and Miller (2001) as a means of explaining and

understanding three professional roles of student affairs practitioners: educator, leader,

and manager.

135

REFERENCES

Ackerman, R. L. (Ed.). (2007). The mid-level manager in student affairs. Washington,

DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.

ACPA Senior Scholars. (2008). The student learning imperative: Senior Scholars reaffirm

the importance of ACPA's 1994 statement. Retrieved from

http://www.myacpa.org/au/governance/docs/ACPA_Senior_Student_Scholar_Stat

ement.pdf

Allen, K. E., & Cherrey, C. (2000). Systemic leadership: Enriching the meaning of our

work. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2003). The great disappearing act: Difficulties in doing

"leadership." Leadership Quarterly, 14, 359-381.

Amaral, A., Fulton, O., & Larsen, I. M. (2003). A managerial revolution? In A. Amaral,

V. L. Meek & I. M. Larsen (Eds.), The higher education managerial revolution?

(pp. 275-296). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). The liberal art of

science: The report of the project on liberal education and the sciences.

Washington, DC: Author.

American College Personnel Association. (1994). The student learning imperative:

Implications for student affairs. Washington, DC: Author.

http://www.myacpa.org/au/governance/docs/ACPA_Senior_Student_Scholar_Statement.pdf

http://www.myacpa.org/au/governance/docs/ACPA_Senior_Student_Scholar_Statement.pdf

136

American Council on Education. (1937) The student personnel point of view: A report on

a conference on the philosophy and development of student personnel work in

college and university. American Council on Education studies, Series 1, Vol. 1,

No. 3. Washington, DC: Author.

American Council on Education. (1949) The student personnel point of view. American

Council on Education Studies, Series 6, Vol. 1, No. 13 (Rev. ed.). Washington,

DC: Author.

Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college

campuses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Astin, A. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.

Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297-308.

Astin, A., & Astin, H. (2000). Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher education in

social change. Battle Creek, MI: W.K. Kellogg Foundation.

Baier, J. L. (1992). A study of student affairs functions and administrative responsibilities

within university system offices. NASPA Journal, 29(3), 189-198.

Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univeristy

Press.

Barr, M. J., & McClellan, G. S. (2011). Budgets and financial management. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Barr, R., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for

undergraduate education. Change, 27(1), 12-25.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY:

Free Press

137

Baxter Magolda, M. (2001). Enhancing learning. In R. B. Winston, Jr., D. G. Creamer &

T. K. Miller (Eds.), The professional student affairs administrator: Educator,

leader, and manager (pp. 287-308). New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.

Bender, B. E. (2009). Job satisfaction in student affairs. NASPA Journal, 46(4), 553-565.

Benjamin, M., Earnest, K., Gruenewald, D., & Arthur, G. (2007). The first weeks of the

first year. In E. L. Moore (Ed.), Student affairs staff as teachers (pp. 13-24). New

Directions for Student Services. No. 117. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Benke, M., & Disque, C. (1990). Moving in, up, out, or nowhere? The mobility of mid-

managers. In R. Young (Ed.), The invisible leaders: Student affairs mid-managers

(pp. 14-39). Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel

Administrators.

Bennis, W. G. (1959). Leadership theory and administrative behavior: The problem of

authority. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, 259-260.

Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and

leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Birnbaum, R. (2000). The life cycle of academic management fads. The Journal of

Higher Education, 71(1), 1-15.

Birnbaum, R. (2001). Management fads in higher education: Where they come from,

what they do, why they fail. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Birnbaum, R. (2011). Problems of governance, management, and leadership in academic

institutions. In S. R. Harper & J. F. L. Jackson (Eds.), Introduction to American

higher education (pp. 298-314). New York, NY: Routledge.

138

Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Pillai, R. (2011). Romancing leadership: Past, present, and

future. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1058-1077.

Blimling, G. S., & Whitt, E. J. (1999). Identifying the principles that guide student affairs

practice. In G. S. Blimling & E. J. Whitt (Eds.), Good practice in student affairs:

Principles to foster student learning (pp. 1-20). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bloland, P. A., Stamatkos, L. C., & Rogers, R. R. (1994). Reform in student affairs: A

critique of student development. Greensboro, NC: ERIC Counseling and Student

Services Clearinghouse, School of Education, University of North Carolina at

Greensboro.

Bode, B. (1935). Education and social reconstruction. Social Frontier, 1(4), 18-22.

Bogard, L. (1972). Management in institutions of higher education. In A. M. Mood (Ed.),

Papers on efficiency in the management of higher education. Berkley, CA:

Carnigie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Bogue, E. G., & Aper, J. (2000). Exploring the heritage of American higher education:

The evolution of philosophy and policy. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and

leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bolman, L. G., & Gallos, J. V. (2011). Reframing academic leadership. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bresciani, M., Moore Gardner, M., & Hickmott, J. (2009). Demonstrating student

success: A practical guide to outcomes-based assessment of learning and

development in student affairs. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

139

Brown, R. D. (1972). Student development in tomorrow's higher education: A return to

the academy (Vol. 16). Washington, DC: American Personnel and Guidance

Association.

Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. (1997). Higher education in transition: A history of

American colleges and universities (4th ed.). Brunswick, NJ: Transaction

Publishers.

Bryan, J. (1977). A study of student affairs workers: An exploration in comparison of the

demographic characteristics and background factors and perceptions of the field

of student affairs workers and their perceptions of the degree of bureaucracy

within their student affairs divisions. Ed. D. Dissertation, Columbia University.

Bryan, W. A. (1996). What is total quality management? In W. A. Bryan (Ed.), Total

quality management: Applying its principles to student affairs. (pp. 3-15). New

Directions for Student Services. No. 76. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bryant, A. (1998). Beyond BPR: Confronting the organizational legacy. Management

Decision, 36(1), 25-31.

Budd, J. (2009). Higher education's purpose: Intellectual and social progress. Lanham,

MD: University Press of America.

Burkard, A., Cole, D. C., Ott, M., & Stoflet, T. (2005). Entry-level competencies of new

student affairs professionals: A Delphi study. NASPA Journal, 42(3), 283-309.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Caple, R.B., & Newton, F.B. (1991). Leadership in student affairs. In T.E. Miller & R.B.

Winston, Jr. (Eds.), Administration and leadership in student affairs: Actualizing

140

student development in higher education (2nd ed., pp. 111-133). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Carpenter, S., & Carpenter, L. (2009). Institutional socialization initiatives. In A. Tull, J.

B. Hirt & S. A. Saunders (Eds.), Becoming socialized in student affairs

administration: A guide for new professionals and their supervisors (pp. 174-

193). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Carpenter, S., & Stimpson, M. T. (2007). Professionalism, scholarly practice, and

professional development in student affairs. NASPA Journal, 44(2), 265-284.

Cervero, R. M. (2000). Trends and issues in continuing professional education. In V. W.

Mott & B. J. Daley (Eds.), Charting a course for continuing professional

education: Reframing professional practice (pp. 3-12). New Directions for Adult

and Continuing Education. No. 86. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1991). Seven principles for good practice in

undergraduate education. In A. W. Chickering & Z. F. Gamson (Eds.), Applying

the seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education (pp. 63-69).

New Directions for Teaching and Learning. No. 47. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Clement, L. M., & Rickard, S. T. (1992). Effective leadership in student services: Voices

from the field. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

141

Collins, D. (2009). The socialization process for new professionals. In A. Tull, J. B. Hirt

& S. A. Saunders (Eds.), Becoming socialized in student affairs administration: A

guide for new professionals and their supervisors (pp. 3-27). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap-- and others

don't. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.

Cooper, B. (1926). How to determine the economical manufacturing quantities. Industrial

Management, 72, 228-233.

Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2009). CAS

professional standards for higher education (7th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning. San


Creamer, D. G., & Frederick, P. M. (1991). Administrative and management theories:

Tools for change. In T. K. Miller & R. B. Winston, Jr. (Eds.), Administration and

leadership in student affairs: Actualizing student development in higher education

(pp. 135-157). Muncie, IN: Accelerated Development.

Creamer, D. G., Winston, R. B., Jr., & Miller, T. K. (2001). The professional student

affairs administrator: Roles and functions. In R. B. Winston, Jr., D. G. Creamer &

T. K. Miller (Eds.), The professional student affairs administrator: Educator,

leader, and manager (pp. 3-38). New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (2nd. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Davis, J. S. (2002). Perceptions of critical skills of chief student affairs officers. Doctor

of Philosophy, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

142

Dean, L. A., Woodard, B. R., & Cooper, D. L. (2007). Professional development credits

in student affairs practice: A method to enhance professionalism. College Student

Affairs Journal, 27(1), 45-56.

DeCoster, D. A., & Brown, S. S. (1991). Staff development: Personal and professional

education. In T. K. Miller & R. B. Winston, Jr. (Eds.), Administration and

leadership in student affairs: Actualizing student development in higher education

(pp. 563-613). Muncie, IN: Accelerated Development.

Deegan, W. L. (1981). Managing student affairs programs. Palm Springs, CA: ETC

Publications.

Deem, R., Hillyard, S., & Reed, M. (2007). Knowledge higher education and the mew

managerialism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Denning, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of

Technology Center for Advanced Engineering Study.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Kappa Delta Pi &

Touchstone.

Dey, E. L. (1997). Working with low survey response rates: The efficacy of weighting

adjustments. Research in Higher Education, 38(2), 215-227.

Dirkx, J. M., Gilley, J. W., & Gilley, A. M. (2004). Change theory in CPE and HRD:

Toward a holistic view of learning and change in work. Advances in Developing

Human Resources, 6, 35-51.

Drucker, P. (1954). The practice of management. New York, NY: Harper.

143

Dungy, G., & Gordon, S. A. (2011). The development of student affairs. In J. H. Schuh,

S. Jones & S. R. Harper (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession

(5th ed., pp. 61-79). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Ender, S. C., Newton, F. B., & Caple, R. B. (1996). Contributions to learning: Present

realities. In S. C. Ender, F. B. Newton & R. B. Caple (Eds.), Contributing to

learning: The role of student affairs (pp. 5-17). New Directions for Student

Services. No. 75. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York, NY: Norton.

Evans, N. J., & Phelps Tobin, C. E. (Eds.). (1998). State of the art of preparation and

practice in student affairs: Another look. Lanham, MD: University Press of

America.

Evans, N. J., & Ranero, J. J. (2009). Professional associations in student affairs. In G. S.

McClellan & J. Stringer (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration

(3rd ed., pp. 206-221). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Evans, N. J., & Reason, R. D. (2001). Guiding principles: A review and analysis of

student affairs philosophical statements. Journal of College Student Development,

42, 359-377.

Fey, C. (1991). Mid-level student aflairs administators: A study of management skills and

professional development needs. Doctor of Philosophy, Texas A&M University,

College Station, TX.

Fincher, C. (2003). Administrative leadership. Lanham, MD: University Press of

America.

144

Fink, A. (2006). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Follet, M. (1941). Dynamic administration. New York, NY: Harper.

Foskett, N., & Lumby, J. (2003). Leading and managing education: International

dimensions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Garland, P. H. (1985). Serving more than students: A critical need for college student

personnel services. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher

Education.

Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and

applications. Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Gillham, B. (2008). Small-scale social survey methods: Real world research. New York,

NY: Continuum International.

Goldratt, E. M. (1997). Critical chain. Great Barrington, MA: North River Press.

Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (1996). Leadership: A communication perspective

(2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Hammer, M. (1990). Reengineering work: Don't automate, obliterate. Harvard Business

Review,(Jul.-Aug.), 104-112.

Hamrick, F. A., Evans, N. J., & Schuh, J. (2002). Foundations of student affairs practice:

How philosophy, theory, and research strengthen educational outcomes. San


Harris, M., & Cullen, R. (2010). Leading the learner-centered campus: An

administrator's framework for improving student learning outcomes. San


145

Hartley, M. (2001). Student learning as a framework for sudent affairs: Rhetoric or

reality? NASPA Journal, 38(2), 224-237.

Hirt, J. B. (2006). Where you work matters: Student affairs administration at different

types of institutions. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of personalities and work

environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Research.

Hutchins, R. M. (1936). The higher learning in America. New Haven, C.T.: Yale

University Press.

Jackson, M. L., Moneta, L., & Nelson, K. A. (2009). Effective management of human

capital in student affairs. In G. S. McClellan & J. Stringer (Eds.), The handbook of

student affairs administration (3rd ed., pp. 333-354). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Janosik, S. M. (2002). The development and implementation of a national registry for

student affairs administrators. Washington, DC: National Association of Student

Personnel Administrators.

Janosik, S. M., Carpenter, S., & Creamer, D. G. (2006a). Beyond professional

preparation programs: The role of professional associations in ensuring a high

quality workforce. College Student Affairs Journal, 25(2), 228-237.

Janosik, S. M., Carpenter, S., & Creamer, D. G. (2006b). Intentional professional

development: Feedback from student affairs professionals. NASPA Journal, 43(4),

127-146.

Johnson, E. (1953). The applications of operations research to industry. Baltimore, MD:

Johns Hopkins University Press.

146

Joint Task Force on Professional Competencies and Standards. (2010). Professional

competency areas for student affairs practitioners. Washington, DC: American

College Personnel Association & National Association of Student Personnel

Administrators.

Joint Task Force on Student Learning. (1998). Powerful partnerships: A shared

responsibility for learning (pp. 12). Retrieved from

http://www.myacpa.org/pub/documents/taskforce.pdf

Josselson, R. E. (1996). Revising herself: The story of women's identity from college to

midlife. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Katz, J., & Henry, M. (1988). Turning professors into teachers: A new approach to

faculty development and student learning. New York: MacMillan.

Keeling, R. (Ed.). (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student

experience. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association &

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.

Keeling, R. (Ed.). (2006). Learning reconsidered 2: Implementing a campus-wide focus

on the student experience. Washington, DC: American College Personnel

Association (ACPA), Association of College and University Housing Officers–

International (ACUHO-I), Association of College Unions–International (ACUI),

National Academic Advising Association (NACADA), National Association for

Campus Activities (NACA), National Association of Student Personnel

Administrators (NASPA), and National Intramural- Recreational Sports

Association (NIRSA).

http://www.myacpa.org/pub/documents/taskforce.pdf

147

Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing

leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

King, P. M., & Kitchner, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgement: Understanding

and promoting intellectual growth and ctitical thinking in adolescents and adults.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Klein, J. T. (1989). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Detroit, MI: Wayne

State Press.

Knowles, A. A. (1970). Handbook of college and university administration. New York,

NY: McGraw-Hill.

Knox, A. B. (2000). The continuum of professional education and practice. In V. W.

Mott & B. J. Daley (Eds.), Charting a course for continuing professional

education: Reframing professional practice (pp. 13-22). New Directions for Adult

and Continuing Education. No. 86. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Komives, S. R. (2011). Leadership. In J. H. Schuh, S. Jones & S. R. Harper (Eds.),

Student services: A handbook for the profession (5th ed., pp. 353-371). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Komives, S. R., & Carpenter, S. (2009). Professional development as lifelong learning. In

G. S. McClellan & J. Stringer (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs

administration (3rd ed., pp. 371-387). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., & McMahon, T. R. (1998). Exploring leadership for students

who want to make a difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

148

Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., & McMahon, T. R. (2007). Exploring leadership for students

who want to make a difference (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kretovics, M. A. (2011). Business practices in higher education: A guide for today's

administrators. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Student success in college:

Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kuk, L., & Cuyjet, M. J. (2009). Graduate preparation programs: The first step in

socialization. In A. Tull, J. B. Hirt & S. A. Saunders (Eds.), Becoming socialized

in student affairs administration: A guide for new professionals and their

supervisors (pp. 89-108). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.

Love, P. G., Bleiberg, S., Carpenter, S., Haggerty, B., Hoffman, D., & Janosik, S. M.

(2007). Professional competencies: A report of the steering committee on

professional competencies. Washington, DC: American College Personnel

Association.

Love, P. G., & Estanek, S. M. (2004). Rethinking student affairs practice. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lovell, C. D., & Kosten, L. A. (2000). Skills knowledge and personal traits necessary for

success as a student affairs administrator: A meta-analysis of thirty years of

research NASPA Journal, 37(4), 553-572.

149

Lowell, A. L. (1930). Self-education in college. Journal of Higher Education, 1, 65-72.

Manning, K., Kinzie, J., & Schuh, J. H. (2006). One size does not fit all: Traditional and

innovative models of student affairs practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Maslow, A. H. (1964). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper & Rowe.

McClellan, G. S., & Stringer, J. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of student affairs

administration (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Meiklejohn, A. (1932). The experimental college. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin

Press.

Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78-102.

Miller, T. K., & Prince, J. S. (1976). The future of student affairs: A guide to student

development for tomorrow's higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Mooney, J. D., & Reilly, A. C. (1931). Onward industry! New York, NY: Harper.

Moore, E. L., & Marsh, R. (2007). College teaching for student affairs professionals. In

E. L. Moore (Ed.), Student affairs staff as teachers (pp. 3-11). New Directions for

Student Services. No. 117. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Moos, R. H. (1976). The human context: Environmental determinants of behavior. New

York, NY: John Wiley.

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (1998). Principles of good

practice for student affairs. Retrieved from

http://www.naspa.org/career/goodprac.cfm

http://www.naspa.org/career/goodprac.cfm

150

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (2011). Graduate program

directory. Retrieved from http://www.naspa.org/career/gradprograms/

Neusner, J., & Neusner, N. M. (2000). Reaffirming higher education. New Brunswick,

NJ: Transaction.

Newton, F. B., & Richardson, R. L. (1976). Expected entry-level competencies of student

personnel workers. Journal of College Student Personnel, 17(5), 426-430.

Nuss, E. (2003). The development of student affairs. In S. R. Komives & D. Woodard, B.

(Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (pp. 65-88). San


Owen, H. (1925). How to maintain proper inventory control. Industrial Management, 69,

83-85.

Perry, W. G. (1999). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years:

A scheme. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich.

Rentz, A. L. (Ed.). (1996). Student affairs practice in higher education (2nd ed.).

Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.

Rhatigan, J. J. (2009). The history and philosophy of student affairs. In G. S. McClellan

& J. Stringer (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (3rd ed., pp.

3-18). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Roberts, D. M. (2005). Skill development among student affairs professionals. College

Student Affairs Journal, 24(2), 170-179.

http://www.naspa.org/career/gradprograms/

151

Roberts, D. M. (2007). Preferred methods of professional development in student affairs.

NASPA Journal, 44(3), 561-577.

Rogers, J. L. (2003). Leadership. In S. R. Komives & D. Woodard, B. (Eds.), Student

services: A handbook for the profession (pp. 447-483). San Francisco, CA: Jossey

Bass.

Rogers, J. L., & Ballard, S. (1995). Aspirational management: Building effective

organizations through shared values. NASPA Journal, 32, 162-178.

Rost, J. C. (1991). Leaderhip for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger.

Rothelisberger, R. J., & Dixon, W. J. (1941). Management and the worker. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Rozeboom, D. J. (2008). Self-report and direct observer's perceived leadership practices

of chief student affairs officers in selected institutions of higher education in the

United States. Doctor of Philosophy, Texas A&M University, College Station,

TX.

Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college & university: A history. Athens, GA:

University of Georgia Press.

Sandeen, A. (2001a). Making a difference: Profiles of successful student affairs leaders.

Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.

Sandeen, A. (2001b). Organizing student affairs divisions. In R. B. Winston, Jr., D. G.

Creamer & T. K. Miller (Eds.), The professional student affairs administrator:

Educator, leader, and manager (pp. 181-210). New York, NY: Brunner-

Routledge.

152

Sandeen, A., & Barr, M. (2006). Critical issues for student affairs: Challenges and

opportunities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sanford, N. (1966). Self & society: Social change and individual development. New

York, NY: Atherton

Sax, L. J., Gilmartin, S. K., & Bryant, A. N. (2003). Assessing response rates and

nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education, 44(4),

409.

Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schlossberg, N. K. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community.

In D. C. Roberts (Ed.), Designing campus activities to foster a sense of

community (pp. 5-15). New Directions for Student Services. No. 48. San


Schroeder, R. A., & Mikel, H. (2006). Six Sigma: The breakthrough management

strategy revolutionizing the world's top corporations. Sydney, Australia:

Currency.

Schuh, J. H., Jones, S., & Harper, S. R. (Eds.). (2011). Student services: A handbook for

the profession (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Schuh, J. H., & Upcraft, M. L. (Eds.). (2001). Assessment practice in student affairs: An

applications manual. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning

organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Simon, H. (1947). Administrative behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan.

153

Simpson, W. B. (1991). Editor's notes. In W. B. Simpson (Ed.), Managing with scarce

resources (pp. 1-2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Smith, K. A. (2010). Social basis of learning: From small-group learning to learning

communities. In M. D. Svinicki & C. M. Wehlburg (Ed.), Landmark issues in

teaching and learning: A look back at New Directions for Teaching and Learning

(pp. 11-22). New Directions for Teaching and Learning. No. 123. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Southern Association of College Student Affairs. (2011). SACSA mission statement.

Retrieved from http://sacsa.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=2

Strange, C. C. (2003). Dynamics of campus environnments. In S. R. Komives, Woodard,

D.B., & Associates (Ed.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (4th

ed., pp. 297-316). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Strayhorn, T. L. (2009). Staff-peer relationships in the socialization process. In A. Tull, J.

B. Hirt & S. A. Saunders (Eds.), Becoming socialized in student affairs



Sweeney, T. J. (1995). Accreditation, credentialing, professionalization: The role of

specialties. Journal of Counseling & Development, 74(2), 117-125.

Task Force on the Future of Student Affairs. (2009). Midpoint report (July 2009).

Retrieved from http://www2.myacpa.org/au/governance/joint-taskforce-

update.php

http://sacsa.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=2

http://www2.myacpa.org/au/governance/joint-taskforce-update.php


154

Task Force on the Future of Student Affairs. (2010). Envisioning the future of student

affairs: Final report (February 2010). Retrieved from


Taub, D. J., & McEwen, M. K. (2006). Decision to enter the profession of student affairs.

Journal of College Student Development, 47(2), 206-216.

Taylor, F. (1911). Principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Harper.

Tull, A. (2009). Supervision and mentorship in the socialization process. In A. Tull, J. B.

Hirt & S. A. Saunders (Eds.), Becoming socialized in student affairs



Tull, A., Hirt, J. B., & Saunders, S. A. (2009). Becoming socialized in student affairs

administration: A guide for new professionals and their supervisors. Sterling,

VA: Stylus.

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S.

higher education. Washington, DC: Author.

von Glaserfeld, E. (1996). Constructivist approaches to science teaching. In L. P. Steffe

& J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 3-15). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Weingartner, R. H. (1992). Undergarduate education: Goals and means. New York, NY:

Macmillan.

White, J., Webb, L., & Young, R. (1990). Press and stress: A comparative study of

institutional factors affecting the work of mid-managers. In R. Young (Ed.), The


155

invisible leaders: Student affairs mid-managers (pp. 56-71). Washington, DC:

National Association of Student Personnel Administration.

Winston, R. B., Jr., & Creamer, D. G. (1997). Improving staffing practices in student

affairs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Winston, R. B., Jr., & Creamer, D. G. (1998). Staff supervision and professional

development: An integrated approach. In W. A. Bryan & R. A. Schwartz (Eds.),

Strategies for staff development: Personal and professional education in the 21st

century (pp. 29-42). New Directions for Student Services. No. 84. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Winston, R. B., Jr., Creamer, D. G., & Miller, T. K. (Eds.). (2001). The professional

student affairs administrator: Educator, leader, and manager. New York, NY:

Brunner-Routledge.

Woodard, D. B., Love, P. G., & Komives, S. R. (2000). Leadership and management

issues for a new century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wright, K. B. (2005). Researching internet-based populations: Advantages and

disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software

packages, and web survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication, 10(3). Retrieved from

http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/wright.html

Young, R. B. (1998). Epilogue: A heretical bit of whimsy. In N. J. Evans & C. E. Phelps

Tobin (Eds.), State of the art of preparation and practice in student affairs:

Another look. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/wright.html

156

Young, R. B. (2007). Still leaders! Still invisible. In R. L. Ackerman (Ed.), The mid-level

manager in student affairs (pp. 1-26). Washington, DC: National Association of

Student Personnel Administrators.

Yukl, G. A. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G. A. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson.

Zachary, L. J. (2001). The mentor's guide: Facilitating effective learning relationships.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

157

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE EXCERPTS

To inquire about permission to use this instrument, contact Larry Correll-Hughes at

[email protected].

162

APPENDIX B

PARTICIPANT SOLICITATION E-MAIL

Dear [Insert Name],

I am a doctoral candidate in the Counseling and Student Personnel Services program

conducting research for a dissertation under the direction of Dr. Diane L. Cooper at the

University of Georgia. Your contact information was obtained through cooperation with

the SACSA Research Committee.

As a member of SACSA, we invite you to participate in a research study to answer

questions regarding the professional roles of student affairs professionals. In part, this

study seeks to understand how certain professional and institutional variables impact how

individuals working in student affairs view the roles of education, leadership, and

management in their professional work.

I would greatly appreciate your responding to this questionnaire; it should take only

about 15-20 minutes to complete. The study has been approved by the Institutional

Review Board (IRB) at the University of Georgia.

If you are willing to participate, please visit https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/correll-

hughes . Further information about the study is available there. If you do not want to

participate or receive any further e-mails regarding this study, please reply to this e-mail

with “REMOVE” in the subject line.

The questionnaire will be available until February 16, 2012. After that date the link will

no longer be active.

If you have any questions about this research project, please feel free to contact Larry

Correll-Hughes at [email protected] or (706) XXX-XXX.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Larry R. Correll-Hughes, candidate

Diane L. Cooper, faculty

University of Georgia

https://sn2prd0202.outlook.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=GbdO_j2zlkuE5vwogYASoBAW0btW2c4Ip-QGyLO2-LmGFa2imOeiC622koC6cDPypM6sKFnT4UE.&URL=https%3a%2f%2fwww.surveymonkey.com%2fs%2fcorrell-hughes

https://sn2prd0202.outlook.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=GbdO_j2zlkuE5vwogYASoBAW0btW2c4Ip-QGyLO2-LmGFa2imOeiC622koC6cDPypM6sKFnT4UE.&URL=https%3a%2f%2fwww.surveymonkey.com%2fs%2fcorrell-hughes

mailto:[email protected]

UNDERSTANDING THE BELIEFS, SKILLS, AND BEHAVIORS OF ...

Documents

Transcript of UNDERSTANDING THE BELIEFS, SKILLS, AND BEHAVIORS OF ...