Tensions around the Use of Research and Theory in Student Affairs ...

Tensions around the Use of Research and Theory in Student Affairs Practice: A Critical 

View 

Vasti Torres, Indiana University 

Mimi Benjamin, Cornell University 

Barbara Jacoby, University of Maryland 

Should student affairs practice be grounded in research and theory? Based on many of 

the handbooks, graduate preparation programs in higher education and student affairs, student 

affairs professional associations, and professional standards in higher education, the answer 

would be a resounding “yes.” In the recently approved Professional Competency Areas for 

Student Affairs Practitioners jointly published by ACPA and NASPA in 2010 is assessment, 

evaluation and research (AER), more specifically, the ability to “use, design, conduct, and 

critique qualitative and quantitative AER analyses; to manage organizations using AER 

processes and the results obtained from them; and to shape the political and ethical climate 

surrounding AER processes and uses on campus” (p. 8). Likewise, AER is one of the 14 areas of 

the General Standards for higher education programs and services promulgated by the Council 

for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (2009). CAS states that the results of 

AER “must be used in revising and improving programs and services, identifying needs and 

interests in shaping directions of program and service design, and recognizing staff performance” 

(2009, p. 35). 

Graduate students as well as professionals on all levels are strongly encouraged to learn 

about the most current research and theories and their implications for practice by attending 

professional conferences and reading professional journals. In addition, our supervisors and 

professors expect that we contribute to the research base of our field by conducting research and 

reporting our results at conferences and in journals. As student affairs professionals the lessons 

Page 1 of 12

are taught early on that we should be practitioner-scholars or scholar-practitioners by grounding 

our work in research regarding student characteristics, needs, and experiences. 

As a result, most student affairs professionals believe that research-based practice is 

appropriate and desired in practice, yet little is asked about what research results should be 

applied and which ones should be questioned. This questioning of how research should be 

applied must come from both faculty researchers and practitioners. If one looks a little deeper 

and more critically, tensions arise that the field of student affairs may not have anticipated. 

This essay seeks to explore the tensions that can arise by looking at the process of 

applying research in practice and the next steps that should be considered in creating practice 

that is informed by what we know about students. As one of the Senior Scholar essays, the goal 

of this essay is to promote critical reflection on current practices and the future of the field. 

Tensions around Research and Practice 

In spite of the clarity of the call for research-based practice, the actual implementation of 

this process is less clear. This section attempts to consider the actual implementation of research 

into the practice of student affairs. To do this, we begin with trends that occur in practice, then 

move into ethical and philosophical considerations around the application of research, and end 

with the trends common to researchers. 

Trends of Concern in Practice 

As mentioned earlier, creating research-based practices and policies is generally seen as a 

desirable approach, as evidenced in both the CAS Standards (2009) and the new Professional 

Competencies for Student Affairs Practitioners (2011). New terms have emerged within student 

affairs nomenclature to designate the scholar-practitioner or practitioner-scholar; the order of the 

terms would designate the primary duties first, with the second indicating the importance of how 


esearch is applied. While the scholar-practitioner has some clear expectations around making 

sure that research applies to practice, the characteristics of the practitioner-scholar and how 

research is actually applied is an elusive concept. 

Considering that Blimling (2011) posits that personal experiences guide reflective or 

experienced practitioners between 60% to 80% of the time, one must consider just what trends 

influence practice. In practice there seem to several common approaches that promote 

questionable trends. While there are consistent efforts to “professionalize” student affairs, in 

part by making the supposition that practice is based on research, several questionable trends 

illustrate that there is much room for improvement and that the outcomes of these trends may not 

benefit students. 

• The use of personal experience to determine effective practices for today’s students 

remains a troubling issue. For example, this may occurs when practitioners with fond 

memories of orientation week and therefore believe that every student will need, enjoy 

and be enriched in the same way they were. Yet, this approach denies the demographic 

diversity that has emerged in higher education over the past years and asserts that all 

students are the same; which is completely contrary to the philosophy of the Student 

Personnel Point of View (SPPV) (1939). For example, the length of orientation seems to 

be completely different between community colleges and residential 4-year institutions. 

How do we know one is actually better than the other? Often personal experience or 

misinterpretation of research is used to justify a practitioner’s preference; this leads to the 

next common practice. 

• A second common practice is the overgeneralization of research findings and applying 

developmental theories equally to all students. Similar to the first concern, this implies 


that all students are the same. This often happens in the application of developmental 

theories to programmatic offerings; like using Chickering’s Vectors (Chickering, 1969; 

Chickering & Reisser, 1993) to frame all programming in the residence halls. While 

many students find the Vectors meaningful to their lives, many students outside the 

middle-class, minority populations, and/or students from non-traditional families may 

struggle to see how programs framed around the Vectors apply to their lived experiences. 

An adult child of an alcoholic is likely to experience autonomy very differently than the 

traditional students everyone thinks represents every student. Though theories are 

updated and revised, seldom do they become universally applicable to all students. 

Understanding the applicability of theories leads to the third common practice 

• A third unfortunate yet common practice is applying a research finding in practice 

without questioning the validity, value, or limitations of the research (e.g. sample or 

context within the study). Not all research is good research and research findings are not 

universally applicable. Again, this approach assumes all students are the same and adds 

that all higher education environments are also the same. It can be difficult to know if this 

occurs because of a belief that all research is inherently trustworthy or if individuals lack 

the skills to question the study – perhaps it is both of these issues. Examples of this are 

most often found in the use of retention models. Despite having models that look at 

commuter students, students of color, as well as other student populations, many 

institutions assume using only the Tinto (1983) model of integration will garner a higher 

retention rate. Questioning whether the institution and students have similar 

characteristics or environmental conditions to those found within the sample for the 


original study is seldom a part of the discussion within a retention committee, much less 

the external consultant. 

All these approaches have in common a series of ethical and philosophical considerations that 

should be considered when working with students and using research to guide your work. 

Philosophical and Ethical Considerations 

Since the inception of the field of student affairs, the belief that each student is unique 

and that the field should consider the student as a whole has been at the forefront of the 

foundational beliefs (SPPV). When these beliefs were articulated, higher education was fairly 

homogeneous and perhaps assuming some commonalities was natural. This is the not the case 

today. The diversity of higher education and the diversity within the field of student affairs 

require practitioners to question almost any common practice. Some of these examples were 

illustrated previously in the common trends. This section seeks to consider when perhaps 

research should not be applied. 

There are times when a research finding is compelling, yet the application of the finding 

would exclude some students from higher education. An example of this is around the need for 

developmental, or remedial, education. While there is evidence that a student who is in the 

margins of being college ready (placement score) will receive some benefit from being assigned 

to a remedial course, the research seems to say that their long-term process towards earning a 

degree is not helped by remediation (Calcagno & Long, 2008). Even though this study uses very 

sophisticated analysis, it does not actually provide much long-term hope for students in remedial 

education. The authors recommend reconsidering the funding of remedial education given the 

limited outcomes. For community colleges practitioners who have open access admissions and 

attract students who need remediation – what should they do with this research finding? The 


sophistication of this study may inform policy leaders, yet consideration should be given to how 

research would influence the practitioners who work with students on a daily basis. This 

requires that the trends among researchers also be considered in this critical examination. 

Trends of Concern in Research 

In spite of several attempts to guide the type of research conducted within student affairs 

(e.g. Future Trends in Student Affairs, NASPA Faculty Fellows Research Agenda for the 

Profession), most researchers investigate topics that interest them rather than what might be 

needed within the field. The trends of concern for researchers highlighted below are tensions 

that perhaps may not be resolved. What an institution values as “research” plays a role in how 

these concerns get highlighted. 

• The pressure for faculty to obtain external funding is also influencing the type of research 

that is conducted within the field. Funding agencies are setting the research agenda for 

higher education and making it difficult to secure funds to carry out projects that may be 

more focused on practice. 

• Research topics generated by practitioners are often issues with no clear answers and are 

thus not necessarily issues that need more research. For example, there is a tremendous 

amount of research on student alcohol abuse, yet practitioners frequently say more 

research is required. The tension with this trend is that practitioners want a direct 

practical answer to problems, and researchers know those seldom exist. This tension 

requires more explicit explanation of the application of research. 

• The values of the academic arena are not always consistent with the desires of 

practitioners. While practice-oriented scholarship may be highly desired by student 

affairs practitioners, the faculty promotion and tenure portfolios are evaluated by the 


igor of the research rather than its applicability to practice. Graduate preparation faculty 

at research universities are often asked to explain why their research should be focused 

towards application. The conflict between their academic and student affairs foci arise on 

a regular basis. 

• While an evaluation of programs is highly desirable for a practitioner, it is not seen as 

research among the faculty. Faculty members distinguish between research, assessment, 

and evaluation. Some practitioners assume they are the same. 

Recognizing the tensions between research and application in student affairs is a starting point. 

To address these tensions requires a concerted effort and several steps. 

Next Steps for Addressing the Tensions around Using Research in Students Affairs 

Practice 

Considering the fact that we often differentiate between a “practitioner,” “scholar,” and 

“practitioner-scholar/scholar-practitioner” with the majority of administrators categorized as 

“practitioners,” we have semantically positioned our profession as those who create/use 

theory/research and those who do not. Practitioners represent a range of consumer 

characteristics about research: reject research, critical consumers, or pacifist consumers. 

Regardless of the where on the range one falls these choices require devoting time to the practice 

of student affairs and not finding/making time to stay current on the research that could/should 

inform their practice. Those who tend to be most familiar with current theory and research may 

be our recent graduates; some upper-level administrators also may maintain a current knowledge 

base in order to explain and justify student affairs work within the greater context of a college or 

university (and garner the necessary resources). In many cases, it is probable that the longer 

professionals are out of graduate school the less likely they will be able to keep up-to-date with 

the latest research and theory. Despite the importance of continuing to read professional 


publications, since new information emerges and new approaches presented can be applied to 

administrative work, more is being asked of individuals in these economic times and less time is 

available for activities like professional reading. 

“Professional judgment,” according to Blimling (2011), is what results from the 

combination of experience and theory to inform professional practice. “[Professional judgment] 

evolves from using experience in applying theory to refine one’s way of thinking about practice” 

(Blimling, 45). Blimling constructed a matrix outlining four styles of integrating theory and 

practice, which includes the Reflective-Practitioner, the Experienced-Practitioner, the Scholar- 

Researcher, and the Scholar-Practitioner (46-7). Each uses theory and experience to different 

degrees (Blimling notes that these percentages highlight relative weights and are not absolutes), 

with the Reflective-Practitioner guided 60% by experience and 40% by theory, the Experienced- 

Practitioner guided 80% by experience and 20% by theory, the Scholar-Researcher at 80% 

theory and 20% experience, and the Scholar-Practitioner at 60% theory and 40% experience. He 

states, “They [the styles noted] suggest that the use of theory is not all or nothing, and that the 

nomenclature of scholar and practitioner only serves to define the tilt in the balance between 

using theory or experience in making professional judgments” (47). 

For some, the use of theory and research in their practice is so internalized that they don’t 

realize they’re using it: “Using theory, research and assessment results in everyday practice 

assumes knowledge of each. For some student affairs administrators, theory, research on 

students and their learning, and assessment results are so internalized they may not recognize 

when they are putting them to use” (Desler, 298). Others, however, may have had limited 

exposure to the information (perhaps primarily through graduate education) and then found their 

administrative roles so full that having the opportunity to continue reading theory, research and 


assessment results may have fallen off the to-do list. When downsizing occurs, as has happened 

recently at many institutions, administrators often have to cut something out of their schedules, 

and reading the professional literature is easy to cut when other demands appear more pressing. 

Upcraft (1994) shared an anecdote regarding an interaction between himself and an 

administrative colleague. When Upcraft asked his colleague if he had read a recent book, the 

colleague said he did not have time to read and asked Upcraft to tell him about the book. This 

approach of having someone else summarize does not engage critical thought about what is 

being written, but it may be the reality of some practitioners in higher education today. 

Is There a Simple Answer to These Tensions? 

As a way to create a culture where professionals consume research, some have advocated 

for a registry or continuing education credits to reinforce the need to stay current in one’s 

professional field, while others have opposed this initiative. The fact remains that informed 

practice is a necessity, and using the common practice of relying on knowledge from one’s 

graduate experience (whether that occurred a few or many years ago) is not an acceptable 

professional approach. 

As Stage and Dannells (2000) indicated in their case study book focused on linking 

theory to practice, “The job of the theory builder and some kinds of researchers . . . is to ignore 

the finer details of students’ lives. However, the student affairs professional’s job is not to 

ignore these details. This discrepancy is a major cause of the gap between researchers and 

theorists and the practitioners” (pp. 6-7). It is this tension between the roles of researcher and 

practitioner that is accepted rather than questioned. Upcraft (1993) indicated that theoretical 

scholars may be so distanced from the day-to-day work of administrators that their theories have 

little relevance to campus issues and practitioners (438). That may have been the case in the 


1960s and 1970s; today many faculty members worked as practitioners and their research 

reflects this influence much more closely. Yet the assumption is still there. 

The guidelines for the Journal of College Student Development state that main articles 

may include utility for practitioners (“support for practitioner efforts to apply theoretical or 

developmental constructs to programs in the field; or Support for increasing our knowledge of 

organizational behaviors so that effective tactics and strategies might be applied to the 

implementation of developmentally focused programs on the campus” (ACPA). As previously 

mentioned, the recent NASPA/ACPA document Professional Competencies for Student Affairs 

Practitioners (2011) included “Assessment, Evaluation, and Research” as a competency area, 

with basic skills to include “effectively articulate, interpret, and use results of assessment, 

evaluation, and research reports and studies, including professional literature” (p. 8), indicating 

an expectation for practitioners, even at a basic level, to engage with the available data and 

literature to inform their practice. The information, however, must be made accessible in ways 

that are applicable to the work of the administrator if he/she is going to spend time reviewing it. 

Broido (2011), in her response to Blimling’s essay, explained the tension between these goals 

when she noted that student affairs faculty could make scholarship more useful to practitioners. 

Additionally, research that is “cutting edge” or innovative, as opposed to “proving” what is 

believed to be obvious, will be more appealing to those who will apply the findings in their daily 

work. 

Despite the lack of available time that seems to preclude professional reading, there are 

some ways that administrators can access theory and research information using time already 

allocated to professional development. Many student affairs administrators attend professional 

conferences where theoretical and research presentations are available. Attending sessions is one 


way to gain information. Additionally, professional development provided on one’s home 

campus or in one’s department can include discussions about recent additions to the research and 

theoretical literature and how that information applies to student affairs practice. Required 

professional development sessions or optional reading/discussion groups are methods of 

encouraging the discussion about useful information that should lead to educated practice. 

Among researchers, it is important that prior to beginning a new study they ask 

themselves “what will this contribute to the practice of working with students?” or “how can this 

be used by a student affairs organization?” These questions are critical elements to addressing 

the tension between practice and research. 

It is not about finding the straight simple answer; it is about understanding the 

complexities of our systems and constantly working to make them better. The desire for the 

simple answer will just continue to frustrate the field and divide scholars and practitioners. 

Embrace the complexity and tensions within student affairs work. 


References 

Blimling, G. S. (2011). Developing professional judgment. In P.M. Magolda and M. B. Baxter 

Magolda (Eds.) Contested issues in student affairs: Diverse perspectives and respectful 

dialogue (pp. 42-53). Sterling, VA: Stylus. 

Broido, E. M. (2011). Moving beyond dichotomies: Integrating theory, scholarship, experience, 

and practice. In P.M. Magolda and M. B. Baxter Magolda (Eds.) Contested issues in 

student affairs: Diverse perspectives and respectful dialogue (pp. 54-60). Sterling, VA: 

Stylus. 

Calcagno, J.C. & Long, B.T. (2008). The impact of postsecondary remediation using a regression 

discontinuity approach: Addressing endogenous sorting and noncompliance. Working 

Paper 14194: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14194 

Chickering, A.W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Chickering, A.W. & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity, 2 nd Ed. San Francisco: Jossey- 

Bass. 

Desler, M. K. (2000). Translating theory and assessment results to practice. In M.J. Barr, M. K. 

Desler, & Associates (Eds.) The handbook of student affairs administration (2 nd ed.). 

(pp. 285-310). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Stage, F.K. & Dannells, M. (2000). Linking theory to practice case studies for working with 

college students. Philadelphia: Accelerated Development 

Upcraft, M. L. (1994, November). The dilemmas of translating theory to practice. Journal of 

College Student Development, 35 (6), pp. 438-443.

Tensions around the Use of Research and Theory in Student Affairs ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?