Critical Perspectives on Student Development Theory E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Bildung
• Serie: J-B SS Single Issue Student Services
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 215

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2016

Beschreibung

The use of critical and post-structural theories, such as critical race theory, intersectionality, and queer theory, to explore student development is relatively new. Most current research looks beyond the individual to how systems of oppression, such as racism, ableism, and heterosexism mediate student development and the nature of student development theory. This volume offers some of the most contemporary thinking about student development by: * reviewing recent critical post-structural scholarship; * offering new possibilities for using theoretical lenses; and * translating these theories into student affairs practice. This is the 154th volume of this Jossey-Bass higher education quarterly series. An indispensable resource for vice presidents of student affairs, deans of students, student counselors, and other student services professionals, New Directions for Student Services offers guidelines and programs for aiding students in their total development: emotional, social, physical, and intellectual.

Leseprobe

New Directions for Student Services

Susan R. Jones CO-EDITOR

Sherry K. Watt CO-EDITOR

Critical Perspectives on Student Development Theory

Elisa S. Abes

Number 154 • Summer 2016

Jossey-Bass

San Francisco

CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY Elisa S. Abes (ed.) New Directions for Student Services, no. 154

Susan R. Jones, Co‐Editor Sherry K. Watt, Co‐Editor

Copyright © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, except as permitted under section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the publisher or authorization through the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; (978) 750‐8400; fax (978) 646‐8600. The copyright notice appearing at the bottom of the first page of an article in this journal indicates the copyright holder's consent that copies may be made for personal or internal use, or for personal or internal use of specific clients, on the condition that the copier pay for copying beyond that permitted by law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying, such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating collective works, or for resale. Such permission requests and other permission inquiries should be addressed to the Permissions Department, c/o John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River St., Hoboken, NJ 07030; (201) 748‐8789, fax (201) 748‐6326, www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES (ISSN 0164‐7970, e‐ISSN 1536‐0695) is part of The Jossey‐Bass Higher and Adult Education Series and is published quarterly by Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company, at Jossey‐Bass, One Montgomery Street, Suite 1200, San Francisco, CA 94104‐4594. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to New Directions for Student Services, Jossey‐Bass, One Montgomery Street, Suite 1200, San Francisco, CA 94104‐4594.

New Directions for Student Services is indexed in CIJE: Current Index to Journals in Education (ERIC), Contents Pages in Education (T&F), Current Abstracts (EBSCO), Education Index /Abstracts (H.W. Wilson), Educational Research Abstracts Online (T&F), ERIC Database (Education Resources Information Center), and Higher Education Abstracts (Claremont Graduate University).

Microfilm copies of issues and articles are available in 16 mm and 35 mm, as well as microfiche in 105 mm, through University Microfilms Inc., 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106‐1346.

SUBSCRIPTIONS cost $89 for individuals in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, and $113 in the rest of the world for print only; $89 in all regions for electronic only; and $98 in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico for combined print and electronic; and $122 for combined print and electronic in the rest of the world. Institutional print only subscriptions are $335 in the U.S., $375 in Canada and Mexico, and $409 in the rest of the world; electronic only subscriptions are $335 in all regions; and combined print and electronic subscriptions are $402 in the U.S., $442 in Canada and Mexico, and $476 in the rest of the world.

EDITORIAL CORRESPONDENCE should be sent to the Co‐Editors, Susan R. Jones, The Ohio State University, 310D Ramseyer Hall, 29 W. Woodruff Ave., Columbus, OH 43210; and Sherry K. Watt, The University of Iowa, N485 Lindquist Center, Iowa City, IA 52242.

Cover design: Wiley Cover Images: © Lava 4 images | Shutterstock

www.josseybass.com

CONTENTS

Editor’s Notes

References

1: Situating Paradigms in Student Development Theory

Concepts Underlying Systems of Oppression

Theoretical Paradigms for Student Development Theory

Conclusion

References

2: Evolution of Student Development Theory

“First Wave” Foundational Origins

“Second Wave” Perspectives

“Third Wave” Perspectives

Conclusion

References

3: Diverse and Critical Perspectives on Cognitive Development Theory

Laying a Foundation for Theories of Cognitive Development Among College Students

Diversifying the Portrait of College Students’ Cognitive Development

Using a Critical Lens to Identify New Definitions of Cognitive Development

Key Benefits and Limitations of Diverse and Critical Perspectives

Implications for Practice

Conclusion

References

4: Embracing the Messiness: Critical and Diverse Perspectives on Racial and Ethnic Identity Development

Conceptualizing Race and Ethnicity Can Be Messy

The Development of Racial Identity and Ethnic Identity

Toward an Intersectional Analysis of Racial and Ethnic Identity Development

Applications for Different Student Populations

Conclusion

References

5: Critical and Poststructural Perspectives on Sexual Identity Formation

Terminology

Developmental Theories of Sexual Orientation Identity Development

Limitations of Developmental Theory

Critical and Poststructural Frameworks on Sexuality

Important Critical and Poststructural Perspectives on Sexual Identity Formation

Implications for Practice

Conclusion

References

6: Intersectional Perspectives on Gender and Gender Identity Development

Conceptualizing Gender

Situating Gender and Gender Identity Within Four Philosophical Traditions

Intersectionality

The Evolution of Theory: Conceptualizing Gender as Intersectional

Lessons from Intersectionality

(Re)conceptualizing Gender in Higher Education: Recommendations for Practice

Conclusion

References

7: Critical Perspectives on Disability Identity

The Social Construction of Disability

Limited and Problematic Research in Higher Education

Critical Disability Theory

Intersections of Social Identities

Implications

Conclusion

References

8: Critical and Poststructural Perspectives on Self-Authorship

Constructivist Approaches to Self-Authorship

Critical and Poststructural Perspectives on Self-Authorship

Reconsidering Self-Authorship

Applying Critical and Poststructural Theories in Practice

Conclusion

References

Order Form

Advert

Index

End User License Agreement

List of Illustrations

Chapter 4

Figure 4.1

Visual Representation of Intersecting Racial and Ethnic Identity

Guide

Cover

Table of Contents

1

Pages

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

43

44

45

46

47

48

50

51

52

53

54

55

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

Editor’s Notes

Not since 1990 has there been a New Directions for Student Services that exclusively focuses on the evolution of student development theory (Evolving Theoretical Perspectives on Students, no. 51). That volume and its 1978 predecessor, Applying New Developmental Findings (no. 4), which described the foundational theories of student development, offered student affairs educators the most recent scholarship in the field and have become staples in student development literature. This new volume builds on that work and represents the next iteration of student development theory.

Student development theory has significantly evolved in recent decades. Foundational theories, although important and relevant to the field, have been critiqued for the homogenous samples upon which they were developed and their minimal attention to the oppressive contexts in which students are situated. Researchers have addressed these concerns, and theories have evolved by focusing on how students’ social identities, such as race, ability, gender, and sexual orientation, mediate development. Most recently though, researchers address these concerns through scholarship that moves beyond the individual and interrogates how systems of oppression, such as racism, ableism, genderism, and heterosexism, dictate how student's develop and shape the nature of student development theory. To do so, they are using critical and poststructural theories, such as critical race theory, intersectionality, and queer theory, to explore student development theory. The use of these theories in student development literature is relatively new. This volume of New Directions for Student Services offers some of the most contemporary thinking about student development theory by reviewing recent critical and poststructural scholarship, offering new possibilities for using these theoretical lenses, and translating these theories into student affairs practice. Critical and poststructural theories are conceptual frames that deconstruct, critique, and put at the forefront systems of inequality.

Although systems of oppression have historically shaped students’ lives, increased scholarly recognition of these power differences within student affairs is an impetus behind this recent evolution of student development theory. This volume is timely, and will remain so, given the tumultuous period in which students are living and no doubt will continue to live. Several of the chapter authors offer as examples the #BlackLivesMatter movement; the killings of trans* women of color; and the United States Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage. The latter is a positive step forward for many, but this does not erase the fact that some gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans* individuals are still invisible. Student development theory is intricately tied to these and other contexts rooted in systems of oppression because they shape students’ perspectives, their interactions with others, and their sense of self. My hope is that this volume makes clear the importance of and possibilities for applying critical and poststructural theories in research and practice.

The volume begins with an overview of paradigms in which student development is situated, focusing on critical and poststructural theories (Chapter 1). Next, the evolution of student development theory is presented (Chapter 2). The evolution is framed through three waves, starting from foundational, moving into research emphasizing students’ identities and contexts, and then contemporary third-wave scholarship that foregrounds systems of oppression as contexts that shape student development. The subsequent chapters briefly review first and second wave theories and then primarily focus on the third wave, including cognitive development (Chapter 3), racial and ethnic identity (Chapter 4), sexual identity (Chapter 5), gender and gender identity (Chapter 6), disability identity (Chapter 7), and self-authorship (Chapter 8). Situated in the third wave, which draws on frameworks that critique social inequity, much of this volume foregrounds context, situating the “problem” not with the student in need of development but with the contexts (that is, systems of oppression) in need of change.

The chapters each apply critical and poststructural theories using a somewhat different approach and emphasis, demonstrating many possibilities that these theories offer for student development theory. For instance, each of the chapters places varying emphases on the specific critical theories they highlight, and some explore poststructural theories in greater depth than others. Each chapter though foregrounds how systems of oppression shape student development. Some chapters also refer to “diverse” perspectives on student development theory. The term diverse indicates a focus on those with marginalized identities (e.g., an identity that is a racial minority, gay or lesbian, trans*). Also, the role of dominant groups is situated in the discussion of theory, but the explorations of ideas lean more toward rearticulating the utility of student development theory for those with marginalized identities.

With this volume emphasizing student development theory in relation to systems of oppression that shape students’ social identities, it would have been ideal for the chapter authors to discuss their positionality in relation to their chapter content. The brevity of the chapters does not permit in-depth discussion. The authors identify among the oppressed intersections of, for instance, people of color, trans*, disabled, female, and queer, while some also possess intersecting dominant identities such as being White, heterosexual, and cisgender. The authors represent many contemporary student development scholars whose lived experiences have shaped the perspectives they bring to their research and who represent some of the various experiences of contemporary college students. I encourage readers to consider how their own marginalized and dominant worldviews and the systems of oppression that interact with their identities shape how they make sense of these chapters and their assumptions about student development.

Preparing this volume was a complex and thought-provoking task. The ideas represent some of the most contemporary thinking about student development. At the same time, I recognize that researchers and theorists are not yet fully embracing the possibilities of critical and poststructural scholarship to reenvision student development theory, often centering the dominant while critiquing it. For instance, this volume acknowledges the fluidity of gender, though many of the examples refer to experiences of students who are cisgender. I also recognize that applying these ideas in practice is a complex task requiring significant understanding of the ways in which privilege and oppression shapes each of us personally and those who are different from us, as well as the way these systems regulate practical and political knowledge to effect change. I hope this book inspires the introspection, education, risk taking, and willingness to engage in difficult dialogues across difference that are necessary to apply theory in practice to address systems of oppression that shape the lives of college students and educators.

Elisa S. AbesEditor

References

Knefelkamp, L., Widick, C., & Parker, C. (1978).

New Directions for Student Services: No. 4. Applying new developmental findings

. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Moore, L. V. (1990).

New Directions for Student Services: No. 51. Evolving theoretical perspectives on students

. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Elisa S. Abes

is associate professor in the student affairs in higher education program in the Department of Educational Leadership at Miami University

.

1

This chapter reviews paradigms in which student development theory is situated, encouraging the use of critical and poststructural paradigms.

Situating Paradigms in Student Development Theory

Elisa S. Abes

“If we have been gagged and disempowered by theories, we can also be loosened and empowered by theories.”

(Anzaldúa, 1990, p. xviii)

Chicana, lesbian, feminist scholar Gloria Anzaldúa's quotation, although not about student development theories, describes the reality of these theories and their necessary evolution. Specifically, the student affairs profession must evolve such that critical and poststructural perspectives, which critique and deconstruct systems of oppression, take hold in student development literature. Doing so is important because developmental theories that shape the foundation of the profession have sometimes “gagged and disempowered” marginalized students whose lives, experiences, and voices are often not represented. What is frequently called foundational student development literature is typically grounded in experiences of fairly homogeneous samples of privileged college students (for example, Baxter Magolda, 2001; Chickering & Reisser, 1993).

Theories directed to the development of nondominant populations, such as those focused on minoritized racial and sexual identity, are typically grounded in psychological perspectives and, therefore, foreground students’ individual experiences rather than the systems of oppression, such as racism and heterosexism, that shape their experiences (for example, Cass, 1979; Cross, 1995). In contrast, applying critical and poststructural theories enables foregrounding of the systems of oppression that shape student development. Critical and poststructural theories deconstruct, critique, and put at the forefront systems of inequality. Hence, this approach to theory avoids problematizing the student's development and focuses on how the environment plays a role in how students develop. Critical and poststructural theories not only expose the ways in which some student development theories silence underrepresented students but also create possibilities for new ways to conceptualize student development theory that “loosen and empower” these same students. Also, these theories have the potential to expose more discretely the historical context that contributes to the distorted views of power that shape the identity of those from privileged groups.

Tenets of critical and poststructural theories can feel daunting when first exposed to them and this can remain even after being previously exposed to them. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to provide an accessible overview of critical and poststructural theories. I first describe concepts that underlie systems of oppression and then describe the nature of paradigms that ground student development theory in relation to these systems, emphasizing critical and poststructural paradigms. This chapter provides context for the remaining chapters in this monograph, which describe and apply critical and poststructural paradigms to student development.

Concepts Underlying Systems of Oppression

Because critical and poststructural paradigms critique systems of oppression, it is important to understand the nature of systems of oppression. Tatum (2003) described oppression as a “system involving cultural messages and institutional policies and practices as well as the beliefs and actions of individuals” (p. 7, emphasis in the original). Frye (2007) provided a metaphor of a birdcage to describe oppression as a system rather than individual instances of prejudice or discrimination. She explained that when we look at only one birdcage wire, it appears the bird could readily escape the cage. But if we look at the entire cage, it is apparent that the bird is confined by a system of wires, “a network of forces and barriers which are systematically related and which conspire to the immobilization, reduction, and molding of [marginalized people]” (Frye, 2007, p. 45). The “wires” that comprise oppression are forms of power, including discriminatory institutional policies and practices, cultural and social practices that privilege some identities while rendering others invisible, and individual acts of prejudice and discrimination (Dill & Zambrana, 2009).

Examples of systems of oppression include racism, classism, heterosexism, ableism, genderism, sexism, and religious oppression. Each of these systems, which interact with one another, represents a form of power that privileges those with dominant identities and oppresses the subordinate (Dill & Zambrana, 2009; Johnson, 2006). To illustrate, ableism is a system that maintains the dominance of people who do not have disabilities (Johnson, 2006). Examples of ableism that college students might encounter include physically inaccessible residence halls and classrooms; inadequate academic accommodations for students with physical, psychological, and learning disabilities; and perceptions of pity from faculty, staff and peers. Some of these forms of power are microaggressions, which Sue and colleagues (2007) described as “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color” (p. 273). Microaggressions are not limited to race; they extend to other marginalized identities as constant reminders of oppression.

Those who benefit from systems of oppression are privileged. Privileges are systemic advantages based on identity (Tatum, 2003). McIntosh (2010) distinguished between two types of privileges: unearned advantages and conferred dominance. Unearned advantages reflect norms that all people should experience, such as feeling safe from violence on campus and not having classes scheduled on significant religious holidays. Conferred dominance reflects privileges that result from one group having power or being perceived to have power over another group. For instance, White staff members often have conferred dominance when making hiring decisions because their perspectives are valued for perpetuating the organization's culture. I now discuss systems of oppression as they relate to paradigms that ground student development.

Theoretical Paradigms for Student Development Theory

In order to understand the meaning of critical and poststructural perspectives and how they can be applied to address systems of oppression in student development theory, it is necessary to understand that all student development theories are rooted in paradigms. A paradigm, often referred to as a worldview, is a “set of interconnected or related assumptions or beliefs” that guides thinking and behavior (Jones, Torres, & Arminio, 2014, p. 3). The nature of a theory, and how a theory is applied in practice, depends on the paradigm in which it is situated. In a canonical text on the nature of knowledge, Kuhn (1962) explained that new paradigms emerge as the limitations of existing ones become apparent. The introduction of new paradigmatic approaches to student development theory reflects the limitations of the dominant theories that describe college students. I next describe four paradigms: positivist, constructivist, critical, and poststructural.

Positivism

Positivism is grounded in the assumption that one reality exists and that knowledge is objectively knowable, measurable, and predictable (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). Positivism does not account for different interpretations based on individuals’ identities and the contexts, including systems of oppression, in which they are situated.

Constructivism

Much contemporary research in student affairs is grounded in constructivism. Constructivism is the belief that multiple realities exist and that knowledge is coconstructed between individuals (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). Constructivism allows for the examination of how context shapes student development. Therefore, it allows for the examination of how systems of oppression shape development. Constructivism, however, focuses on individuals’ experiences within that system rather than a critique of the system. For example, Torres and Hernández (2007) used a constructivist paradigm to study Latino/a students’ development toward self-authorship. The results of their study highlight the role of racism in Latino/a students’ development. However, Torres and Hernández accept racism as a reality rather than critiquing it, referring to the recognition of racism as an “additional developmental task” (p. 561). Focusing on the students’ development situates the problem with the students whose development is portrayed as deficient compared to those who meet normative standards, rather than problematizing racism and the developmental norms racism shapes. In contrast to this deficiency perspective, critical and poststructural paradigms critique systems of oppression, opening up new possibilities to conceptualize development.

Critical Theory

The underlying assumption of critical perspectives is that power and systems of oppression shape reality. Critical theory calls for a “radical restructuring [of] society toward the ends of reclaiming historic cultural legacies, social justice, the redistribution of power and the achievement of truly democratic societies” (Lincoln & Denzin, 2000, p. 1056). Developed in the 1930s by sociologists at the University of Frankfurt in Germany, critical theory maintains that society marginalizes people based on power differences inherent to social identities. The purpose of critical theory is to emancipate people from their oppression and work toward social transformation (Tierney & Rhoads, 1993). Examples of critical theories include feminist theory, Black feminist theory, critical race theory (CRT), indigenous theories, critical trans* politics, and intersectionality.

Two critical theories applied in some depth in this monograph are CRT and intersectionality. First, CRT makes visible how racism shapes reality and seeks to transform this racist reality by centering the narratives of people of color (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). Legal scholars, including Derrick Bell, developed CRT to address racism in the legal system. CRT is often applied to the experiences of African Americans, with related critical theories such as LatCrit, TribCrit, and AsianCrit applied to other oppressed races (Delgado & Stafancic). Related, Critical Whiteness Studies (Frankenberg, 1993) problematizes power associated with Whiteness.

The second critical theory considered in this monograph is intersectionality. Coined as a term by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw (1991) to describe the experiences of women of color, intersectionality grew out of the feminist scholarship of women of color, notably Patricia Hill Collins (2000, 2009). Intersectionality's critical focus is directed to the inseparable systems of oppression that shape lived experiences (Dill & Zambrana, 2009). These systems complicate identity by highlighting how a person's multiple identities, including those associated with privilege and oppression, interact with each other (Dill & Zambrana, 2009). From an intersectional perspective, a college student's race and sexuality, for example, mutually define one another as a result of the intersection of racism and heterosexism. The lived experiences of a queer-identified person, for instance, is different depending on whether that person identifies as queer and Asian American or queer and White American.

Poststructuralism

A poststructural paradigm is grounded in the assumptions that systems of oppression shape reality, the ways in which these systems shape reality need to be deconstructed, and reality is always changing and defies categorization (Lather, 2007). Unlike critical theorists who have an agenda for change, poststructuralists deconstruct “normality” without assuming one way in which society should be structured (Jones & Abes, 2011).

As explained by Jones, Abes, and Kasch (2013), central to the works of poststructural theorists, such as Foucault (1978) and Derrida (1967/1978), are the beliefs:

that knowledge and truth are social constructions that reflect the prevailing interests of those who hold the most social power; that knowledge and truth are neither objective nor universal; and that all knowledge and truth reflect the specific cultural and historical contexts in which they were developed. (p. 194)

Specifically, as explained in more detail in Chapter 5 in this monograph, poststructuralism emphasizes how social institutions, such as government, religious organizations, and educational institutions, use forms of representation such as language and symbols to maintain power. Together, these forms of representation are known as discourse (Seidman, 2008). The available discourse, which is steeped in power, determines the possibilities for how identity is constructed and recognized by others. A poststructural analysis deconstructs these discourses to create new possibilities for identity constructions that are not shackled by power.

Queer theory is one example of a poststructural theory that has occasionally been applied to student development. Queer theory brings poststructural concerns to sexuality and gender studies, challenging stable identity constructions steeped in gender and heteronormativity (Sullivan, 2003). Heteronormativity is the unexamined assumption that heterosexuality defines normal and creates a binary of two possible identities: heterosexual and homosexual (Sullivan, 2003). One of the ways that queer theory challenges the dominant discourse is through its critique of identity categories that limit possibilities for sexual and gender identities. The critique of categorized, stable identities comes from the queer notion of performativity. Performativity describes how individuals create genders and sexual identities through everyday behaviors (Butler, 1990). Identity does not create behaviors, but instead socialization and behaviors create identity. By using performativity to critique heteronormative identity categories, a queer theoretical perspective challenges the dominant discourse that shapes student development, opting instead for more fluid conceptualizations.

Conclusion

For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. (Lorde, 1984, p. 112)