ACPAAdmin – Page 8 – ACPA Developments

The Best for the Job | Campbell

Abstract

This case study examines the hiring processes, communication, and decision-making of academic administrators. It will address the importance of national searches, university culture, and transparency in selections. It is designed for readers to reflect on how selection processes can affect staff, trust in policies and process, and the ability to lead.

Keywords: academic leaders, executive searches, transparency, ethics, trust, qualifications

Primary Characters

Dr. Barbara Stead (she/her/hers) is Department Chair for the Department of Finance within the College of Business. She has held this position for seven years and was part of the hiring process for the previous dean. She is a white female in the midst of her professional career with aspirations for future advancement either at her current university or elsewhere.

Dr. Regina Nelms (she/her/hers) is Professor of Economics within the College of Business. She leads the college with significant research grants. Dr. Nelms has been at this university for ten years. She arrived at university under the previous dean who invested heavily in research. She has several NSF grants and closely with governmental agencies on high priority projects. This is the last place that she will work as she is close to retirement.

Angela Warren (she/her/hers) is the Director of Operations for the Dean of College of Business. Ms. Warren’s position focuses on logistics and ensuring that the college operates smoothly. Her role involves developing processes of communication between the dean’s office and the departments as well as the building operations. She is a young employee who has been in her position for four years. She is interested in advancement and wants to be recognized for her commitment to her job and her attention to detail.

Dr. Beatrice Thomas (she/her/hers) is the School of Business Senior Associate Dean of Undergraduate Programs and Professor of Economics at a research one university in the southwest. She has held this position for four years. She is a Black female and an external candidate for the Dean of College of Business.

Dr. Carol Meadows (she/her/hers) is an Assistant Dean of Academics and Research for College of Business and Associate Professor of Finance. Dr. Meadows works at a research one university in the south and has held this position for five years. She is a white female and an external candidate for the Dean of College of Business position.

Dr. Brad Smith (he/him/his) is Director of the Center on Marketing within the College of Business. He has been director for three years. The center was founded by donors who were cornerstone to the establishment of the College of Business. Dr. Smith is a white male in his early forties. He is the internal candidate, and he has a close relationship with the university president and the cornerstone donors.

Context

A large research one university in the Pacific Northwest conducted a national search to fill the position of Dean of the College of Business. This position serves on the provost’s leadership team and leads the College of Business. The College of Business is the most financially strong college at the university and often acts independently. It has a large physical footprint at the university and has a strong alumni presence.

This position is to steer the college of business through vision, strategy, and financial decisions. The dean’s role involves promotion and tenure of faculty, academic programming for the college, and resource allocation. Additionally, the dean must be able to engage in fundraising, work with university leadership and industry partners, and engage with faculty. The dean is responsible for the success of the academic programs as well as the experiential programs including global engagement, the career center, marketing, packaging, and community programs.

The university hired a nationally recognized executive search firm to lead the confidential search process. Additionally, a search committee was formed on campus led by the Director of Operations for Business School, Angela Warren. While staff across the university were aware of the posting for the Dean of the College of Business, few details were shared. Other than the chair, the members of the search committee were not made public.

Once the search and process were shared across the university, employees within the College of Business began to talk amongst themselves about the lack of transparency with this search. They complained that the search committee members were not known. As the process progressed, there was no transparency about applicants, the screening committee criteria, and a timeline for the process.

Approximately three weeks after the closing date, three candidates were invited to campus. Two of the candidates were external selections. Both currently held Associate or Assistant Dean positions. Both external candidates were female and one woman self-identified as Black. The remaining candidate was a white male currently employed at the institution serving as a director of a business school program. He has a relationship with the President, the business school donors, and the university’s leadership team.

Concerns from the College of Business staff (Dr. Barbara Stead and Dr. Regina Nelms) were:

the internal candidate was preselected
from the onset the search was ceremonial and just an exercise to fulfill hiring practices
the external candidates were more ably qualified and had positions that prepared them for the position.
the internal candidate is not professionally qualified or ready for the position
his selection is due to favoritism at the university.

They claim to represent voices of colleagues and others who are afraid to speak. Each spoke to individuals within the university with the promise of confidentiality. Both spoke with officers of the Women and Gender Commission. Dr. Stead spoke with the Title IX officer and Dr. Nelms reached out to the University Ombuds.

These employees are afraid to speak publicly because the new hire will be their boss, but they are very frustrated by the search process. Barbara and Regina believe that the university works in a bubble, is resistant to change, and chooses its own people. They don’t believe they can do anything but want to know how and why a man with seemingly lesser qualifications would be chosen over well-qualified women.

Discussion Questions

In what ways are Barbara and Regina’s concerns legitimate? Of all the things they would like to know, what can university realistically and ethically provide?
How can their concerns be addressed?
What role can the university commissions play?
What are ethical and legal/policy considerations related to the selection process?
What are the implications of hiring the internal candidate when the staff is already disgruntled and resistant?
What options does the university have for coping with the tensions? What
are some strategies for moving forward?
How can the university avoid this lack of trust and dissension in the future?

Biography

Marjorie Campbell (she/her/hers) is the Director of Inclusive Excellence and Technology Initiatives for Clemson’s Computing and Information Technology (CCIT). The Technology Support Program that she founded in 1998 with colleagues has evolved into a CCIT staple with dedicated employees assigned to support technology. Marjorie holds a B.A. degree from Converse College and a M.S. degree from the University of South Carolina. She is currently enrolled in Clemson’s Educational Leadership Ph.D. program. Her research interests focus on women’s leadership, neurodiversity, and how to rethink assumptions and address inequities.

Penny for your Thoughts: Student Emergency Funding in Action | Callahan

Abstract:

This case focuses on the Student Crisis Fund established at Queensborough State University during the COVID-19 pandemic and what its future looks like. Nora Bloom is the new Director of Student Care Outreach and served under the founder of the Fund (and former director), Joanna Serkis. A potential donor, Bruce Hadler, has reached out and offered a significant donation to the Fund to name it after Joanna, but has asked for Nora’s team to review their protocols to ensure funding is going to students with the greatest need. There is also a need to mitigate scandal as nearby Kingstown College’s student emergency fund is under intense scrutiny after recent student protests for alleged bias in their application process. Nora is charged with preparing a presentation for Mr. Hadler on how her team plans to move forward.

Keywords:

Student Care, Emergency Funds, Donor Relations

Primary Characters:

Joanna Serkis (she/her) – As the long-time Director of Student Care Outreach at QSU, Joanna recently retired in 2022 after 25 years at the institution. Joanna was a key staff member behind the creation and facilitation of the Student Crisis Fund.

Nora Bloom (she/her) – Nora is the new Director of Student Care Outreach at QSU. Nora previously served as the Associate Director for Student Care Outreach for five years under Joanna.

Bruce Hadler (he/him) – Bruce is an alumnus of QSU, Class of ’86 and the father of Kayla, a QSU, Class of ‘21 graduate. Bruce is a potential major donor to Student Crisis Fund.

Kayla Hadler (she/they) – Kayla is an alumna of QSU, Class of ’21 and the child of Bruce Hadler. Kayla worked closely with Joanna Serkis after being hospitalized due to COVID-19 during her junior year.

Context and Case:

Queensborough State University is a large, public institution located in the southeast United States. It is considered a metropolitan campus, nestled in the heart of the city, and located within a few blocks of the main tourist district. Queensborough is made up of 70% in-state students. 35% of students attending QSU self-identify as first-generation college students. Many QSU students work part time in the food and beverage industry or other tourism-driven work in order to make ends meet.

In the initial days of the COVID-19 pandemic, QSU students were significantly impacted by business closures and changing health and safety protocols. As social distancing became the expectation and restaurant dining areas closed, many students were let go from their jobs and then had to move home unexpectedly as QSU transitioned to online learning. Joanna Serkis, long-time Director of Student Care Outreach at QSU, received a number of phone calls and emails from concerned students and their families about how to navigate the unanticipated costs of relocating, sudden job loss, and often, compounded medical expenses from students who became ill from COVID-19.

Joanna, in collaboration with the Office of University Development, launched the Student Crisis Fund and facilitated a hugely successful fundraising campaign. In the first four months of the Fund’s creation, QSU was able to raise and then distribute over $150,000 to students in dire financial need due to the pandemic. This initiative mirrored work being carried out at peer and aspirant institutions at the time, and Joanna capitalized on the knowledge of colleagues at other universities in the state to make the early days of the Fund a success.

In 2022, Joanna retired from QSU after 25 years at the institution. After a rigorous search process, Nora Bloom was selected as the next Director of Student Care Outreach. Nora had served as the Associate Director for Student Care Outreach under Joanna for the previous five years. Nora has had a successful transition into the role over the past year but has also been navigating a concurrent reorganization of the Division of Student Affairs at QSU in addition to taking on this new role.

One of QSU’s peer institutions, Kingstown College (KC), is located a few hours away in the same state. Kingstown is a mid-sized, public institution with student demographics similar to those at QSU. The Student Crisis Fund at Kingstown – Kingstown Cares – has existed for almost 15 years. However, it recently gained some notoriety when the student newspaper published an article accusing the crisis fund of bias and disproportionately allocating funds to white students. As a result, Kingstown has been experiencing student protests outside of their administration buildings, calling for greater transparency in student support services, including Kingstown Cares, and a comprehensive audit of how to mitigate bias in supporting students at KC.

Nora received an email from the Office of University Development this week. Bruce Hadler, an alumnus of QSU ’86 and the father of a QSU ’21 graduate, is interested in providing a significant donation to QSU to name the Student Crisis Fund after Joanna Serkis. His child, Kayla, contracted COVID-19 in April 2020 and was hospitalized for several weeks while she recovered. Joanna Serkis was instrumental in supporting Kayla and the Hadlers through the rest of the semester and ensuring Kayla stayed on track to graduate on time the following spring. While Kayla did not need to apply for assistance through the Crisis Fund, the Hadlers are interested in honoring the work that Joanna did to support Kayla and many other QSU students during her tenure as Director.

Mr. Hadler is aware of the recent scandal at Kingstown and has asked to meet with Nora prior to finalizing his gift to QSU. Mr. Hadler would like Nora and her team to evaluate ways that the Student Crisis Fund application review process can be improved to ensure that funding goes to students with the greatest potential need. The Office of University Development has asked Nora to prepare a presentation for Mr. Hadler at the end of the month, prior to finalizing Mr. Hadler’s donation to QSU.

Nora is reviewing her notes from the launch of the Crisis Fund as well as their distribution data from the last three years. When the program was launched, the Crisis Fund application gathered basic contact information from students as well as asked questions related to how much funding the student were requesting, what it would be used for, what other entities the student had reached out to for support, and a summary from the student about their current financial circumstances. Applications were reviewed by the Student Care Outreach team to confirm that each requesting student was enrolled for the current semester. A team member would also request a summary of the requesting student’s financial aid package to confirm that Crisis Fund disbursements would not impact the student’s federal aid eligibility. This process has remained unchanged in the intervening years, although the pace of Crisis Fund applications has slowed significantly as students adjusted to the “new normal.” Beyond enrollment status and financial aid information, Nora’s team has not tracked any additional demographic data or added additional offices to the review process.

Nora has a staff meeting in two days where she is able to ask for her team’s help in gathering data and conducting benchmarking in advance of her presentation. She will develop an action plan with her team to identify goals for the presentation, gaps of knowledge that will require research, and a timeline for preparing the new protocols based on their research and the meeting with Mr. Hadler.

Discussion Questions:

What are some of the key factors Nora should consider when preparing for her staff meeting? For her presentation to Mr. Hadler?
What connections or areas of knowledge could Nora leverage? (e.g., other offices on campus, her professional network, etc.)
1. How might a reorganization within Nora’s Division impact her team’s ability to collaborate with other offices?
Should Nora address the differences between the QSU process and that at Kingstown in her meeting with Mr. Hatteberg?
Are there other data points Nora’s team should be gathering in the application review process? For example:
1. Can students to apply more than once? Is there a limit to the number of times they can apply for this fund?
2. Does a student’s disciplinary or academic standing affect their eligibility for funds?
3. Should students be asked to self-report certain demographic markers in their application? Should this data be gathered from their student profile within the campus’s enrollment management system? (Consider both, one, or neither of these options)
How might this review of the Crisis Fund application process be used to acknowledge and potentially address historic systems of oppression (race, ethnicity, first gen status, national origin, gender, LGBTQIAA+) at QSU and in higher education more generally?

Author Bio

Molly Jean Callahan (she/her) serves as the Student Support Coordinator and Office Manager for the Office of the Dean of Students at the College of Charleston. She received her bachelor’s degree in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from the University of South Carolina and her master’s degree in Counselor Education (Student Affairs) from Clemson University. She is a proud first-generation college student and prioritizes service to the profession. She is a past president of the South Carolina College Personnel Association (SCCPA). Outside of work, she loves to read, spend time with her spouse, and try to keep her two cats out of trouble. She can be reached at callahanmj1@cofc.edu.

Pressure from Above: Implementing Change Amid Resistance | Bundrick

Abstract: This case uses the Institutional Intelligence Model (Boettcher & Salinas, 2024) to examine the challenges and pitfalls staff may encounter when change is deemed appropriate by upper administration and resisted by a campus department. Specifically, this scenario addresses a Vice President and Associate Vice Presidents who believe the campus career fair needs to change venues to allow for growth, with little input or buy-in from the Director of the Career Center or the Career Center staff.

Keywords/Phrases: Conflict Resolution, Top-Down Directive, Empowerment, Transparency, Student Affairs

Primary Characters:

Julie Kizer – Associate Vice President (she, her, hers). – Julie is one of five Associate Vice Presidents (AVP) of Student Affairs. Julie oversees the College Career Center, the Academic Success Center, and Student Life. Julie is two years into her role at Elkhorn College and has a background in student life and academic success. Career services is a new department for her.

Jim Mathews – Director Career Engagement (he, him, his). Jim has spent his career of 20+ years in higher education and career services. He, like Julie, is new to Elkhorn College and began as Director of the Career Center a few months after Julie started in her new position as AVP. Jim comes into the Career Center at a time of turn over and uncertainty. Many of the Center staff have moved on to other positions at the College or have retired. Jim has worked hard to build trust among the Career Center staff during the transition.

Bart Macken – Vice President of Student Affairs (he, him, his). Bart has been the Vice President of Student Affairs at Elkhorn College for 4 years and previously worked closely with Julie at a University in Iowa. They have a close working relationship and Bart was thrilled when Julie joined the team. Bart has worked hard to make improvements and grow programs within Student Affairs and Julie has been an integral part of this growth.

Overview

Elkhorn College is a medium size midwestern liberal arts college that is experiencing a growth in student body and reputation. Staffing has not kept pace with the growth and turnover across campus has been high. This case examines communication and transparency between an Associate Vice President and her direct report concerning a proposed directive regarding growth and change.

Context and Case:

Jim, a director for a College Career Center for Elkhorn College, a small midwestern liberal arts college, is just two years into his job and one year past the COVID lockdown. He has worked hard to gain the trust of his department, which he took over amid a great deal of change and turnover within his department. During his tenure, there was also a great deal of change in the Student Affairs division, which he reports.

In the two years since Jim started at Elkhorn College, he and his Career Center team increased employer and student engagement and had a consistently over-funded budget. His department executes a campuswide career fair each semester. The Career Center is proud of the career fair and the customer service they offer their employers. Jim is pleased with an increase in student attendance at the fairs of approximately 40% for the two-day fall fair and 50% for the two-day spring event for the academic years 2021/2022 to 2022/2023. Employer numbers remained the same at approximately 50, the maximum capacity for employer tables at the venue. There is typically a waitlist of roughly ten employers hoping to attend the fair for each day each semester. In addition, students have complained that the current venue needs to be ADA-friendly, and the overcrowding worsens the situation.

Julie, the Associate Vice President of Student Affairs, wants to take the fair from an “ok event to a great event.” She wants everyone on campus to know about the fair and to feel they can’t miss it. The idea of companies wishing to recruit Elkhorn College students for jobs but not having access because the career fair venue is too small is frustrating to her. She has taken her frustration to Bart, her Vice President, who agrees something must change. In turn, all the AVPs are in agreement, unbeknownst to Jim, the Director of the Career Center.

In regular weekly meetings with Jim, Julie brings up the career fairs and her wish to grow the event. Jim hears this but doesn’t understand the extent of what Julie wants when she says she wants to grow the fair. She never mentions a change in venue or her frustration with the waitlist. Jim is also unaware this issue has been discussed with the other associate vice presidents and vice president. Due to staff turnover and perhaps some unwillingness on Jim’s part, Julie’s requests for analysis of the current fair and opportunities for growth go unanswered. Growing frustration and a lack of communication between Julie and Jim create an environment of resistance and skepticism on both sides.

A further breakdown of communication and trust follows when Julie does not include Jim in the decision to hire a consultant and does not communicate the identified goals of bringing in an outsider. Jim and his staff felt Julie’s decision to hire a consultant was a power play which made them dig in further and openly oppose any change to the fair.

As the Director in charge of the Career Center and the fairs, Jim thought he wasn’t being given a chance to do the job he was hired to do and had the expertise to handle. He believed he wasn’t being given the time to let the initiatives he had implemented take hold. He also felt confused and undervalued because he was not included in discussions with the Vice President and the Associate Vice Presidents regarding the career fairs and their concerns. Other than one or two staff members acknowledging the ADA issues, the Career Center staff were against a change in venue for the fair.

Options to alleviate the overcrowding and ADA issues were adding a day to the fair or changing to another acceptable campus venue. Jim and his staff push back on these ideas. Adding a new day to the already two-day fair would keep them out of the office for an additional day requiring the Career Center to be closed and be another day students could not get help from the Career Center. They also expressed concern that three days of the fair would burden students’ time.

During an onsite campus visit, Julie arranged for the consultant and Jim to tour several venues on campus. Jim expressed concern over the cost of the various venues as the current venue is free, but the administration told the consultant that the cost of holding the fair is not a concern. Jim also voiced concern over noise issues because the current venue is carpeted, and the new venue is a concrete concourse that would not absorb sound well. Another fear that Jim and his staff conveyed was the energy in the new location would be flat compared to the energy in the old location due to the increase in space and employers being more spread out. Employer satisfaction is very important to Jim and his staff. They are worried that customer service to their employers would be sacrificed with a venue change. Examples of their stellar customer service include consistent correspondence before the fair, individualized attention once at the fair, and the quality of students attending the fair.

Jim also expressed concern that students would be confused with a new location. Students are accustomed to the old location, which happens to be just across the street from the new venue. Funding for non-paid internship scholarships comes from career fair revenue, and the staff fears that money will dry up, impacting students. In the past, any student who completed the application has been awarded the funding. The fund came about because the department had an excess of revenue.

Discussion Questions:

How did the lack of communication and transparency impact the willingness to transition the fair to a new location?
What steps need to be taken by the administration to ensure the career center staff will not be resistant to change?
What factors need to be considered in a venue change? What stakeholders are affected by the change and how?
How could the Director of the Career Center advocate for his programs, staff, students, and employers while showing the Administration he understands their concerns?
When does hiring an outside consultant cross an ethical line?

Author Bio

Lisa Bundrick (she, her, hers) is the Director of Career Engagement at the Wilbur O. and Ann Powers College of Business at Clemson University. Prior to her role with the Powers Business College, Lisa planned and executed the University-wide career fairs. Lisa holds a master’s degree from Georgetown University and an undergraduate degree from the University of Kansas. She is currently pursuing a Ph.D. from Clemson University.

Reference

Boettcher, M. L. & Salinas, C. (2024). Law and Ethics in Academic and Student Affairs: Developing an Institutional Intelligence Approach. Routledge.

Implementation Fidelity in First-Year Experience Programs | Braught

Abstract

Payton’s first-year experience (FYE) seminar is getting mixed reviews. Their supervisor and the Director of Assessment for the Division of Student Affairs are quite excited about some promising retention results, but since starting the job, Payton has heard from student staff that they may not be putting in the effort that the professional staff think they are. Payton worries that the process and results aren’t aligned, but they have been invited to a meeting about expanding the seminar program to reach more students.

Key Words: Assessment, Implementation Fidelity, First-Year Experience

Primary Characters

Payton (they/them) is the primary staff member responsible for coordinating the first-year experience (FYE) seminar in the Office of the First Year Experience. They have been in the role for one full year and are starting their second fall in the job.

Casey (he/him) is Payton’s direct supervisor. Casey has been at Blue River College for 10 years. Before Payton arrived, Casey was directly in charge of the program.

Rachel (she/her) is responsible for student affairs assessment and program evaluation as Director of Assessment. When hired, Rachel’s supervisor tasked Rachel with analyzing retention for all signature programs in the Division of Student Affairs in order to aid in determining which programs should be maintained. Rachel has learned that the division does not have a history of demonstrating impact using quantitative measures like retention or GPA.

Context And Case

Blue River College (BRC) is a mid-sized public university in a metropolitan area. Only 10% of students live on campus at the college, with many of the students commuting from elsewhere in the city or nearby suburbs. Many of the students choose Blue River College because of its focus on real-world/practical learning which connects the campus with the city.

Like other colleges and universities, Blue River College is experiencing increased pressure to maintain enrollment and increase retention of students from their first year into their second year. Last year, BRC retained 76% of students from their first year into their second year. In the last few years, the Division of Student Affairs has had a tight budget, with little wiggle room to introduce new programs or hire additional staff to increase capacity of additional programs and services. Some staff refer to Blue River College as a “commuter campus” and many staff perceive it to be a struggle to engage students in out-of-classroom student programming.

The FYE seminar, a one-credit course students can participate in during their fall semester at BRC is 10 years old. Around 35% of students participate in a FYE seminar. The program employs 20 peer mentors that interact with students during their welcome week and throughout weekly class sessions during their first term. Student feedback on the program is typically positive, but the information the program has collected has been largely anecdotal.

Payton Gets Started

Payton is starting their second year as a coordinator for the FYE at Blue River College. In their role, Payton is responsible for supervising 20 student staff members who serve as mentors for FYE seminars. The first year in their job was like drinking from a firehose. Payton didn’t feel like they could innovate much and mostly relied on what Joey, the previous coordinator of the program, developed. Payton felt that their master’s program had given them a strong foundation in designing effective FYE programs, especially in support of sense of belonging. They are eager to put some of these innovative ideas into action in their second academic year.

To prepare, last spring, Payton gathered data from their program’s course site on Canvas about how students engaged with different modules and assignments. They reviewed assignments across multiple sections of the course using a common rubric. They reviewed peer mentor feedback from student participants. Using this information, they made plans to shift a few assignments for the next round of FYE courses and made changes to mentor training. When Payton requested historical data from previous years to include in their review, Casey replied that he hadn’t analyzed much about the program in the last few years because no one had asked him for the results.

Payton Makes A Worrisome Discovery

Payton is quite popular with the peer mentors in the FYE seminars. The returning staff members connected more with Payton than their previous supervisor, Casey. This may be because Payton is closer in age with the students than Casey. During their fall training this year, returning student staff members shared that Casey did not really monitor the students’ facilitation of the seminar, which put Payton in an uncomfortable position given that Casey is now their supervisor, too.

Since then, Payton has discovered that there is quite a lot of variation between sections of the FYE seminar. First, a few of the returning peer mentors felt empowered to make decisions about which activities and lessons they didn’t like, resulting in some first-year students not getting exposed to all components of the curriculum. Second, a few returning mentors would regularly let their class out early. Third, Payton learned that some of the peer mentors were not tracking attendance despite the fact that attendance was a portion of students’ grades. Finally, some mentors were offering guidance counter to the intended goals. For example, one section was told that they shouldn’t sign up for the student involvement platform because “no one ever uses it.” Another section was told that the late-night events hosted by the Division of Student Affairs were “not worth going to.”

Payton finds this information frustrating but is equally frustrated that the data they reviewed on Canvas didn’t reveal such discrepancies until the student staff brought them up. Payton tried to mention some of these variations to Casey, but Casey brushed them off. Casey thinks that there’s just not much that can be done to monitor peer mentors without “micro-managing” and Casey avoided being a “helicopter” supervisor.

Positive Results For Payton And Casey’s Program

One day, Rachel, the staff member responsible for programmatic assessment and evaluation in the Division of Student Affairs, emails a report to Casey and Payton about some impactful retention results for the FYE program. Rachel’s report is a summary of all students who participated in the FYE seminar compared to all students at BRC who did not participate. While campus retention was around 76% last academic year, 90% of the students who participated in Payton’s FYE seminar were retained. Payton is pleased with this information, but also surprised to learn Rachel was working on a retention analysis for the program that Payton is primarily responsible for without Payton’s knowledge.

Later in the week, Casey excitedly tells Payton that divisional leadership is impressed by the positive impact of the FYE program on retention. Casey shares that he is so glad that his 10 years of hard work have paid off and that the Vice President for Student Affairs (VPSA) is considering expanding the program. In fact, the VPSA is considering adding a goal to the division’s strategic plan to make the seminar available to every incoming student.

Payton is concerned. First, the retention report might have highlighted that there were positive results from the program overall, but Payton knows that the peer mentors were implementing program expectations inconsistently across sections of the course. Payton worries that the intended goals of the program don’t necessarily reflect what actually happened. Second, Rachel provided an aggregate retention analysis of all students. Payton is worried that many of the students who sign up for the FYE program are already equipped with the skills necessary to persist into their sophomore year. Deep down, Payton is wondering if the impact of the program on retention rates is muddier than Rachel and Casey seem to think.

Payton has just received an invitation to attend a meeting with Rachel, Casey, and the VPSA to discuss the future of the program.

Discussion Questions

What factors are influencing the culture around assessment in Payton’s division?
How should Payton approach sharing their concerns about variation across the seminars? About assessment methods? What politics and ethics should they consider when determining how they will approach their meeting with Rachel and Casey?
What questions should Payton ask Rachel about the aggregate retention analysis? How can Rachel improve how she analyzes, reports on, and communicates about retention of divisional programs?
What additional assessment methods or analysis strategies are necessary in order for the VPSA to make a decision about expanding the FYE seminar program?
How can Payton shift how they monitor the FYE seminars to improve implementation fidelity without damaging their positive relationships with staff members in their second year on the job?

Author Bio

Emily Braught (she/her) is a doctoral candidate at Indiana University and serves as the Director of Assessment and Planning in the Division of Student Affairs at Indiana University Indianapolis. As a scholar, she is interested in how institutional assessment influences decision-making. As a practitioner, she is passionate about increasing staff capacity for inquiry.

ACPA Books: We Look Forward to Working with You

Season’s greetings! We have read several exciting book proposals throughout fall semester and have enjoyed collaborating with authors to bring ideas to fruition. We also have transitioned smoothly from Stylus to Routledge as a publisher. We remain ready and willing to work with you and provide guidance as you pursue your writing goals through the winter break period. Wherever you are in the process of proposing or writing a book, we are here to help. Please contact us at Jenny Small (jennylee27@gmail.com) and Kari Taylor (ktaylor12@springfield.edu).

Wishing you all a happy and healthy year,

Jenny Small and Kari Taylor

Message from the Editor

Happy January, Everyone.

Congratulations on making it through another term. First and foremost, thank you for all you do and the difference you make. Second, please protect some time for yourselves in the coming weeks. We each have a lot to recover from and reflect upon. Rest will help us be there for ourselves the rest of this academic year.

As you reflect and plan for the future, we are happy to provide you with resources in the form of the second annual case study issue of Developments. Again this year we have a great set of cases for onboarding, training, staff development, classroom activities, and so on. Thank you to each of our authors for these contributions. You will find these cases set the stage for important dialogue we need to be having right now.

Finally, if you have an idea for an article or a case study, please reach out and let us help you craft it for Developments. We are proud of the number of students and practitioners who publish here each semester. The frontline, student-facing perspectives are valuable and because of our rolling submissions and the fact that we publish quarterly, we get to highlight issues as they are unfolding. We are proud to share reflections, strategies, programmatic initiatives, and current affairs and topics from those of you who are doing the work in the moment. We certainly welcome scholarly and research articles as well. Again, if you have questions or ideas, please reach out.

We also welcome those of you interested in reviewing articles. We are excited to finally have rebuilt Developments so that we have articles in the pipeline for future issues. As the popularity of the publication grows, we have opportunities for reviewers to join our team. It is not a huge time commitment and it is incredibly rewarding to support authors through the process to publication.

Again, thanks for all you have done, are doing, and will do in the future. Here’s to a more peaceful and joyful future.

Michelle Boettcher

Editor, Developments

mboettc@clemson.edu

Case Studies Overview for Volume 20, Issue 4

To make this issue more useful, the cases are divided into categories, though the issues they raise cut across roles on campus, ethical issues, and other topics. In addition to the specifics of each case, we just center the people involved and their identities, spheres of influence, experiences, and needs. Reviewing each case will help you identify the cases that best suit your needs and interests.

Assessment

Implementation Fidelity in First-Year Experience Programs by Emily Braught

Career Preparation and Transition

Career Confusion by MarySheila Ebri
Breaking Out of the Silo in Student Affairs by Alex Rosenberry, Amber Davies, and Kayla Hood

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Access, and Belonging

Working in the Crosshairs: Complex Decision-Making in Anti-DEI Political Times by Dustin Evatt
Supporting Students with Differing Beliefs by Chris King
Balancing Personal Values With Job Responsibilities by Audrey McKinney, Amber Davies and Kayla Hood
Just a Regular Student and His Soapbox by Kayla Steele Payne

Leadership

Pressure from Above: Implementing Change Amid Resistance by Lisa Budrick
The Best for the Job by Marjorie Campbell

Student Identity, Experiences, and Needs

Because of How I Sound: Regional Dialects and Institutional Response by Jeremiah Farmer
Penny for your Thoughts: Student Emergency Funding in Action by Molly Callahan
Gossip and the Gray Area: Navigating Friendships and Boundaries between Students and Staff by Alexa Gonzalez

Student Organizations

When Community Isn’t Constructive by Erin Hassenstab
Revisiting the Basics by Joy Heinzman
Rookie Knight by Sara Jurkiewicz and Gavin Fredrichsen

Supervision

I’m Putting My Supervisor Hat On by Katie Chaney and Mikayla Russ
Staff Support Needs by Amber Davies, Victoria Goetzinger, and Kayla Hood