Author: ACPAAdmin

Abstract

McKenna, a student at Pine Valley University, struggles with understanding her future career aspirations. McKenna shares these concerns with her supervisor, Emily, who encourages her that her talents would be excellent in the field of student affairs. McKenna and Emily’s relationship as mentor and mentee upsets another one of Emily’s supervisees, who feels Emily pours all her energy into McKenna’s future because of their shared interests. McKenna pursues a career in student affairs but begins to feel that she may not be drawn to the field as much as she enjoyed her former role in the Student Engagement Office.

 

Keywords: Advising and supporting, student leaders, careers in student affairs, student influence, self-authorship, ethic hiring processes

Primary Characters

McKenna Lowell (she/her) is a third-year student at Pine Valley University PVU). She is a communication major but is struggling to find a fulfilling career in this field. McKenna is a member of the Pine Valley Student Government Association (PSGA), an orientation leader, and President of the Pine Valley University Ski Club, which she helped establish on campus. In PSGA this year, McKenna serves as the Student Affairs Chair and works closely with the PSGA advisor and Assistant Director of Student Organizations to fulfill her responsibilities.

Andrew Brown (he/him) is a third-year student at Pine Valley University. He is majoring in biology and has a minor in Spanish. Andrew has dreamed of going to medical school since he was a little boy; both of his parents are surgeons. He is very intelligent student who works hard to build his professional and personal resumes in preparation for medical school applications. His extracurricular involvement incudes biology club, campus tour guide, Dance Marathon, and Pine Valley Student Government Association (PSGA). This year, his leadership commitment increased to include the Head of Programming for PSGA. In this position, he will work closely with the Assistant Director of Student Organizations for the university to plan events on campus.

Emily Parker (she/her) is the Assistant Director of Student Organizations at PVU. Emily graduated with her bachelor’s degree in marketing in 2019 and her master’s degree in College Student Personnel in 2021. Both of her degrees came from PVU. While completing her master’s degree, Emily held an assistantship in the Student Engagement Office at PVU. She continued her work in this office after graduation when she accepted the Assistant Director of Student Organizations role. Emily now works closely with PSGA to support student’s programming needs and leadership development. Emily’s favorite parts of her job includes mentoring and supporting students as they move through their undergraduate career.

Institutional Context

Pine Valley University is a private liberal arts college in the Midwest. The primarily residential institution has six colleges and over 40 majors. It is the home to about 4,000 undergraduate students and 500 graduate students. Moderately selective, PVU is a primarily white institution. Students tend to be highly involved, with over 80% of students involved in at least one student organization on campus. The university prides itself in providing students with autonomy to learn, grow, and lead in their own way, and students are oftentimes highly involved in the decision-making process in many student affairs offices throughout the university.

Pine Valley Student Government Association (PSGA) is a 20-member organization dedicated to enhancing the student experience. Members of PSGA work closely with various student affairs professionals and functional areas at PVU to solve problems and advocate for student needs across campus. The PSGA Student Affairs Chair (McKenna’s position) reports to the Assistant Director of Student Organizations and has weekly office hours in the Student Engagement Office to carry out their duties. The Head of Programming of PSGA (Andrew’s position) also holds weekly office hours in the Student Engagement Office and works closely with the Assistant Director of Student Organizations to organize PSGA’s events. Both positions within PSGA are paid positions.

The Case

As the semester begins, Andrew and McKenna have been spending lots of time in the Office of Student Engagement holding their PSGA office hours, working on campus-wide projects, and interacting with student affairs professionals. McKenna comes to the office during her down time to chat with staff members and complains about her major more frequently as the semester moves ahead. She feels bored and unmotivated by her communications classes and struggles to see a future in the field.

As she leaves the office for class one day, she comments to Emily, “I wish I could spend all day here! It is way more fun than going to class.” Emily laughs, as she remembers feeling the exact same way during her undergraduate years. She loved her time in extracurricular activities much more than her time in the classroom.

Emily notices that McKenna stresses about her future career roadblock and starts to invest extra time and support into her. She treats her to coffee, provides her with her personal phone number, and talks to her almost daily. The two develop a strong, but casual and informal connection. They discuss McKenna’s passions and interests, and Emily loves to point out how similar the two of them are. One day, as they are preparing for a full-team PSGA meeting, Emily asks Mckenna, “So, have you ever considered working in student affairs? You would be so great at this! It suits you.”

McKenna thinks a lot about what Emily said. She really appreciated the affirmation, as she looks up to Emily in many ways. It felt nice to hear validation from someone who inspires her.

Discussion Questions

1. Where is McKenna at in development in Baxter-Magolda’s self-authorship theory?
2. Which of Chickering and Reisser’s seven vectors could McKenna’s be in developmentally at this point in her college career?
3. How does Emily’s influence as a mentor impact McKenna’s development and possible career choice?

Case Continued

As the semester progresses, Andrew, who is frequently in the Student Engagement office with Emily and McKenna, notices the two of them spend a lot of time together. He understands they have similar interests, but he sometimes feels left out. He hears Emily and McKenna talking about potential graduate programs for McKenna to apply for and sees them hanging out together on campus sometimes. Andrew understands that McKenna is exploring the possibility of going into a similar career field as Emily, but he feels frustrated and annoyed.

While he is confident and self-assured in his future career, not only is he missing the career mentoring, but he also gets less support in his PSGA role than McKenna does. He feels he has been unable to develop a strong relationship with Emily. He does not feel comfortable going to her with questions or for support, because she is always with McKenna. He decides he will not return to PSGA and is looking forward to the end of his term when the semester concludes.

As Andrew eventually drops out of PSGA, McKenna starts to focus on applying for graduate programs in student affairs. She relies heavily on Emily for support and mentoring and looks forward to being in a role like Emily’s. She tells Emily one day, “I can’t wait to be just like you!” Emily feels proud for successfully supporting and mentoring McKenna in this decision-making process.

Discussion Questions

1. What elements of the environment contributed to Andrew’s lack of sense of belonging?
2. How could Emily have balanced supporting both Andrew and McKenna, despite the shared interest she and McKenna’s have in the field of student affairs?
3. How could Emily navigate career conversations with students and balance providing encouragement with space to navigate their own path?

Two Years Later

McKenna applies and is accepted into the College Student Personnel master’s program at PVU. She secures a graduate assistantship in academic advising. Throughout her graduate school experience, McKenna learns that student affairs is more than and different from what she experienced during her undergraduate studies. She struggles to understand her new role as a professional and misses the support and love she was given as a student. She faces a lot of challenges specifically related to shifting from being a student leader to a graduate student. McKenna begins to question her role in student affairs and her motives for entering the field.

Discussion Questions

1. What role does Emily play (if any) in McKenna’s dissatisfaction in student affairs?
2. If McKenna approaches Emily with her frustrations, what suggestions can Emily provide and how should/can she shift more decision-making responsibility and accountability to McKenna in this situation?

Author Biographies 

Lyndsey Johns (she, her, hers) is a second-year graduate student at Bowling Green State University in the College Student Personnel program. In addition to pursuing her master’s education, Lyndsey serves as a graduate assistant in the C. Raymond Marvin Center for Student Leadership and Civic Engagement. After graduation, Lyndsey hopes to fund a full-time role dedicated to empowering students through leadership development and community and civic engagement.

 Samantha McDonald (she, her, hers) is a second-year graduate student in the College Student Personnel (CSP) master’s program at Bowling Green State University. She currently works as a graduate advisor in the Thompson Scholarship Program, where she advises a caseload of students and supports different leadership and service-learning initiatives. After graduation, she hopes to find a full-time position working in orientation, transition, or first-year experience.

Abstract

The number of high school students participating in dual enrollment programs has been steadily increasing, yet so have the equity gaps within these programs (Fink, 2024). Despite this growth, dual enrollment programs continue to struggle with enrolling students from historically minoritized backgrounds. Black students, for example, represent only 8% of dual enrollment participants (Fink, 2024). Students from historically marginalized groups face a variety of barriers that can impact both their academic success and personal well-being. These obstacles often arise from systemic inequities, underrepresentation, and limited support networks within predominantly white educational institutions. This case study will explore how these factors, alongside the rigor of college-level coursework taken during high school, could affect a Black student’s academic performance, self-esteem, and sense of belonging.

Keywords: dual enrollment, academic advising, minoritized first-generation student, belonging

Characters

Zuri (she, her, hers) – Zuri, a 17-year-old high school junior, is a first-generation, low-income Black student enrolled in a dual credit program that allows her to earn college credits while completing her high school education. As the first in her family to pursue higher education, Zuri feels a deep sense of responsibility to succeed. Her goal is to earn her associate’s degree through the program and transfer to a four-year university to continue her education.

Quinn (he, him, his) – Quinn is an academic advisor for the dual enrollment program at BBC, with several years of experience helping students navigate the transition between high school and college. A proud Black man from a middle-class family, he believes strongly in the value of hard work and determination. He enjoys working with high-achieving students and is passionate about helping them excel academically, drawing from his own experiences as a dedicated college student.  However, his professional background has been shaped by his own privileges and his experiences working with students from affluent backgrounds, limiting his exposure to the unique challenges first generation and low-income students face.

Context

Bridgewater Community College (BCC) is a predominately white mid-sized institution located in a rural region in the Midwest. The college serves approximately 6,000 students annually, offering a diverse range of associate degree programs, technical certifications, and workforce development courses. With a strong focus on community engagement, Bridgewater prides itself on being an accessible and affordable option for students seeking to jumpstart their education and careers.

Case Study

Coming from a family background where college is not the norm, Zuri has faced challenges beyond the classroom. Financial stress is a constant concern, as her family struggles to make ends meet.  To help support her household, Zuri juggles a demanding academic workload with a part time job. Despite limited resources, her strong work ethic, intelligence, and determination have allowed her to pursue higher education through a dual enrollment program. Although dual enrollment gives her an opportunity to pursue higher education it adds pressure for her to succeed and prove herself academically.

Although Zuri’s support network is limited, she brings a wealth of cultural knowledge and perspective to her school environment. As a first generation, low-income student of color, she often contributes valuable viewpoints shaped by her background, enriching discussions in her classes.  However, many of her teachers and peers, though well-meaning, do not fully understand the unique struggles she faces. This often leaves Zuri feeling isolated at school, unsure of who to turn to for guidance and support. While her family is proud of her achievements, they are unfamiliar with the complexities of higher education, making it difficult for them to provide the academic and financial support she needs.

Despite her ability to persevere, Zuri finds herself overwhelmed by the weight of balancing her studies, financial responsibilities, extracurriculars, and the high expectations placed on her, both by herself and others. She is enrolled in five rigorous courses at BBC and is involved in the National Honors Society and Women in STEM club at her high school. She often stays up late completing assignments, resulting in chronic fatigue. The mental and emotional stress of being a high-achieving student from a marginalized background is beginning to take its toll.

One afternoon, Zuri has a meeting with BBC academic advisor, Quinn to discuss her progress. Although she had intended to talk to him about her struggles, when the time comes, she hesitates. Quinn congratulates her on her academic achievements and encourages her to keep pushing toward her goals, but he does not ask how she is managing the workload or if she is facing any challenges outside of academics. Zuri, not wanting to appear as if she is struggling, smiles and thanks him for his support. After the meeting, Zuri feels even more isolated. She wishes she could tell someone about the constant pressure she is under, the long nights spent studying, the financial stress, and the fear that she will not be able to handle it all. Without the right support or encouragement to open up, Zuri continues to internalize her struggles

The pressure intensifies when Zuri gets caught plagiarizing a paper in one of her college-level courses at BCC. She begins to question whether she can complete the program. She feels guilty for not meeting her own high expectations, and she worries that if she doesn’t succeed, she will let down not just herself, but her family.

A week later, Zuri schedules another meeting with Quinn to finally discuss her challenges and seek advice on managing her workload. However, when she arrives Quinn appears to be   juggling several student meetings and only briefly reviews her academic progress, again praising her achievements without holistically checking in with her. However, Zuri’s current grades do not reflect the paper she plagiarized. Zuri does not feel like there is time to talk about her personal struggles, so she leaves the meeting without bringing them up.

Discussion Questions

1. How might Quinn, create a more open and supportive dialogue? What questions or communication approaches could Quinn use to help Zuri feel more comfortable sharing her challenges?
2. What strategies could Quinn utilize to better assess Zuri’s needs and provide her with resources that align with her specific challenges?
3. How can Quinn support Zuri as she works to prioritize and manage her academic and personal responsibilities? How can he collaborate with her to set realistic, achievable goals that align with her strengths and current challenges?
4. How might others (high school counselor, student conduct hearing officer, faculty, etc.) engage with Zuri to help find her support and resources?

Author Bio

Alexus Hughes (she/her/hers) is a second-year graduate student at Northern Illinois University’s (NIU) perusing a Master’s of Higher Education and Student Affairs. She currently serves as a graduate assistant in the Academic Advising Center at NIU.

References

Fink, J. (2024, August 26). How many students are taking dual enrollment courses in high school? New National, state, and college-level data. Community College Research Center. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/easyblog/how-many-students-are-taking-dual-enrollment-courses-in-high-school-new-national-state-and-college-level-data.html#:~:text=Black%20students%2C%20which%20made%20up,every%20state%20except%20for%20Massachusetts.

Abstract

Field-related experience can be essential for students to secure jobs upon graduation, and student affairs practitioners are often tasked with supporting students through internships and other high-impact practices. This case examines ethical boundaries between employer and university relations in the context of internships. It specifically addresses how to support students experiencing discriminatory or inappropriate behaviors from employers who have ties to the university.

Key Words: workplace discrimination, employer/university relations, career services, advising and support

Primary Characters

Nora (she/her) serves as the Internship Preparation Coordinator in the Career Center. In this position, Nora meets with students for career counseling appointments and provides internship preparation workshops to guide students through all stages of the application process. She is in her third year in this role and finally feels like she has her feet under her.

Tim (he/him) is the Industry Partnership Coordinator in the Career Center. In his role, he is responsible for establishing partnership programs with local employers and hosting campuswide career fairs. Tim has been in his current position for the past six years.

Jayda (she/her) is a senior industrial engineering student. Last year she attended several of the internship preparation workshops put on by Nora. She completed an internship this summer at Manufacture It, a large manufacturing company local to the area that donates heavily to CSU. She is attending this semester’s career fair in hopes of finding a full-time job.

Dominic (he/him) is a Project Manager at Manufacture It. He is an alumnus of CSU and started at the company as an intern after he got connected to them at a career fair. He has been with Manufacture It for five years full-time and loves to recruit at CSU because he can talk about his experience transitioning from intern to full-time. He particularly emphasizes the family feel of the company and says coming to work every day feels like hanging out with the bros.

Marie (she/her) is a sophomore mechanical engineering student. Prior to this year’s career fair, she attended several internship preparation workshops hosted by Nora and now feels confident she can land an internship at the fair.

Institutional Context

Central State University (CSU) is a mid-size public four-year institution located in a metropolitan area in the southeastern United States. Due to CSU’s low in-state tuition and generous merit-based scholarships, most of its student population are in-state residents. The University prides itself on contributing to the city economy while preparing students for the job market through several strong industry partnerships with local companies. CSU has a strong Career Center that facilitates these partnerships and puts on several campuswide career fairs to connect students with internship and full-time job opportunities.

Case Study 

Nora is excited about the career fair this semester. Over the past couple of years, she has seen several students who attended her internship preparation workshops leave the career fair with interviews and secure offers shortly afterward. For the past few weeks, she has hosted workshops and met with several students one-on-one to help them prepare for the career fair. At this fair, she is working the student information desk. She enjoys being right by the student check-in, so she can see the students she has worked with and encourage them.

Toward the start of the fair, Nora notices one of her former students, Jayda, at the student check-in. Nora has not seen Jayda since she completed her summer internship at Manufacture It. Nora wants to hear about Jayda’s experience and her goals for the fair.  Jayda meets Nora’s enthusiastic greeting with apprehension. When asked about her summer internship, Jayda’s responses are short and vague. Jayda says she’s looking for a full-time job in “anything but manufacturing.”

After some follow-up questions, Jayda admits that she had a rough internship experience. She was the only female-identifying intern in her division, and she received fewer projects than her male intern peers. Of the projects she did receive, none of the line workers took her improvement suggestions seriously, so she was unable to make substantial progress. When she brought these issues up with her supervisor, Dominic, he dismissively said, “If you’re going to make it in manufacturing, you need to man up.”

Jayda says she only met with Dominic five times and that the interactions were 15 minutes at the most. The recurring theme was for Jayda to try harder, but he did not give any specific additional guidance or suggestions. However, Dominic met with the male CSU intern weekly for at least an hour and regularly took him out to lunch.

Nora thanks Jayda for confiding in her and says that she will try to identify changes to ensure other students do not experience this. Nora adds that because Manufacture It is a CSU industry partner, she is not sure how it will go, but she will do her best to address this issue. Jayda is grateful for Nora’s support and says she will follow up with her about how the fair goes.

Nora knows Dominic is working the Manufacture It table today, but she wants to avoid a confrontation with the employer. She schedules a meeting with her colleague Tim to discuss the situation after the fair.

As the fair starts to wrap up, Nora spots Marie with whom she worked extensively to prepare to find an internship. She asks Marie how the fair went. Marie says she has some good leads but was a little disappointed by her top choice, Manufacture It. Since Marie wants to go into manufacturing engineering and they are the leading manufacturer in the state, she was hoping to get a spot in their CSU internship partner program.

However, after having a good conversation with the recruiter and handing him her resume, she noticed later that he had reached out to add her on Snapchat. Marie is concerned because her Snapchat is not associated with her full name or linked anywhere on her professional documents, as she only uses it to share photos with close friends. Marie shows her the message that was sent with the request, which says, “Hey it was great meeting you. We should talk more about manufacturing someplace more chill than a career fair.” Nora notices from the screenname that the recruiter is Dominic, the same employee that Jayda expressed concerns about. Marie says she is uncomfortable because, given the context of the message, she is not sure of his intentions. However, she is worried that making a negative impression could impact her future in manufacturing.

Nora encourages Marie to pursue the leads she has from companies she feels more comfortable with. Nora is not sure what other advice to give Marie without consulting with more seasoned professionals first. She schedules a time to meet with Marie next week to discuss the situation further.

A few days after the fair, Nora meets with Tim. While she has information that fits with the inappropriate behavior Marie experienced, she does not have anything other than Jayda’s word about that situation. Nevertheless, Nora decides to bring up both issues in her meeting.

Tim says he is “honestly shocked by this information.” He reveals that he was at CSU with Dominic and they were part of the same fraternity, and he couldn’t see him doing this. Tim also brings up how Manufacture It is one of CSU’s strongest industry partnerships, so he is worried these allegations may negatively impact that. He tells Nora he would need more evidence of Dominic’s behavior and proof that these are recurring issues before he would feel comfortable bringing this situation to higher-ups and possibly jeopardizing the relationship CSU has with Manufacture It.

Nora is discouraged after meeting with Tim. She believes his judgment may be clouded by his connection to Dominic and is not comfortable with the decision he made. She feels a responsibility to support the students and make the workplace safer for them. However, Tim outranks her in role and years of experience, so it would not be wise to go above him with these concerns. Nora is not sure how to approach this situation in a way that aligns with her values and ethics but also respects her coworker’s decision and the employer’s partnership with CSU.

Discussion Questions

1. How would you respond to this situation if you were in Nora’s shoes?
2. What role does gender play in the power dynamics present in this case study?
3. How could you ensure the students’ concerns are heard while not jeopardizing this partnership?
4. What parameters could Nora put in place so students do not run into similar issues in the future?
5. Who else might Nora consult with about this situation?

Author Bio

Lia Fiore (she/her) serves as the Assistant Director of Undergraduate Off-Campus Internships in the Center for Career and Professional Development at Clemson University. She is also pursuing her Master of Education in Student Affairs through Clemson.

Abstract

This case study examines an issue advisors face, in splitting their time and energy between students when time is a finite resource. Graduate students with assistantships advising students throughout the fellowship application process may struggle with dedicating time to eligible students who may not be competitive candidates. This issue can be particularly difficult when students come from diverse backgrounds with access to a wide range of opportunities.

Keywords: equity-based advising, fellowship advising, study abroad, first-generation college students

Institutional Context

Oceanside University is a medium-sized public institution in the Southeast. Due to its coastal location and recent elevation to R2 designation, the school has been growing steadily. The top three reasons students apply to Oceanside are the beautiful campus, strong STEM programming, and proximity to destination cities. The Office of External Awards at Oceanside is only five years old and is staffed by a Director and Assistant Director. This is the first year they have had a graduate assistant.

Primary Characters

Claire (she/her) is a first-year graduate student completing her assistantship as a fellowship advisor. In this role, Claire primarily advises for international awards and opportunities. She studied abroad in Argentina which was a transformative part of her undergraduate experience, and she hopes to help make study abroad accessible for other students.

Alyssa (she/her) is a 21-year-old junior marine biology major with a 3.65 GPA. She is an in-state, first-generation college student. In selecting her undergrad institution, she prioritized affordability, proximity to her family, and research opportunities to pursue her interests in wetland ecology.

James (he/him) is a 19-year-old sophomore pre-business student with a 4.00 GPA. He is an out-of-state student who wanted to attend a school in the Southeast for the nice weather. He is an Honors College student, and many of his AP classes from high school provided  him with transfer credits when he started at OU.

Case

In her graduate assistantship Claire advises and supports undergraduate students through the application process for nationally competitive scholarships. Currently, her energy is dedicated to helping students apply for the Bryant Scholarship as the application closes tonight, a Friday. This US State Department-funded award will cover the cost of attendance for undergraduate students to complete a 16-week study abroad, which includes covering travel to and from the host institution and a modest stipend adjusted based on cost of living by location.

As the mission of this scholarship is to further the goals of the State Department and promote mutual and global understanding, winners are required to volunteer in their host community for at least 30 hours during their semester abroad. Winners often volunteer as English tutors, though some have completed more innovative projects like organizing community clean up or food drives.

To be eligible for this award, students must be United States citizens, have completed at least 60 credit hours toward their undergraduate degree, and select a semester-long study abroad program. Applicants must write two essays on the following prompts:

1. Why did you choose this study abroad experience? How does your coursework abroad connect to your short- and long-term career goals?
2. Describe and explain the impact of your proposed service project.

Students must also upload their transcript, and there is an optional third essay to explain any underlying circumstances related to their application. No letters of recommendation are required.

Meeting with Claire

Though most applicants this cycle have been working with Claire for at least a month to draft their essays, two students booked last-minute appointments. On Monday morning, Alyssa, who hopes to study abroad in Sydney, Australia, met with Claire. “I’m sorry I didn’t book an appointment sooner when I first learned about the scholarship, but I’ve been very swamped with exams and my job,” Alyssa shares, disclosing that ever since she started school Alyssa has held a job working 35 hours a week at a grocery store. “I hope I can still apply. This would be my first trip outside of the U.S. and the award package makes this more affordable for me than other opportunities I’ve seen.”

During this intake meeting, Claire showed Alyssa the scholarship requirements and helped her draft an outline for the required essays. Alyssa spoke to her interest in this study abroad program because she is a marine biology major, and while abroad she will be taking a lab course on coral reef conservation. Because she plans to stay in the Southeast after graduation, Alyssa shared how she can transfer this learning to her research on wetland conservation in her home state. She feels the least confident in explaining her career goals. “My marine biology professors are great, but I’d like to work outside of a university doing research in the field. I haven’t had a chance to fully explore my options, though.” Her proposed service project ties into the community service she currently does, teaching schoolchildren about their role in reducing plastic waste that could end up in the ocean.

She also plans to write the optional third essay, disclosing to Claire that she struggled adapting to working her job while attending school. She shares that as a first-gen college student she is trying to minimize any financial burden for her parents. “It took me a while, but I’m not really good at managing competing—and sometimes conflicting—responsibilities and my time.” Her transcript proves that her grades dramatically improved after her first semester. After this meeting, Claire feels optimistic about Alyssa’s ability to create a strong application.

Meeting with James

Claire then meets with James, who found out from his study abroad advisor about the scholarship that morning and immediately emailed Claire about an advising appointment. James shared in their meeting that he has been speaking periodically with an advisor in the study abroad office for the past year, because his dad said that he should study abroad. James is particularly interested in this opportunity because, as he said, “It would be cool to have the program paid for.” James has selected a program in Germany because he is interested in the beer culture there.

When pushed about how the coursework connects to his career goals, James said that he might be interested in international companies because they pay a lot, and so a study abroad would look good on his resume. When asked about the second essay, James proposes working as an English tutor as he is a native English speaker. Though he does not have any prior tutoring experience, James has performed well in his English classes as evidenced by his transcript. He does not intend to write the optional essay because, he says, “I don’t need to. I have a 4.00.”

After meeting with James, Claire is unsure if he will be able to make a clear case for why he deserves the award. However, there is no limit to the number of students a school can nominate for this award. In previous cycles, multiple students have been awarded this scholarship.

The Applications

On Wednesday, both students email Claire their first drafts. In her feedback Claire notes that Alyssa needs to add more transitions and descriptions, as her essay reads like a research paper. The essays James submits are well-written, but he needs to strengthen the connection between his coursework abroad and career goals.

Because multiple fellowships are due this weekend, the Office of External Awards is hosting drop-in advising during business hours on Friday. This event provides a space for students to work quietly and to ask advisors for last-minute synchronous feedback. Both the director and assistant director are busy working with other students applying for graduate school fellowships.

Alyssa and James both attend the drop-in event. Alyssa’s revisions are strong and her application requires only minor edits based on Claire’s feedback. During the event, Claire overhears James tell a peer that he used ChatGPT to write his essay and is editing his work by asking the site how to implement Claire’s feedback. The Office of External Awards has no official policy on the use of artificial intelligence, though Oceanside University at large has recognized the potential benefits of generative AI.

Discussion questions

1. How should Claire divide her time equitably between the two students during the drop-in hours? Which student, if either, deserves more assistance? Why?
2. After the workday ends, how should Claire respond to any last-minute emails from these two students?
3. What are the implications or consequences of Claire practicing equitable advising in her specific institutional context? How can she practice ACPA/NASPA competencies of Social Justice and Inclusion in her work?
4. What other resources on campus could Claire point these students to as they complete their applications?
5. How should Claire address the fact that James used ChatGPT? Why?

Author bio

Elise Blackburn (she/they) is a first-year student in Clemson University’s Master of Education in Student Affairs program and works as a graduate assistant for the Office of Major Fellowships. Elise studied abroad in Seville, Spain as an undergraduate and won a Fulbright fellowship to teach English at a university in Madrid. She is passionate about helping students tell their story and access funding for transformative opportunities like study abroad.

Abstract

Kobby Mensah, a second-year graduate student, works as a Graduate Assistant in the Office of Academic Advising at Sunnyvale University College. Kobby is tasked with advising new students and helping them build their class schedules under the supervision of Dr. Ram Madison, the Director of Academic Advising and Planning who oversees the University’s academic and advising policies. Brenda Finney is a Resident Advisor (RA) in Gaga Hall and is responsible for assisting students with getting acclimated to the residence hall and campus. A scheduling conflict for one of the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) students, Didi Wright, nearly leads to Didi dropping out of college. This case examines how institutional miscommunication and the absence of key leadership contribute to tensions between Academic Advising and Residence Life, affecting Didi’s ability to meet both academic and residence hall commitments. The extended residence hall program in Gaga Hall, designed to foster inclusion and relationship-building among a diverse student population, has become a source of conflict due to delayed communication between Residence Life and other departments and functional areas. The Office of Residence Life and Academic Advising are involved to demonstrate how leadership, planning, and coordination, must be incorporated in a holistic response to support Didi. 

Keywords: academic advising, residence life, retention, communication, STEM program

Characters

• Kobby Mensah (he/him), a second-year graduate student in the Higher Education and Student Affairs Administration masters program, works as a Graduate Assistant in the Office of Academic Advising
• Brenda Finney (she/her), a sophomore and a first-year Resident Advisor (RA) in Gaga Hall
• Didi Wright (she/her), a first- year student studying Computer Science and a resident of Gaga Hall
• Ram Madison (he/him), the Director of Academic Advising and Planning

Institutional Context

Sunnyvale University College is a mid-sized private institution with approximately 7,000 students in Grand Island, Nebraska, known for its strong STEM programs. The Office of Academic Advising works closely with The Office of Residence Life to ensure students’ academic and social needs are met. New students, particularly those in STEM fields, often face challenges in balancing academic schedules with residence life activities due to the demanding nature of their coursework. This academic year, Gaga Hall became home to one of the university’s most diverse first-year student cohorts, and during the first week of the semester, some students in the hall experienced challenges adjusting to the different identities, backgrounds, and cultures of their peers.

To address this, the Residence Life team implemented an extended residence hall program in Gaga Hall as a contingency plan to foster inclusion, bonding, and relationship-building among residents. However, due to the sudden departure of the Hall Director shortly before the semester began, there was limited time to communicate this new program effectively across departments and functional areas. This miscommunication created tension between Academic Advising and Residence Life, with students like Didi Wright sitting at the center of the conflict.

Case

Kobby Mensah, a Graduate Assistant in the Office of Academic Advising, plays a critical role in helping new students in STEM programs, plan their academic schedules. One of his primary responsibilities is advising students on course selection, ensuring they meet prerequisites and major requirements while managing their workload. Kobby reports to Dr. Ram, the Director of Academic Advising and Planning, who supervises all academic advising initiatives and policies of the university and supervises Kobby, supporting him.

The situation begins when Didi Wright, a first-year computer science student and resident of Gaga Hall, finds herself overwhelmed by a scheduling conflict. Her structured STEM curriculum requires her to attend a mandatory sequence of classes. The conflict arises when Didi realizes that her evening class schedules overlap with the new residence hall programs aimed at building community within the residence hall. Didi needs to attend these programs as part of her residence hall’s requirements for first-year students but missing any core classes will put her behind in her challenging STEM program. Sunnyvale University maintains a clear policy that academic commitments always take precedence over out-of-classroom activities, including residence hall programs. However, as a new student, Didi feels caught up between conflicting expectations and initially did not know how to seek help.

Brenda Finney, a first-time Resident Advisor eager to make a strong impression, stresses in an email to her residents, including Didi, that participation in all extended residence life activities is critical to fostering inclusion in Gaga Hall. RA Brenda, feeling the pressure of managing a diverse group of students without direct guidance from a Hall Director, highly encouraged attendance at the residence hall programs.

Didi, caught between her academic commitments and the hall’s social expectations, tells Kobby during an advising session: “I don’t think I can handle this. I didn’t even know who to talk to initially about this conflict and it feels like no one understands how much I’m struggling with school and my social commitments”. Kobby recognizes that Didi’s concerns extend beyond the immediate scheduling conflict and reflect broader issues of inclusion and belonging.

The Conflict Unfolds

Kobby consults with Dr. Ram, who emphasizes the importance of addressing Didi’s academic needs while collaborating with Residence Life to find a solution. In a meeting with a Residence Life representative and the Academic Advising Office chaired by Dr. Ram, the residence life member shares that Brenda is feeling unprepared to balance her responsibilities as an RA with the new residence hall program’s goals.

Additionally, the Residence Life representative explains that the program was introduced to address challenges related to diversity in Gaga Hall, but the lack of communication from Residence Life leadership has left Brenda uncertain about how to accommodate academic priorities. The Residence Life team assures Dr. Ram that Brenda has been informed that academic responsibilities come before residence life programs. The Residence Life Team assures Dr. Ram that they will officially communicate with Academic Advising and other offices about the new Gaga Hall program being implemented.

During the meeting Dr. Ram, the Residence Life representative, and Kobby propose a plan that involves adjusting Didi’s academic schedule to attend two early morning classes for the affected courses while allowing her to participate in the new residence hall program which runs through the first month of the semester. The changes are possible because the window for adding and dropping classes is still open.

Upon carefully considering the alternative schedules, Didi agrees to the new class arrangements, allowing her to attend the required core classes while also participating in key Gaga Hall programs. Kobby also arranges regular follow-up advising sessions with Didi to ensure she feels supported and to ensure that the new schedule works for her.

Discussion Questions

1. How can Brenda support Didi during Residence Hall program meetings?
2. How can Residence Life collaborate with the academic advising team to avoid conflicts with mandatory hall programs in the future?
3. How can institutions/student affairs professionals better support students who are balancing academic and social commitments?
4. What (if any) special considerations should staff bear in mind for supporting STEM students through their transitions into higher education?
5. What key leadership skills are needed to mediate conflicts between students and staff in higher education settings?
6. What strategies can graduate assistants employ to put their leadership skills into practice while maintaining positive relationships with their fellow staff members in their functional area or other functional areas within a university? 

Author Biographies

Ebenezer Kofi Asiaw (he/him): Ebenezer is a second-year graduate student in the College Student Personnel program at Bowling Green State University. Ebenezer’s assistantship is with the College Student Personnel program.

Kailah Williamson (she/her): Kailah is a second-year masters student in the College Student Personnel program at Bowling Green State University. Kailah’s assistantship is with The Office of Student Engagement as a Graduate Hall Director.

Abstract

The case study highlights the experience of a new white student affairs professional as she navigates a conversation with a Black female student who wishes to change her major from STEM to humanities but is struggling with having this conversation with her parent, who is passionate about her STEM studies.

Keywords: Students of color; major change; career services; parental support

Primary Characters

Charlene (she/her): Charlene is a new student affairs professional who is in her first year at State University, working in their Career Center as a Career Counselor. She is a White, straight, cisgendered woman. Charlene reports to Dr. Turftin.

Kammy (she/her): Kammy is a second-semester first-year student at State University studying a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering. She is a Black, straight, cisgendered woman.

Mark (he/him) Mark is a student affairs professional in his third year at State University and fifth year working in the field of student affairs. He is an academic advisor within the School of Engineering, who specifically works with Civil Engineering students. Mark is a White, gay, cisgendered male.

Bree (she/her): Bree is Kammy’s mother and works as a radiological technician at a teaching hospital three hours north of State University. Bree is a Black, straight, cisgendered woman. She is a single mother of two children. While Bree earned an Associate’s Degree  and has certifications for her career, she is extremely proud of Kammy for being the first person in their family to attend a four-year institution and as a woman in STEM.

Dr. Turftin (he/him): Dr. Turftin is the Director of Career Development at State University and Charlene’s direct supervisor. He is a White, straight, cisgendered man. He has been known to be very open about his religious and political beliefs, and how he believes they should play a larger role in university practices and policy decisions.

Context and Case

State University is a medium-sized, public, state institution. The school is located in the northeast United States and is a predominantly white institution (PWI). The university is known for its International Business program and its Civil Engineering program, though the entire School of Engineering is well-funded and highly ranked. Though the school is a PWI, the institution has made strides in diversifying the student body through recruitment efforts, improving the racial diversity of the campus by 3% in the past two years. That said, there is still plenty of work to be done. State U has made especially strong efforts to promote enrollment for BIPOC women in STEM, supported by competitive scholarship offers.

As a direct result of these efforts, Kammy, an 18-year-old Black woman, decided to attend State University for their Civil Engineering program. She made her decision in part because of the scholarship she received which covered a large portion of her tuition. Kammy is the first in her family to attend a four-year institution and knows that her family is very proud of her. Kammy likes civil engineering, but after taking English 101 and beginning English 102 for her general education credits in her second semester, she began to fall in love with reading, writing, and all things literature. Now, as she is planning her course schedule for the first semester of her second year, she is not excited about any of her engineering courses and wishes she could replace them with English courses instead.

On Monday she had her semesterly visit with her Academic Advisor, Mark. During the conversation, she confessed her feelings to him, saying, “I am worried that I have chosen the wrong path. I don’t enjoy engineering as much as I love other subjects and I don’t see a lot of peers in my classes who look like me. It’s been hard to feel like I belong here.” Though he said he would be sad to see her leave the Civil Engineering program, Mark recommended to Kammy that she could explore changing her major. He encouraged her to speak with staff at the university’s Career Center about her options. Kammy then sent an email to the Career Center requesting an appointment to discuss her options. As a first step, the staff member she spoke with recommended that Kammy take the Strong Interest Inventory, a career assessment that assists students with major and career change decisions. Kammy agreed and scheduled an interpretation session with Charlene.

At the Career Center appointment on Tuesday, Kammy met with Charlene, one of the Career Counselors in the office. Charlene and Kammy went through the inventory, which gave Kammy a “theme code” that could describe her professional personality and tendencies, and also a list of the top 10 careers that aligned with Kammy’s interests. Charlene said, “This inventory is not a ‘magic pill’ that can tell you exactly what you should do with your life.” She went on to explain that the results can be used as a tool to provide a starting point to see how Kammy’s interests aligned with other women certain fields. Some of Kammy’s top 10 careers included technical writer, editor, and multiple medical fields. Kammy’s test even said that she could be a bartender, which she was confused by until Charlene explained that her inventory had that too and most likely was because of her social and artistic nature, as presented in her “theme code.”

Kammy felt validated by the test, seeing that careers involving literature seemed to align with her, but she had fears about disappointing her mother. She confessed to Charlene that she was scared her mother would not approve of her decision to switch majors from something is STEM to something in the humanities, especially given Kammy’s STEM scholarship to State University.

Charlene and Kammy talked at length about how the decision is ultimately Kammy’s and depends on many variables, such as her financial situation, her relationships, her life and career goals, and her own values. Charlene proposed that if Kammy truly wanted to switch majors but did not wish to make that decision behind her mother’s back, Kammy could do research on the financial aspects of the decision, possible career future, and other elements before proposing the idea to her mother. Kammy agreed and decided to gather information and then speak with her mother later that week.

On Friday of that same week, the Career Center received a call from someone asking to speak with Charlene. When Charlene answered, she discovered that it was Bree, Kammy’s mother. On the phone, Bree says, “I am very disappointed in the way the Career Center interfered with Kammy’s education. I was so upset to hear how your advising convinced Kammy to abandon a very important career future in STEM for something that could disappoint her in the future and won’t give her the same financial security as her current academic program.”

Further into the discussion, Bree also mentioned that her daughter had shown her the Strong Interest Inventory results. “Your test told my daughter to be a bartender!” Bree asserted. “That isn’t something that should be used in major or career change decisions if it gives students these kinds of results. What kind of Career Center is this?”

In response, Charlene explains the inventory to Bree, saying, “The Strong Interest Inventory is a test that measures a student’s interests but does not have a means to measure values or current skills. It also sometimes pulls results such as bartender because of tendencies leaning towards enjoying social interactions or creativity.” Charlene also apologizes that Bree was disappointed in the test.

Bree also called the Director of the Career Center, Dr. Turftin, to inform him of her disapproval of the Career Center’s services and the results and subsequent advising the Strong Interest Inventory had given her daughter.

Dr. Turftin then called Charlene into his office. Without asking Charlene to explain her meeting with Kammy, he says, “I have just gotten off the phone with the mother of a student you advised on a Strong. You handled this situation poorly and should have understood the lengths that State University has made to bring in more women of color to our STEM programs. Once you found out about Kammy’s mother’s wishes for her career, you should have respected this and not interfered with her decision further. From here on, remember that we only provide the results of the inventory, not suggestions for how to use them.”

Charlene leaves the director’s office questioning her advising as well as the “office standard” she has just been informed of. Charlene wonders, “How can we empower students without providing them our complete advice or cutting ourselves short to only respect a parent’s wishes or concerns and not the student’s?”

Discussion Questions

1. How would you have advocated for Kammy in this situation, as a Black woman working to get into a field commonly populated by White men, wanting to change majors?
2. How would you have reacted to Bree, Kammy’s mother, during her phone call to the office?
3. If you were Charlene, how would you have navigated the conversation with your director telling you that you handled the situation poorly?

Taya Andrews (she/her) serves as an Academic Advisor within the College of Business and Technology at Winthrop University. She earned her M.Ed. in student affairs at Clemson University and graduated from the University of South Carolina with a Bachelor of Arts in English, emphasis in Creative Writing.

Hello, ACPA members.

I know for many of us this semester has been a challenging one – navigating the ever-changing environment of higher education alongside the national election, dealing with hurricanes and other natural disasters, as well as the myriad personal challenges we each are navigating may have taken a toll. In addition to the challenges, we hope that you each have had success, moments of inspiration, and have felt connected to individuals and communities as you have achieved so many things in the past months.

As you look ahead to the spring semester, we are excited to share a new set of case studies submitted by practitioners, students, and faculty. This set includes a number of cases on advising in a variety of contexts (Andrews, Asiaw & Stephens, Blackburn, Fiore, Hughes, Johns & McDonald, Maddox, Manu, Tomarchio), cases specifically focused on student conduct and ethical decision-making (Berchtold, Fonseca, Hammonds, Mertin, Mustin, Scott), the experiences of international students (Dadzie, Dawson-Amoah) as well as students planning to go to medical school (Espinosa, Reibestein). Finally, there are two cases about navigating trauma in the workplace. Burd and Dingle Robinson provide complex cases about attending the work in the context of practitioners needing success themselves.

We hope you find these useful in your trainings, staff development, classes, and in other contexts. As always, we have tremendous gratitude for the authors who took the time to submit interesting and challenging cases on timely and relevant topics.

All the best in 2025. As always, please reach out if you have questions or if you have an idea for an article you’d like to discussion. We appreciate you and hope you all make time to take a breath and begin again just like this year’s convention theme suggests. We hope you have a wonderful time connecting with others in Long Beach in February. As always, take care of yourselves as you take care of others.

Michelle L. Boettcher, Editor

(mboettc@clemson.edu)

 

Editorial Team

Samantha Babb

Ricardo Montelongo

Mary Dueñas

Abstract

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are vital concepts that impact higher education positively, but too often belonging and accessibility are omitted from the conversation. Sense of belonging is an important factor surrounding higher education and DEI because of the associated benefits. For higher education students, sense of belonging is related to their overall satisfaction and intention to persist, leading to graduation.

Although sense of belonging is an important factor for all individuals, it is often overlooked in some populations with marginalized identities, such as individuals with disabilities. People with disabilities have historically been ignored in conversations surrounding belonging. When individuals do not have a sense of belonging it can lead to feelings of exclusion and isolation. Sense of belonging is a sense of mattering, and individuals must be in environments that support them holistically including all their identities.

This manuscript explores how student affairs professionals in higher education can intentionally implement universal design throughout their work, potentially increasing a sense of belonging for more students. I share practical strategies to intentionally design inclusive communities that prioritize accessibility, leading to the future of higher education having increased retention, problem-solving skills for students, and overall better well-being and belonging.

Key Words: Disability; Belonging; Accessibility; Universal Design

Introduction

Diversity within higher education in the United States is ever-changing, and in the next decade it is projected to be “majority-minority” (Vespa et al., 2018). Diversity was different yesterday than it is today, and it will be different tomorrow. As diversity is changing and individuals on college campuses are becoming more uniquely diverse in their identities, professionals must embrace opportunities for inclusion within this challenge of change. Preparing for this challenge appropriately allows all campus students, staff, faculty, and community members to become more authentic in their work toward self-actualization.

Unfortunately, higher education settings have not historically been inclusive spaces (e.g., segregation, gender bias, financial barriers). The earliest institutions in higher education were places to educate the elite and privileged (Urquiola, 2023). Even within the last 100 years, higher education has enacted a gatekeeper mentality providing opportunities for some students and limiting opportunities for others. Often, among those excluded from these limited opportunities were people who had different abilities than the majority. This disproportionately impacted students with disabilities.

In our current politically contentious times, the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in higher education is under scrutiny. Even among the many professionals who understand the value of DEI in higher education, accessibility and disability are typically left out of the conversation. This is disheartening because over 20% of college students report having disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2023). This means that a large population of students in higher education are not receiving the full, holistic support they need to be themselves. Because of disability stigma, information about students with disabilities is drastically underreported. For student affairs professionals to evolve and face the challenges of higher education today and for the next 100 years, we must shift to a universal design mindset to craft communities of belonging for everyone.

Importance of Belonging

Foundational theorists have focused on the relationship between belonging and success (e.g., Astin, 1984; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Maslow, 1968; Tinto, 1975). Belonging is a deep connection with groups, places, and experiences. A nurturing environment that provides the proper levels of challenge and support can lead to belonging (Astin, 1984). An environment that does not focus on creating opportunities for connection can intentionally or inadvertently lead to a lack of belonging, which motivates students to withdraw from college (Tinto, 1975).

Every human has an innate need to form a sense of belonging. A sense of belonging can be found as people seek connection to others. According to Maslow (1954) connection or belonging is required on the path to self-actualization. Belonging is a need because it shapes the formation of our identity. Forming a connection with others develops a greater sense of self within each of us to understand that we have a community. Being part of something bigger than ourselves and forming this sense of purpose provides us each with a sense of safety and encourages us to express our authenticity.

Authentically expressing ourselves is important for everyone – especially college students. Higher education institutions are places for learning, community building, and innovative discoveries. Simultaneously, these environments are places that pose both academic and social pressures. College dynamics are demanding for many students when balancing new responsibilities, challenging assignments, adjusting to new environments, personal issues, and navigating social expectations (Sprung & Rogers, 2021). It is difficult to handle all of these challenges and opportunities, while also exploring identity development. Inclusive environments promote belonging and provide students the support they need while motivating them to be their authentic selves leading to resilience, creativity, self-confidence, and other skills (Strayhorn, 2022).

Forming a sense of belonging is important for all students but can be more challenging for historically marginalized populations because of discrimination, isolation, stigma, and lack of acceptance (Strayhorn, 2022). Students with disabilities are part of this marginalized population and, just like their peers, crave connection to support their overall well-being. However, barriers they encounter include classmates not accepting them holistically and environmental challenges posed by higher education employees. Employees often place unintentional barriers to belonging for this population by using inaccessible material, ignoring accommodations, and assuming disability is a monolithic experience. While not all student affairs professionals are disability scholars, it is our responsibility to foster a culture of inclusivity. This work increases belonging and meets the needs of all students, including the ever-growing population of students with disabilities.

Universal Design

A strategy student affairs professionals can use to support students with disabilities is a universal design mentality. Universal design was developed in 1997 by a team of architects who intended for products and environments to be usable by all people (regardless of age, ability, or other factors), without the need for a specialized design (National Disability Authority, 2024). Universal design creates opportunities for people without the need to request specific accommodations. This results in access and equity.

Other educational models have adopted universal design and applied it to classrooms. One such example is the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework (Meyer et al., 2014). The UDL pedagogy is intended to provide flexibility to support students across learning abilities. Model guidelines focus on providing multiple means for engagement, representation, action, and expression. UDL is a way of customizing learning in the classroom, but a similar foundation of universal design can be practically applied throughout student affairs.

By understanding and applying the seven principles of universal design in higher education, we are actively building inclusive cultures of belonging. The seven principles of universal design are:

1. Equitable in Use
2. Flexibility in Use
3. Simple and Intuitive
4. Perceptible Information
5. Tolerance for Error
6. Low Physical Effort
7. Size and Space for Approach and Use

In the next section, I will describe each principle, discuss examples, and share practical strategies.

Principle 1: Equitable in Use

Equitable in use describes a design that is useful and marketable to people of all abilities (National Disability Authority, 2024) and ensures fairness and access. An example of this is when you enter your local grocery store. Most stores have automatic doors that open whether you are physically walking, using a wheelchair for mobility, or traveling in any other manner. Student affairs professionals can practice an “automatic door” concept, as well by communicating with students in a variety of ways. Some students may receive communication better via email, while others may prefer videos or text messages. Finding the most useful form of communication for each student meets their needs and helps establish belonging. By utilizing our skills, student affairs professionals can build rapport with students and learn the best way to meet their needs.

Principle 2: Flexibility in Use

Flexibility in use describes a design that accommodates a wide range of individuals from various backgrounds and abilities (National Disability Authority, 2024). An example of flexibility in use is in streaming services that allow for closed captioning. Flexibility allows users to turn on or off the closed captioning feature. Closed captioning appeals to people who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, and it also appeals to people who require the captions for processing. The information being conveyed is communicated in a variety of ways.

Flexibility in use is applicable in student affairs to meet the needs of a wide range of students from various backgrounds. Student affairs professionals are adaptable and must avoid treating students who have disabilities as a monolithic group. We need to work to learn their needs, preferences, potential, and limitations. While many student affairs professionals are trained and provided protocols about student meetings, those protocols can sometimes be rigid in scheduling an appointment. Professionals being flexible in use would allow for a scheduling format permitting students to schedule in person, via phone, or email. This could also change by meeting students over lunch, outside the office, or online.

Being flexible in use in this way adapts to students who may have challenges with different modes of communication/scheduling, difficulty with mobility, or anxiety with coming into the physical building. Student affairs professional being flexible in use allows them to connect with students from an array of abilities and identities. Being flexible in this way helps establish belonging.

Principle 3: Simple and Intuitive in Use

Simple and intuitive in use means information is easy to understand, regardless of the familiarity or ability of the user (National Disability Authority, 2024). An example of this is accessibility buttons that automatically open doors. The accessibility button uses plain language stating, “push to open” and has a symbol for those who may not speak English. This button can be pressed by hand or any other way of applying pressure.

Student affairs professionals must also utilize being simple and intuitive in use throughout our practice. Professionals assist international students, first-generation students, and students with disabilities. Understanding that not all of the populations we serve may have English as a first language encourages us to find various ways to communicate. Not making assumptions and explaining how we can assist is beneficial for first-generation students who may not be familiar with student affairs or knowledgeable about resources on campus. Using plain language is another way we can be simple and intuitive in use. This approach applies not only to students with disabilities but to everyone. Communicating simply and intuitively allows us to connect with all students, build rapport, and foster belonging by ensuring students’ needs are met.

Principle 4: Perceptible Information

Perceptible information communicates necessary information to all users in an effective manner, regardless of their abilities (National Disability Authority, 2024). An example of this is when people use self-check-out in the grocery store. Most self-checkout machines display the item scanned on the screen and say the item’s name audibly. This allows people to receive the information in multiple ways.

Student affairs professionals operationalize this mindset by sharing information with students during meetings and also sending a summary of the meeting via email. This summary can include important dates and the key points of the conversation. Sharing perceptible information in this way relays to the student that you care about them as an individual and their success. Students understanding that professionals invest in their development contributes to their belonging.

Principle 5: Tolerance for Error

The tolerance for error principle minimizes consequences for unintended actions (National Disability Authority, 2024). This principle ensures that accidents are not detrimental to the person using the product. An example of this in products is the guard rails on stairs. The guard rails protect individuals from walking off the stairs by bumping into them. They also provide support for those who need the rail for assistance.

Student affairs professionals can apply this universal design principle and shift to this mindset by creating room for mistakes and protection from harm. People are not perfect, and students occasionally make mistakes, such as forgetting deadlines or assignments. Students must learn from their mistakes, but they should not be trapped in despair because of their mistakes. Experiences differ, but some students dwell on negative experiences or distress which can leave them hopeless. Negative feelings can overwhelm students and immobilize them on their educational journey. Student affairs professionals applying the principle of tolerance for error account for mistakes, give grace, provide safety, and offer learning opportunities. Offering patience and understanding while providing guidance when students are not perfect allows them to continue developing and fosters a feeling of support, which can help to increase sense of belonging. Supporting students in this way creates opportunities for future success.

Principle 6: Low Physical Effort

The principle of low physical effort describes a design that can be efficiently used with minimum fatigue (National Disability Authority, 2024). Automatic garage doors are an example of this. Physically lifting heavy garage doors may be difficult for some and impossible for others. Using an automatic opener is a way of lifting the door easily.

Working with student affairs professionals is different from lifting a garage door, but this work can still result in fatigue. Examples include traditional policies requiring students to attend in person to schedule a meeting or when we require documents to be signed in person. For some students, navigating campus is exhausting mentally and/or physically. By utilizing technology, we can support students without putting an undue burden on them. Low physical effort could also be applied by making phone calls to connect with professors or utilizing technology for meetings. Reducing fatigue for students and shifting to this model increases belonging by removing unneeded barriers.

Principle 7: Size and Space for Approach and Use

The last universal design principle is size and space for approach and use. This principle means that there is an appropriate size that accounts for manipulation, regardless of body size and mobility (National Disability Authority, 2024). An example of this is in most newer vehicles. Newer vehicles give users the opportunity to adjust the seat position, height, angle, and tilt to meet the needs of the user. Altering the seat in this way ensures the user can find a position that makes them comfortable.

Student affairs professionals must have adaptable furniture to meet the needs of all students, but they also must be adaptable in their approach and use as well. Students navigate the college campus with a variety of experiences, identities, and abilities. Student affairs professionals cannot approach every student in the same way. Creating a tailored approach allows for better communication and a stronger relationship. This could mean adjusting the speed of the communication or the amount of detail in the information students are provided. Communicating with a different approach that allows for dignity and respect fosters positive relationships, leading to belonging.

Conclusion

The college population is becoming more and more diverse. Student affairs professionals must adapt to create equitable opportunities and inclusive environments. As a student affairs administrator, I understand that we have unique paths and various mission statements related to our impactful work. Each of us has the shared goal of enhancing the overall college experience for college students and assisting with students’ identity development. The everchanging student population in higher education may seem like a challenge, but it is actually an opportunity to shift to a more universally designed mindset. Making this shift creates opportunities to nurture relationships and facilitate belonging. Belonging leads to persistence and academic success. By applying the universal design mindset throughout student affairs, professionals can learn from the past 100 years and prepare for the future by being more inclusive by design.

Reflection Questions

1. What are some strategies you are using to practice universal design in your current position of employment?
2. Considering the growing diverse needs of students in higher education, what are some common barriers relating to accessibility faced by the marginalized populations you work with?
3. In what ways do you believe universal design can improve the overall college experience not just for students with disabilities, but for everyone?

Author Bio

Nicholas Lamar Wright, Ph.D. (He/Him/His), is a champion of diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, and accessibility who is motivated to build inclusive cultures for all people to express authenticity. He is a nationally recognized, award-winning higher education leader, scholar, and practitioner who identifies as a multiracial (Black/White) man with a traumatic brain injury (TBI). Dr. Wright serves as the Director of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion for the Human Development Institute at the University of Kentucky.

 References

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297-308.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. Harpers.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand.

Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. T. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing.

National Disability Authority. (2024). Universal Design – The 7 Principles. Retrieved from https://universaldesign.ie/about-universal-design/the-7-principles

Sprung, J. M., & Rogers, A. (2021). Work-life balance as a predictor of college student anxiety and depression. Journal of American College Health, 69(7), 775-782.

Strayhorn, T. L. (2022). Unraveling the relationship among engagement, involvement, and sense of belonging. In The Impact of a Sense of Belonging in College (pp. 21-34). Routledge.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of educational research, 45(1), 89-125.

Urquiola, M. (2023). Higher education in the United States: Laissez‐faire, differentiation, and research. Asian Economic Policy Review, 18(2), 196-213.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Digest of Education Statistics, 2022. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=60

Vespa, J., Armstrong, D. M., & Medina, L. (2018). Demographic turning points for the United States: Population projections for 2020 to 2060. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau.

Many, if not the majority, of my earliest childhood memories revolve around her office, where we spent weekends and afternoons after school. I vividly recall sitting at her small round table made for meetings as she diligently worked at her desk. She would be typing on the computer working on complicated Excel spreadsheets as I worked on my elementary school assignments.

I often took her attention away from the spreadsheets for a short time to show her the “novel” I had written and illustrated myself with crayons. Sometimes, she’d indulge my impatience for adulthood by placing me in a cushioned, spinning office chair in the conference room where I could pretend to be part of her “big girl meetings” while she practiced presentations. My mom has even recounted stories from before I can consciously remember, of me nestled in my removable car seat beneath her desk, never far from her side as she typed away. My mother has always been the most fiercely and beautifully independent woman I have ever known. If you ever wish to know the source of my prowess with a toolbox as well as my adeptness at navigating college life, you need to look no further than her. My learning started in my home, but the college campus where my mom worked also helped set the stage for my future and the person I am today.

From Mom’s Office to the Real World

The time I spent on college campuses led to interactions with college students, staff, faculty, and facilities long before many other children and teenagers even begin to think about secondary education. draf. Except this was just a normal weekend with my mom. I was raised on college campuses, so applying to and going for a higher education degree was never in question for me. Not because of any motherly pressure, but rather because I always knew I would have her support and I adored the campus environment. It wasn’t until being on a campus as a student, however, that I began reflecting on how this isn’t everyone’s experience. Then in my student affairs program, which allowed me space to have these conversations with no judgment, I began to more deeply consider the advantage I had because I had a mother working in higher education.

Not only did I receive scholarships from the university I attended because my mom worked there, but I also received more help and insight than many students expect or hope for. When applying to colleges, my mom was by my side, answering any questions I had and reviewing my essays before I hit submit. When I filled out the FAFSA for the first time, I had the assistance of someone who worked in higher education to keep me level-headed through the stressful process. Then, when I finally began college, I had the comfort of knowing that between classes every day, I could visit my mom in her office and always have a listening ear with informed advice and a taste of home.

While I did many things on my own and gained a great deal of independence in my undergraduate years, I didn’t always have to worry about things other students may have because my mom was there. If I couldn’t find a building one of my classes was in, I could call her to figure out where to go. If I was worried about getting a job on campus, my mom offered to reach out to a contact she had. As a very young adult, I had to learn to carefully tread the line between parental support and nepotism. I never wanted anyone to view me as just her daughter, or to think that I didn’t deserve an opportunity because I needed my mother to find it for me. So, I found the opportunities on my own. I made contacts and connections on my own. Though I still have her look over any application or essay materials to this day.

Finding My Own Path

It’s fascinating to reflect on how, before realizing how deeply student affairs had ingrained itself into my heart, I adamantly declared that I never wanted to work in the same field as my mom. This was my rhetoric for two reasons that impact me to this day: I wanted to do something unique, rather than feeling like I was following in someone else’s footsteps, and I never felt that I could be as effective or successful in a role like hers.

My whole life, I have loved nothing more than the written word and how it can transport someone outside of themselves. From this love, I decided that I wanted to go into the publishing industry to instill this same love of literature into young readers, leading to my decision to pursue a Bachelor of Arts in English at the University of South Carolina. I also decided to intern at a publishing press in Columbia, SC to learn more about the industry I so desired to be in. I quickly learned that publishing wasn’t what I thought it would be and if I continued this pursuit, I would lose that passion for reading. I had to take a quick glance at my life to see what it was that I did find fulfillment in, which just so happened to be my on-campus job at the Career Center. Here is where I discovered student affairs.

Change of Mind (and Heart)

My path into higher education, both undergraduate English degree and post-secondary student affairs degree, has felt different compared to many of my peers and colleagues. This is because it was always accompanied by the presence of my mother, who has worked in leadership positions in higher education since I can remember. Before I was born and during the first four years of my life, my mom worked as the Director of Institutional Research at the University of Central Florida and currently works as the Associate Vice President of Institutional Analytics. These two positions were, of course, separated by two others; 12 years at the University of Akron and six at the University of South Carolina. I like to tell people when asked “Where are you from?” that I was born in Florida, raised in Ohio, and found myself in South Carolina, where I received both of my college degrees.

During that time in my life when I had to decide what to do for my career instead of publishing, I had the benefit of discussing this decision with someone familiar with higher education. My mom and I had many discussions about the highs and lows of working in this field, especially the differences between student affairs and other areas. We would discuss the troubling news when the government would make calls that we didn’t agree with or didn’t feel supported our student populations. We would also discuss how I would manage my starting salary, because as anyone in student affairs will tell you, “We aren’t in it for the money.” Before deciding my path, I wasn’t sure if I should simply apply for a full-time job or go for my master’s degree first. I also wasn’t sure about navigating my wants and needs from graduate school, but she was always available to work through those choices with me. Even still, my mom was never the person to make decisions for me, she always acted as a guiding force, allowing me the time and space I needed to make life decisions on my own.

Being more intentional in my thoughts on our roles, it came to my attention that while we are both in higher education, we are in very different areas. I work as a student affairs professional, with more interactions with students in a single day than my mom has in a month. She also works with more data and assessments in a month than I likely have to in any given year. These differences make us who we are in our roles and we both have as much passion for our separate areas of higher education as the other.

Any lack of confidence in my ability to be a great leader has nothing to do with my mother and everything to do with myself. When I discovered the term “imposter syndrome,” I had never felt more understood. I also discovered that a lot more people than I thought felt the same way I did. Beyond this, when I brought up my imposter syndrome to my mom, she surprised me by saying “I see so much of myself in you.” She expressed that for her entire career, she has battled feeling that she wasn’t good enough in her role or wasn’t smart enough to be amongst the other people in the room with her. I look back on that conference room I sat in as a child, always looking up to my mother and thinking about the confidence she exuded in presentations, meetings, and conversations. I admired her even more when I found out that she often had internalized self-doubt but stood tall despite it.

Looking Ahead

As I enter my first year of being a full-time student affairs professional, I’ve done a lot of reflection on how my mother has impacted my journey. I have been beyond privileged to have a parent who could support me in the ways my mother has. Whether it was having a knowledgeable person always a phone call away for college applications or a professional to offer advice on the career path we both are in, I have never felt a lack of support. For other professionals who work with students in higher education, I highly encourage these people to also contemplate who they had or maybe didn’t have in their lives as they prepared for college and their careers in this field. Moreover, what advantages did they gain over their peers as a result, and how can we extend similar support to students who lacked such advantages? We often hear the phrase “meet students where they are at,” but it is equally important to consider where they come from. How can we offer the support that a student may need to also navigate college when they don’t have a parent who knows the ins and outs of campus life? While I will always agree that the separation from in loco parentis was the best path to take to empower students to independence, I also have learned the benefits that having a knowledgeable parent in higher education can have. With this, I recommend that we continue to consider how we can balance the line between offering a similar support system to our students without delving into acting as a parent.

My mother is my inspiration and ultimate support system. I couldn’t have asked for a better person to guide me through my time in college. With the knowledge I gained from having a parent in higher education, I can only hope to better understand my role in supporting students who may lack this same advantage.

Author Bio

Taya Andrews (she/her/hers) is an Academic Advisor and Marketing Coordinator in the College of Business and Technology at Winthrop University.

Origin stories of any long-standing organization or group contain the roots of its culture, its reason for being, and its values (Kass, 2018).   Origin stories, Kass asserts, also connect members of the group across the generations.  As we celebrate ACPA’s 100^th anniversary in 2024, we also celebrate the 40^th and 25th anniversaries, respectively, of two of its significant and inter-related entities—the ACPA Senior Scholars and the ACPA Emerging Scholars.  In this article, I trace the origins of both groups.

ACPA Senior Scholars                                                   

Although 1984 is documented as the first time the Senior Scholars were formally a part of ACPA, the story begins eight years earlier in 1976–a pivotal year in setting the stage for the creation of the Senior Scholars.  First, ACPA presented the Contribution to Knowledge Award to its first recipient, E. G. Williamson in 1976.  Second, 1976 was the founding year of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE), which started as a standing committee of higher education scholars in the American Association for Higher Education (which disbanded in 2005).  ASHE, as a new association, attracted many student affairs scholars seeking to network and converse with their peers.  And third, it was the first year (of more than 40) that an informal group of ACPA members (including Phil Tripp, Harry Canon, Cynthia Johnson, James Hurst, and Ursula Delworth) gathered in Valhalla, CO to have in-depth conversations about how student development theory could influence professional practice in student affairs.  These three events would be the early roots of–and play a significant role in–the formation of the ACPA Senior Scholars.

Early in ACPA’s second semicentennial (around 1982), leadership within the association observed and grew concerned that some of its senior members, who were doing scholarship, were drifting away from the association to join ASHE and take with them their coveted wisdom, experience, and generativity.  Harry Canon recalls that while driving with his colleague, Peggy Barr, from Northern Illinois University to Detroit for the 1982 ACPA convention, they discussed this very issue and the need to have an entity within the association to keep these scholars engaged.

These conversations continued that next fall at the Valhalla gathering and at the ACPA Governing Board meeting where a formal motion to begin the formation the ACPA Senior Scholars was made by Member-at-Large Canon and voted on affirmatively by the board.  Key to these conversations were past ACPA Presidents, Cynthia Johnson and Paul Bloland.  Johnson was especially influential given her skill at deftly moving ideas to action.  As leaders such as Ursula Delworth, Lou Stamatakos, and Peter Sherrard fleshed out the idea of the Senior Scholars, it would need to be put into writing for a formal vote at the ACPA governing board business meeting at the 1983 convention in Houston.  Peggy Barr is credited with drafting the Senior Scholar Program proposal draft that would detail the initial procedures, policies, and activities of the group and become its working document.

This foundational document started with the rationale for program:

The American College Personnel Association has a richly talented resource in those individuals who have received the Contribution to Knowledge Award and other senior scholars in the field.  The professionals, endorsed and honored by their colleagues, possess conceptual and creative skills that have shaped the profession and contain the promise of still further advancement of our knowledge base.  In order to insure [sic] continuing benefits and contributions to the Association, ACPA now established the Senior Scholar Program.

The proposal detailed the criteria for being nominated, and initial procedures, policies, and activities of the newly formed group to be initiated at the 1984 Convention in Baltimore.  Among these details were: (1) the first seven appointed Senior Scholars would elect their own chair and, annually, additional members to arrive at and maintain a membership of 12; (2) appointments to the Senior Scholar Program would be six years with those who complete the term being awarded with “Diplomate” status (those unable to complete the term were recognized as “Emeritus”) ; (3) Senior Scholars would be allotted a program slot at each convention and submit occasional papers to the Executive Council for possible publication in the (then) Journal of College Student Personnel; and (4) Senior Scholars would be called upon for assistance/counsel by the ACPA President.  On March 12, 1983, the proposal was approved at the association’s business meeting presided over by Susan Komives.

On April 20, 1983, Chairperson of the ACPA Awards and Commendations Committee, Lou Stamatakos, sent a memo, per the approved proposal, to the previous recipients of the Contribution to Knowledge Award to formally announce their appointment to this program and to request their acceptance.  This memo went to Gilbert Wrenn, Alexander Astin, Robert D. Brown, Arthur Chickering, Ursula Delworth, James Hurst, and Clyde Parker (the first recipient of the Contribution to Knowledge Award, E. G. Williamson, had passed away in 1979).   This invited group comprised the first cohort of the Senior Scholars, with Robert Brown serving as the temporary chair of the group to help get it organized in advance of the 1984 ACPA Convention in Baltimore.

These first Senior Scholars were officially recognized and awarded at the opening session of the Baltimore convention presided over by Peggy Barr.  In the years that followed, the Senior Scholars program grew to 12, adding David DeCoster, Laurine Fitzgerald, Margaret Barr, Albert Hood, Phyllis Mable, and Melvene Hardee.  Through the date of this publication, 103 ACPA members have been selected to serve as Senior Scholars—49 of whom have been honored with the ACPA Contribution to Knowledge Award—and to carry on the fine tradition of engaging with one another to identify critical issues worthy of inquiry and attention, integrate scholarship into the practice of student affairs, and promote scholarship through presentation of programs of interest to the profession at annual conventions.

ACPA Emerging Scholars

Like the origin story of the Senior Scholars, the Emerging Scholars program began several years before the first cohort was formally initiated in 1999.  The earliest documented mention of an emerging scholars program dates to March 1996 when the Senior Scholars met at that year’s convention in Baltimore.  Several threads came together prior to, and at, the meeting that became the inception of the program.  First, although many of the Senior Scholars had been (and were) engaged with other entities of the association at this time, some recognized that they still lacked contact with the issues that were important to the association.  Likewise, although the Senior Scholars had designed programs and similar opportunities to interact with other parts of the association, much of their time at conventions was spent with one another in formal meetings to discuss the work of the Senior Scholars and their activities within ACPA.  There was an expressed need to widen that circle of scholars within the association by including newer professionals doing scholarship on college students.

Second, this expanding community of scholars could then provide an opportunity for mentoring relationships and for sustained interactions between seasoned scholars and future scholars.  And finally, and importantly, there were discussions about how the ACPA Senior Scholars could contribute more meaningfully to addressing diversity issues, particularly with respect to the diversity of the professoriate and the scholarly activities of minoritized scholars.

Interest in initiating such a program, driven largely by Pat King and Karen Kitchener, generated a great deal of enthusiasm and energy.  The plan was to create an emerging scholars institute at the 1997 convention that would then become the Emerging Scholars Program.  According to the minutes of the 1996 Senior Scholars meeting minutes:

The purpose of the institute would be to encourage the scholarship of ACPA members who were beginning their post-doctoral work and to begin a dialogue about setting an agenda for future research on college students in light of changes in higher education and its student population. Part of the goal would be to support and encourage the scholarship of new professionals from underrepresented groups that were often not recognized for their contribution to scholarship regarding college students.

The plan from there was to solicit nominations (including self-nominations) from doctoral programs and from ACPA entities such as the Committee on Multicultural Affairs and the Standing Committee for Women.  From among these nominated early career faculty and/or practitioner scholars, the Senior Scholars would select up to 12 they considered “emerging scholars”.  The plan was, then, to meet for the preconference institute the following year.  Karen Kitchener agreed to coordinate the planning of the institute as well as maintain connections with the selected emerging scholars and assess what they hoped to get from the institute.

There are limited records and recollections on what happened in 1997 and 1998 with respect to these initial plans for the Emerging Scholars Program. What is known is that the Senior Scholars encountered some logistical problems with getting the necessary grant funding for the institute.  Also, a great deal of energy was needed among the Senior Scholars, at this time, to launch The Senior Scholars Trends Analysis Project (1997-1998)–a thematic analysis of national higher education associations by a University of Maryland research team (with Susan Komives as the Principal Investigator) designed to identify the issues and developments the field would face in the new millennium and to establish a research agenda for the 21^st century.  The project was coordinated by Cynthia Johnson and led to multiple essays authored by the Senior Scholars with titles such as “Improving Access and Educational Success for Diverse Students” (Pat King), “Affordability” (Lee Upcraft), “Changing Government Roles” (Annette Gibbs), “Technology” (Patrick Terenzini and Lee Upcraft), and “Accountability” (Greg Blimling).

By the fall of 1998, the Senior Scholars secured funding and were ready to announce a formal call for nominations for the inaugural cohort of ACPA Emerging Scholars.  Coordinated by Pat King and Nancy Evans, the call highlighted the purpose of the newly established program which was to “encourage scholarship and research among ACPA members, especially scholars who are beginning their post-doctoral work.”  The call also detailed the application criteria and the activities of the group which would be initiated at the convention in 1999. In addition to receiving mentorship from the Senior Scholars and a $300 grant to support their research, this inaugural group would also attend a Fetzer Foundation Institute with the Senior Scholars in April of 1999 in Kalamazoo, MI.  With the support of ACPA president, Jean Paratore, Cynthia Johnson became the driving force behind getting the necessary funding–from former ACPA member and program director with the Fetzer Foundation, Tony Chambers– to support this launch of the Emerging Scholars Program.  The inaugural cohort of Emerging Scholars were named in 1999: Jan Arminio, Ellen Broido, Deborah Carter, Tracy Davis, Sharon Fries-Britt, Anna Ortiz, Michael Sutton, Donna Talbot, Siu-Man “Raymond” Ting, and Vasti Torres.  Since this inaugural cohort, 126 Emerging Scholars have been honored; 22 of these have, later in their careers, been honored as Senior Scholars.

Reflections on ACPA Scholars Programs

In preparing this brief history on the origin stories of both the ACPA Senior and Emerging Scholars, I had the pleasure of speaking and corresponding with some of our earlier Senior Scholars including Pat King, Susan Komives, George Kuh, John Schuh, Nancy Evans, Vasti Torres, and Marcia Baxter-Magolda as well as some of the more recent Emerging Scholars: Royel Johnson and Amanda Mollet.  Many of these colleagues willingly shared their knowledge on the genesis of these programs and all shared their thoughts and insights on the significance of these programs to a professional association.  Allow me to summarize some of their reflections.

Many of the Senior Scholars I interviewed discussed how the program, from the very start, benefited those who were members.  Susan Komives discussed how some of the earliest Senior Scholars often promoted the group as “a positive culture of scholars really having good conversations that we all didn’t have a chance to have in other places” and she recalled how Patrick Terenzini would tell others about being a Senior Scholar in the mid-1990s: “That’s one of the best things I do; my brain stretches, I learn what’s happening, I see how it can influence my own research.” George Kuh likewise shared that the conversations among Senior Scholars “were intellectually engaging; it was a colloquium of sorts.”  Also mentioned was how the program could be influential in ACPA; as Vasti Torres noted, it was “the first program that sought to have the voices of scholars be included in the decision-making of the association.”

On the significance of the Emerging Scholars program’s 25 years, Royel Johnson shared, “It acted as a bridge, helping to foster meaningful connections with then senior scholars like Eboni Zamani-Gallaher, Raechele Pope, Penny Pasque, and Lori Patton Davis, among others. Their wisdom and professional role modeling have significantly shaped the direction and expanded the realm of possibility of my career.“  In a similar vein, Amanda Mollet observed, “Being an Emerging Scholar is more than an award, it is access to a brilliant community and the responsibility to use or knowledge and skills to serve ACPA and the field of higher education. The Emerging Scholars award provided scholarly validation of my research and supported securing a Spencer Foundation research grant building on my Emerging Scholars research project.”

Conclusion

Since their origins, both the Senior Scholars and the Emerging Scholars have demonstrated their importance and their value to ACPA in advancing knowledge within the field of student affairs.  More specifically, they have played a role in promoting a culture and community of scholarship within the association, have helped shape the scholarly agenda and stimulated conversation within the association, have generated thought-provoking publications for the association, and have promoted future generations of scholars.  As we celebrate this 100^th anniversary of the association, it is fitting to honor and thank the visionary ACPA practitioners, leaders, and scholars named in this piece who worked so hard to establish these programs 40 and 25 years ago.

Visit the websites of both the ACPA Senior Scholars and Emerging Scholars to learn more about each program, the current and previous scholars, and how to nominate colleagues to be selected to the programs.

***********************
Heartfelt thanks Harry Canon, Pat King, and Susan Komives for their time and for providing substance and details on these origin stories. Thanks also to Marcia Baxter-Magolda, Nancy Evans, Royel Johnson,  George Kuh, Amanda Mollett, John Schuh, and Vasti Torres for their additional insights.  And special thanks to the staff at the National Student Affairs Archives at Bowling Green State University Libraries for access to original documentation on the Senior and Emerging Scholars programs.

 Author Bio

John A. Mueller (he/him/his)…is an emeritus professor of Student Affairs in Higher Education at Indiana University of Pennsylvania.  A member of ACPA since 1985, John has been awarded Emerging Scholar (2004), Senior Scholar (2019-2024), and Senior Scholar Diplomate (2024).

References

Kass, M. (2018).  Why you must know your organization’s origin story.  Retrieved from https://medium.com/the-center-for-story-and-spirit/why-you-must-know-your-organizations-origin-story-b72ad88fd92d