written by: Myles Surrett
Abstract
In this literature review, I examined student affairs attrition. I also reviewed the progression of attrition as a source of inquiry in student affairs from its origin in the 1980s. I themed these initial efforts as assumptive studies, as they investigated attrition through the assumed lens of a problem for the profession. I then presented the attrition-related scholarship in the 2000s. I classified these as solving studies built on the assumed issues of the 1980s and focused on resolving the “problem” of student affairs attrition. I subsequently discuss counterpoint scholarship to the narrative assumption that attrition is a problem in student affairs. Finally, I situate the problem of attrition from student affairs as a myth. To this end, I relied on the lack of evidence for attrition as a problem and demonstrated a communal belief in the narrative. These form the core components of myth-making (Martimianakis et al., 2018).
Development of the Student Affairs Attrition Myth
From conference presentations to daily conversations to dedicated social media pages, the assumed problem of professionals departing student affairs is a regular part of life in the field. This reality developed over decades of scholarship and practice in the field. The concern over departure was an indictment of what was considered a non-professional field in the 1970s and its residue lingers into practice today. The myth of student affairs attrition evolved over the past four decades into a long research line of assumed problems, elusive solutions, and intermittent counter points. Understanding the full arc of this literature offers a contemporary possibility of professional wisdom and research redirection.
Assumptive Studies
In the 1970s, scholars began applying the idea of burnout to professional fields (Freudenberger, 1974; Maslach, 1978). Originally used to describe the effects of drug addiction among Vietnam War Veterans, Freudenberger (1974) applied the concept to other work. Burnout in the professional sense was working passionately to the point of seemingly unrecoverable exhaustion (Stewart & Serwint, 2019). Lepore (2021) asserted the notion of burnout spread rapidly as a professional hazard, and “by the nineteen-eighties, everyone was burned out” (para. 1).
In this context, Bender (1980) first applied the concept of burnout to student affairs. She initiated the study of student affairs attrition through a widely-cited investigation of job satisfaction. She narrowed the satisfaction inquiry to student affairs professionals after Solomon and Tierney (1977) engaged in a broader examination of satisfaction among college administrators. Bender (1980) found 66% of respondents expressed job satisfaction, and 36% indicated they planned to do student affairs work for their entire career. Bender (1980) did not present her findings as a crisis for the profession but began the attrition conversation.
Burns (1982) then surveyed graduates of student affairs programs at two unnamed institutions. There were 182 responses and 61% of participants were still working in student affairs. However, Burns (1982) did not control for years in the profession. A later research group noted this rate “has limited usefulness because it does not indicate the level of retention at different points in time” (Holmes et al., 1983, p. 439).
Subsequently, Holmes et al. (1983) investigated more precisely the actual attrition from the field of student affairs. With a sample of 131 respondents drawn from the graduating classes of 1971-1981 at one university, Holmes et al. (1983) found 66% of respondents still worked as student affairs professionals. For the subsequent discourse of attrition in student affairs, the researchers also determined 25 of the 41 (61%) respondents with more than five years of experience were no longer in the field.
Shortly afterward, Wood et al. (1985) conducted an early attrition solving study, justified the work through an assumption of attrition as a problem, and also established an attrition rate. In the attrition inquiry, they found 68% of respondents still worked in student affairs. The researchers also used five years of experience in the profession as the benchmark for their documented attrition rate.
Richmond and Sherman (1991) published a longitudinal research project which began in 1983 looking at career intentions of student affairs graduate students. They found higher intentions to work in student affairs rates with later cohorts. The researchers also observed an overall 78% satisfaction rate. Approximately 20% of the sample no longer worked in student affairs a year after graduation.
Assumptive Studies Methodology
The scholars who labored to establish an attrition rate from student affairs in the 1980s shared several methodological commonalities. They exclusively used the mail to conduct their research (Bender, 1980; Burns, 1982; Holmes et al., 1983; Wood et al., 1985). These research groups relied on regional and institutional networks to derive their sample. Additionally, they all conducted survey methods research and quantitative design and analysis. The number of responses in their studies ranged from 104 (Wood et al., 1985) to 217 (Richmond & Sherman, 1981).
Student Affairs Attrition Studies
Figure 1.1
| Article | Sample Size | Participant Setting | Findings |
| Bender (1980) | 145 | NASPA Region II in the late 1970s | 31% did not intend to stay in student affairs |
| Burns (1982) | 182 | Alumni between 1970-1979 of two graduate programs | 61% still working in student affairs |
| Holmes et al. (1983) | 131 | Alumni between 1971-1981 of one graduate program | 66% still working in student affairs; 39% with more than five years of experience still working in student affairs |
| Wood et al., (1985) | 104 | Class of 1978 of four graduate programs | 68% still working in student affairs five years after graduation |
| Richmond & Sherman (1991) | 217 | Master’s students enrolled in 1983 of 48 graduate programs | 20% no longer working in student affairs one year after graduation |
Attrition Solving Studies
The earlier generation of scholars attempted to ascertain the scale and scope of attrition from student affairs. The next set of researchers built their scholarship based on what they perceived to be the reliability and generalizability of their predecessors. As evidence of this, the new generation devoted time and resources to determine how to solve the problem of attrition from student affairs.
Wood et al. (1985) researched professional development models as possible attrition solutions. As a result, they suggested more intentional professional development would reduce attrition. This group also found professionals in student affairs who could not move to different locations were more likely to leave the field (Wood et al., 1985).
After those findings in the 1980s, attrition-solving attempts slowed for 20 years. During this time, Berwick (1992) noted a correlation between job satisfaction and decreased burnout. Ward (1995) later found role ambiguity to contribute to attrition. Lorden (1998) also suggested increased student interaction and advancement opportunities as possible solutions. Rosser and Javinar (2003) then examined the intentions to leave and morale around mid-managers in student affairs. They found length of tenure and salary were inversely related to morale, but salary was positively correlated with retention. However, given the lower morale, the findings were unclear about whether or not retention is positive for organizations and students.
Then, Tull (2006) published his dissertation findings. He found positive outcomes through the application of synergistic supervision to reduce attrition. Following that attrition-solving article, a flurry of research groups offered new solutions to the alleged problem in student affairs. Renn and Jessup-Anger (2008) found new professionals needed more essential skills such as budgeting, supervision, assessment, and political navigation. Silver and Jakeman (2014) looked at the differences between graduate students intending to work in student affairs and those that did not. They found five themes among those departing student affairs, including the perceived inferior position of student affairs in the academy and financial concerns. Buchanan and Shupp (2016) discovered the lack of professional development, inadequate supervision and mentorship, and discomfort with higher education politics as risk factors for attrition. Marshall et al. (2016) noted work/life imbalance and lack of advancement opportunities as causes for departure. Dinise-Halter (2017) found seven types of challenge and support necessary for sustained employment in student affairs. Mullen et al. (2018) found a relationship between job burnout and turnover intention. Artale (2020) noted a relationship between work-life balance, satisfaction, and turnover.
In practitioner and scholarly terms, this series of results lacks coherence. Any emerging professional or those supporting their development may struggle to discern a data-driven path forward to develop, empower, and retain staff. As a profession we lack data and our work is built on the assumptive foundation of attrition as a problem in student affairs scholarship. If a problem does not actually exist, it is challenging to solve. The scholars in the following section warned about the foundational instability of attrition solving.
Attrition Solving Studies Methodology
The solving studies contained more methodological variation than their assumptive predecessors. Several researchers chose to study practitioners who already departed the field. Of this group, Frank (2013) and Buchanan and Schupp (2016) used qualitative research methods and sampled directly from former student affairs professionals. Marshall et al. (2016) quantitatively studied student affairs expatriates.
Scholars used different sampling techniques in attrition-solving studies. Mullen et al. (2018) surveyed staff based on role stress, burnout, and job dissatisfaction using institutional websites to gather their sample. Silver and Jakeman’s (2014) qualitative study sampled from within their institution-affiliated cohort . Dinise-Halter (2017) utilized case study methodology and convenience sampling with four emerging professionals. Artale (2020) partnered with a professional association to access a national sample for their survey.
Counterpoints to the Assumption of Student Affairs Attrition as a Problem.
Shortly after the attrition establishment movement in the 1980s, Evans (1988) conducted a literature review of the findings. She acknowledged possible consequences for the field related to attrition. She also offered lack of advancement opportunities as the most common reason for departure.
However, she critiqued the reliability of the findings to that point: “research I reviewed has some serious limitations that make drawing conclusions difficult” (Evans, 1988, p. 23). Since Evans (1988) provided that assessment, no one has attempted to verify if student affairs attrition is a problem. Similarly, Lorden (1988) expressed similar skepticism about attrition as a problem to be solved. Lorden (1998) asked, “Are those who leave student affairs disappointed with their experiences or simply ready to move onto to something else?” (p. 210). During that time, at least 12 studies have tried to solve a possibly non-existent problem (Artale, 2020; Berwick, 1992; Buchanan & Schupp; 2016; Dinise-Halter, 2017; Frank, 2013; Marshall et al., 2016; Mullen et al., 2018; Renn & Jessup-Anger, 2008; Rosser & Javinar, 2003; Silver & Jakeman, 2014; Tull, 2006; Ward, 1995).
Despite skepticism about attrition as problem and the lack of scholarly findings in her work, many scholars cited Lorden (1998) as the source of a documented attrition rate (Frank, 2013; Marshall et al., 2016; Renn & Jessup-Anger, 2008; Silver & Jakeman, 2014). Using her work in this way is a misrepresentation – contrary to Lorden’s (1998) actual perspective and her article is an essay not empirical evidence. The use of the literature in this way provides additional evidence of the shaky foundation of attrition solving efforts.
Taub and McEwen (2006) provided another counter example to the understanding of attrition as a pressing student affairs issue. These authors engaged 300 students enrolled in student affairs graduate programs about their plans to enter the profession. One finding from their study was that a significant majority intended to be in student affairs for over 10 years. While this is not conclusive regarding an attrition rate, it is a more recent finding compared to the 1980s data points. Despite this indicator, several research efforts continued afterward to try and solve the problem of student affairs attrition (Artale, 2020; Buchanan & Shupp, 2016; Dinise-Halter, 2014; Marshall et al., 2016; Mullen et al., 2018; Silver & Jakeman, 2014).
In addition to the work of Evans (1988), Lorden (1998), and Taub and McEwen (2006) which challenged the myth, some attrition solving scholars also noted gaps in the logic of the mythology. More than 20 years ago, Blackhurst (2000) challenged the findings of Bender (1980), Burns (1982), and Holmes et al. (1983) as being outdated. They are even less relevant to student affairs today – 40 years later.
Problems with the Foundation of Student Affairs Attrition Literature
Attrition Rate: Dated and Dissonant
Basing contemporary work on outdated information poses a problem as the composition of student affairs today is markedly different from late 1970s and early 1980s. As evidence of changes in the profession, consider gender composition in the field. Van Alstyne et al. (1977) and Tinsley (1986) found 18% and 20% of student affairs professionals were women. More current research has found nearly 80% of student affairs professionals are women (Marshall et al., 2016; Taub & McEwen, 2006; Wiese & Cawthon, 2009), and gender impacts experience in this field (Berwick, 1992; Blackhurst, 2000; Richmond & Sherman, 1991). As a result of the age of attrition studies and changes in the field, the current understanding of student affairs attrition warrants further research.
Different research design choices also prove part of the challenge to understand this topic. The variability of focus and audience made conclusions from the literature difficult. To illustrate how the target of the research kept moving, consider Bender (1980) who looked at intention to leave not actual departure from the field. Burns (1982) then took a different approach by documenting the employment rate for their sample. On the other hand, Holmes et al. (1983) and Wood et al. (1985) investigated variance in attrition rate based on number of years of student affairs employment. Richmond and Sherman (1991) provided even more variability by conducting a longitudinal study with their sample. Despite all being generally about attrition, these research groups took different approaches to their research; thus, concluding with a reliable narrative about attrition was complex and problematic.
As a result, making conclusions about student affairs attrition was challenging during the 1980s, despite great interest in the topic. Depending on research design and pre-existing bias, researchers and research consumers draw very different conclusions about attrition from the field. This was true in the 1980s and 40 years later the topic is even less clear. Since Richmond and Sherman’s (1991) work, no study has documented the student affairs attrition rate. Subsequently, the knowledge of attrition is summarily dated.
Issues with Secondary Citations
Secondary citations are a particularly troublesome trend in student affairs attrition literature. For example, Buchanan and Shupp (2016) identified the outdated nature of the data and noted that no researchers had documented an attrition rate since the 1980s. However, they then cited Renn and Hodges (2007) study as evidence of attrition as a problem. However, Renn and Hodges (2007) conducted a study with a sample size of 10. This sample cannot be generalized to the all student affairs professionals. Buchanan and Shupp (2016) acknowledged generalizability as a limitation in their study involving five participants. Renn and Hodges (2007) offered a similar caution about their own findings due to a limited sample.
Renn and Hodges (2007) also issued this claim about emerging professionals in student affairs without a citation attached to it at all: “Statistically, only about half will still be in the field in 2010” (2007, p. 388). Either due to assumed findings validating anecdotal observations or a lack of rigor in research, this sort of process is the exact kind of justification that perpetuates myths (Martimianakis et al., 2020).
Frank (2013) and Silver and Jakeman (2014) provided another example of an issue with secondary citations. Those scholars cited Lorden (1998) and Tull (2006) as establishing an attrition rate. However, Tull (2006) conducted an attrition-solving study and Lorden (1998) wrote an essay with no actual research findings. Neither study established a student affairs attrition rate.
Understanding Student Affairs Attrition Myth as Problem
To understand student affairs attrition as a myth, we need understand myth-making and mythology. The two core components of myths are (1) myths must be unproven and commonly believed to be true (Martimianakis et al., 2018), and (2) myths do not have to be objectively false but do fundamentally mislead (Loughlin et al., 2012). A myth expands beyond positivist ideas of concrete right and wrong into perceptions, visions of reality, and lived experience (Martimianakis et al., 2018). A myth contains “ideas and beliefs that we inherit as part of our shared intellectual culture” (Loughlin et al., 2012, p. 135). For us to understand the problem of student affairs attrition as a myth, we must document a lack of evidence for the myth and a wide scope of belief despite the dearth of empirical support.
In the case of this review, the “shared intellectual culture” (Loughlin et al., 2012, p. 135) is student affairs. The unproven and believed to be true myth is that more than 50% of student affairs professionals leave the field in the first five years which is misleading since we lack any evidence that this is true. I documented the lack of evidence in previous sections. Next, I focus on the belief within the student affairs community in attrition as a problem.
Practitioner Belief
Evidence of student affairs’ belief in attrition as a problem in the field are widespread. In July 2019, ACPA distributed a call for programs with a participation justification centered on the prevalence of attrition in student affairs (Artale, 2019). NASPA asserted in a 2022 report “more early and mid-level professionals are leaving the field for other pursuits” (p. 6) and later in the report a focus group member stated “The first 5 [sic] years is a make or break for student affairs professionals. You’re either in it or leave,” (NASPA, 2022, p. 20). Nowhere in the report is there evidence of the student affairs attrition problem this report explored.
We likely all can think of times when the student affairs attrition myth has come up in our own contexts. For me, recently a staff member mentioned most professionals leaving the field within five years as something to monitor in our practice. I also work with a podcast, and a recent episode focused on jobs outside of student affairs. The conversation eventually centered a need to solve the problem of student affairs attrition (Aguiar et al., 2021). I share these observations not as a critique but as evidence of the prevalence of the attrition as problem thinking myth among student affairs professionals.
Scholarly Belief
As outlined above, scholars have also demonstrated a belief in the myth of student affairs attrition. The most concrete evidence are the many studies which offer solutions to the “problem” of student affairs attrition (Artale, 2020; Buchanan & Schupp, 2016; Dinise-Halter, 2017; Frank, 2013; Jo, 2008; Lawling et al., 1982; Lorden, 1998; Marshall et al., 2016; Mullen et al., 2018; Renn & Jessup-Anger, 2008; Rosser & Javinar, 2003; Silver & Jakeman, 2014; Tull, 2006; Ward, 1995; Wood et al., 1985). An additional concern is the lacking investigation of the student affairs attrition rate despite issues with reliability in the outdated literature frequently cited by those who seek to address the student affairs attrition problem. The scholarly belief in the myth of student affairs attrition persists. Artale (2020) recently completed a dissertation offering a new solution to departure from student affairs. Another scholar is pursuing research on institutional context and its relationship to attrition (Gill-Jacobson, 2021).
Attempting to solve the student affairs attrition problem clearly shows a commitment to the myth. If researchers questioned the validity of the problem, they would have looked further into documenting attrition. Because the myth of attrition as problem aligned with personal experience and socialization, we have skipped a step in the documentation process.
Discussion
Implications: Impact on Additional Attrition
Myths distort perceptions and potentially leads to meaningful consequences (Loughlin et al., 2012). One possible function of the student affairs attrition myth is additional attrition from student affairs. This potential consequence is derived from turnover contagion theory. Turnover contagion theorists posit the choice to leave a position is influenced by relationships within an organization (Felps et al., 2009). Studies have shown as colleagues leave organizations, remaining staff become more likely to depart (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2000; Krackhardt & Porter, 1985; Jo, 2008; Takawira et al., 2014). This contagious effect may be centered on perceptions of turnover (Kline & Hsieh, 2007; Krackhardt & Porter, 1985). Consequently, if the attrition rate in student affairs is unknown, but people believe attrition to be high, this may increase subsequent departures from the field.
Mythology, and people’s use of it, can also shift accountability. In terms of attrition, if we assume half of all student affairs practitioners will leave in the first five years of their career, we may simply accept that. The myth can create a sense powerlessness. Instead of creating an active plan to support, develop, and retain emerging professionals, we may see departure as inevitable and not dedicate energy, time, or other resources to support new staff. As a result, staff may leave. This inaction is another way the myth of student affairs attrition may have a cascading effect.
Even the idea that student affairs attrition is a problem can impact staff morale. Being a part of a career that we perceive people are running from does not feel good. Such a perception can inspire staff to focus on the negative aspects of the work because we assume people are leaving because of those negative parts of the job. There are significant implications for the myths we perpetuate.
Recommendations
Given the lack of scholarly evidence related to student affairs attrition, the power of the attrition myth, and the dated and problematic scholarship on attrition, consider the following recommendations for practice and future research on this topic.
Research Recommendations
- We must stop citing research and second-hand research as evidence of an attrition issue in student affairs.
- It is imperative that researchers study attrition broadly to ascertain what student affairs attrition rates actually are.
- What is the reality of attrition in the post-COVID-19 context?
- Additionally, not every new professional can be retained unless many of them remain in entry-level positions. There are not as many opportunities for promotion as there are opportunities for entry into student affairs. We do not want and cannot support a 100% retention rate, so what is the goal?
Recommendation for Practice
- Supervisors, advisors, mentors, and faculty must refrain from perpetuating the myth of student affairs attrition.
- Emotional contagion is a documented phenomenon. For all those in student affairs, work to build relationships based on meaning.
- Practitioners cannot use the attrition myth as an excuse not to provide support and a focus on staff retention and morale.
- Student affairs professionals and the faculty members that train them would do well to avoid stigmatizing departure from the field. In doing so, we may limit the boomerang of good professionals back into the field if leaving in the first place was deemed a failure.
Conclusion
We do not know how many student affairs professionals leave the field in the first five years. Until we determine what the actual attrition rate is, we must refrain from perpetuating the attrition myth. It is my hope that this work inspires future researchers to take on this task with the support of our professional organizations and others. Understanding our current context can help each of us as individuals, team members, institutions and the profession as a whole allocate the right resources to the right initiatives to sustain the important work we do.
References
Aguiar, E., & Rodriguez, A. (Hosts). (2021, March 4). Job searching outside of higher ed w/ Jillian Dinius [Audio podcast episode]. In M. D. Surrett (Producer), The SACSA Podcast: The First Five Years. http://bit.ly/sacsapodcast
Artale, P. (2019, July 29). $5 Amazon gift card – Dissertation research on work-life balance in student affairs [E-mail].
Artale, P. (2020). Understanding the relationship between work-life flexstyle, job satisfaction, and turnover ideation among new professionals in student affairs [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Michigan State University.
Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2000). Burnout contagion processes among teachers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(11), 2289-2308. http://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02437.x
Bender, B. E. (1980). Job satisfaction in student affairs. NASPA Journal, 18(2), 2-9
Berwick, K. R. (1992). Stress among student affairs administrators: The relationship of personal characteristics and organizational variables to work-related stress. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 11-19.
Blackhurst, A. (2000). Effects of mentoring on the employment experiences and career satisfaction of women student affairs administrators. NASPA Journal, 37(4), 573-586. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.1116
Buchanan, J., & Shupp, M. (2016). Factors that influence the attrition of entry- level student affairs professionals. Journal of Student Affairs, 25, 107-118.
Burns, M. (1982). Who leaves the student affairs field? NASPA Journal, 20(2), 9-12.
Dinise-Halter, A. (2017). Challenge and support: The needs of first-time professionals in student affairs. College Student Affairs Journal, 35(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1353/csj.2017.0009
Evans, N. J. (1988). Attrition of student affairs professionals: A review of the literature. Journal of College Student Development, 29(1), 19-24.
Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., Herman, D. R., Lee, T. W., Holtom, B. C., & Harman, W. S. (2009). Turnover contagion: How coworkers’ job embeddedness and job search behaviors influence quitting. Academy of Management, 52(3), 545-561. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.41331075
Freudenberger, H. J. (1974). Staff burn-out. Journal of Social Issues, 30(1), 159-165.
Frank, T. E. (2013). Why do they leave? Departure from the student affairs profession [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Gill-Jacobson, S. (2021, January 25). [Online forum post]. Facebook – Expatriates of Student Affairs.
Holmes, D., Verrier, D., & Chisholm, P. (1983). Persistence in student affairs work: Attitudes and job shifts among master’s program graduates. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 438-443.
Iannone, J. (2020, December 2). Two work days. That’s how much time Thanksgiving Break gave me of feeling energized before the #sapro burnout started creeping back in. Twitter. Retrieved March 20, 2021, from https://twitter.com/IannoneJackie/status/1334131188995383299
Jo, V. H. (2008). Voluntary turnover and women administrators in higher education. Higher Education, 56(5), 565-582. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10734-008-9111-y
Krackhardt, D., & Porter, L. W. (1985). When friends leave: A structural analysis of the relationship between turnover and stayers’ attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(2), 242-261.
Lawling, M. A., Moore, L. V., & Groseth, R. (1982). Enhancement and advancement: Professional development for student affairs staff. NASPA Journal, 20(2), 22-26.
Lepore, J. (2021, May 17). Burnout: Modern affliction or human condition. The New Yorker. Retrieved August 1, 2021, from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/24/burnout-modern-affliction-or-human-condition
Lorden, L. P. (1998). Attrition in the student affairs profession. NASPA Journal, 35(3), 207-216. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.1049
Loughlin, M., Lewith, G., & Falkenberg, T. (2013). Science, practice, and mythology: A definition and examination of the implications of scientism in medicine. Health Care Analysis, 21, 130-145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-012-0211-6
Marshall, S. M., Gardner, M. M., Hughes, C., & Lowery, U. (2016). Attrition from student affairs: Perspectives from those who exited the profession. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 53(2), 146-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2016.1147359
Martimianakis, M. A., Tilburt, J., Michalec, B., & Hafferty, F. W. (2020). Myths and social structure: The unbearable necessity of mythology in medical education. Medical Education, 54, 15-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13828
Maslach, C. (1978). The client role in staff burnout. Journal of Social Issues, 34(4), 111-124
Miller, L. C. (2021, January 14). CHE article to share [E-mail].
Mullen, P. R., Malone, A., Denney, A., & Dietz, S. S. (2018). Job stress, burnout, job satisfaction, and turnover intention among student affairs professionals. College Student Affairs Journal, 36(1), 94-108. https://www.sacsa.org/page/CSAJ
NASPA, (2022). The compass report: Charting the future of student affairs. NASPA.
Rayna, A. (2020, April 3). True life: I survived burnout in student affairs. Then I created this workbook to help you do the same. Twitter. Retrieved March 20, 2021, from https://twitter.com/ Rayna_Anderson/status/1246103899012042752
Renn, K. A., & Hodges, J. (2007). The first year on the job: Experiences of new professionals in student affairs. NASPA Journal, 44(2), 367-391. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.1800
Renn, K. A., & Jessup-Anger, E. R. (2008). Preparing new professionals: Lessons for graduate preparation programs from the national study of new professionals in student affairs. Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 319-335. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0022
Richmond, J., & Sherman, K. J. (1991). Student-development preparation and placement: A longitudinal study of graduate students’ and new professionals’ experiences. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 8-16.
Rosser, V. J., & Javinar, J. M. (2003). Midlevel student affairs leaders’ intentions to leave: Examining the quality of their professional and institutional work life. Journal of College Student Development, 44(6), 813-830. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2003.0076
Silver, B. R., & Jakeman, R. C. (2014). Understanding intent to leave the field: A study of student affairs master’s students’ career plans. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 51(2), 170-182. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2014-0017
Stewart, M. T., & Serwint, J. R. (2019). Burning without burning out: A call to protect the calling of medicine. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, 49(11), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cppeds.2019.100655
Takawira, N., Coetzee, M., & Schreuder, D. (2014). Job embeddedness, work engagement and turnover intention of staff in higher education institution: An exploratory study. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/ 10.4102/sajhrm.v12i1.524
Taub, D. J., & McEwen, M. K. (2006). Decision to enter the profession of student affairs. Journal of College Student Development, 47(2), 206-216. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.0027
Tinsley, A. (1986). Upward mobility for women administrators. In P. A. Farrant (Ed.), Strategies and attitudes: Women in educational administration (pp. 5-13). National Association for Women Deans, Administrators, & Counselors.
Tull, A. (2006). Synergistic supervision, job satisfaction, and intention to turnover of new professionals in student affairs. Journal of College Student Development, 47(4), 465-480. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.0053
Van Alstyne, C., Mensel, R. F., Withers, J. S., & Malott, F. S. (1977). Women and minorities in administration in higher education institutions: Employment patterns and salary comparisons. College & University Personnel Association.
Ward, L. (1995). Role stress and propensity to leave among new student affairs professionals. NASPA Journal, 33(1), 35-44.
Wiese, D., & Cawthon, T. W. (2009). The uniformity of spiritual culture in nine Southern student affairs graduate preparation programs. Journal of College and Character, 10(7), 1-14.
Wood, L., Winston Jr., R. B., & Polkosnik, M. C. (1985). Career orientations and professional development of young student affairs professionals. Journal of College Student Personnel, 26(6), 532-539.
About the Author
Myles Surrett (he/him) currently serves as the Associate Vice President for Career Experiential Learning, and Transitions at James Madison University. Previously, Myles has worked at Clemson University, the George Washington University, Greater Birmingham Habitat for Humanity, and the Close-Up Foundation. Myles is the proud dad of Forest and Thea, and the partner of Erin.