Videos for 1/30 class presentation

Friday Night Lights - Smash

Friday Night Lights - Tyra

Girls

Sheela Linstrum: How Does Kegan Account for Context?

            Perhaps what resonated most with me is also what happens to have frustrated me most.  In his chapter “What ‘Form’ Transforms?”, Kegan relies on a descriptive narrative of a husband and wife – Peter and Lynn – to illustrate some of the points he goes on to make about transformational learning.  Although my own instincts and experience prompt me to challenge Kegan’s interpretation of Peter and Lynn’s experiences, I generally find his insight into individual transformation appealing and in line with my own experience.  Similarly, Kegan’s orders of consciousness resonate with my own experience, particularly from my time as an undergraduate student to the present.     

            My frustration stems from what I believe is an unfair comparison between Peter and Lynn.  I suspect I may be the only member of our class who has worked both in public schools and private industry and therefore feel somewhat emboldened to challenge Kegan’s assessment that Lynn is more advanced epistemologically than Peter.  To me, these situations differ in very important ways and left me wondering about how context plays into Kegan’s constructive-development theory.  Although, as Kegan points out, what unites the struggles of these two is the fact that “worker-participation initiatives have recast the issues of responsibility, ownership, and authority at work” (p. 36), there are important differences that surround this central issue.  Lynn has worked in that school for more than ten years as a teacher during which time she developed relationships with the other members of the Leadership Council.  Not to mention she has tenure.  Additionally, she was asked to reflect on issues related to teacher evaluation which is a process that she has likely reflected on at many points over her years as a teacher.  Peter, by contrast, is placed in a new work environment with a new product at its center, given new responsibilities as President of the new company, and asked to work with new people.  It hardly seems fair to compare these two scenarios when Lynn has a very clear advantage in her position.  Although Kegan asserts that individual meaning-making far surpasses the significance of the event that prompts the reflection, the object that is reflected upon can still be altered by the external environment and therefore subject to external influence. 

            Although I do not feel this was adequately addressed by Kegan, several other works have addressed some of these variables that shape an individual’s advancement through Kegan’s orders, particularly en route to self-authorship.  Taylor (2008) highlights both the environmental and individual variables that influence development, particularly in young adults.  Taylor’s description of microsystems or “face-to-face settings containing the individual” and mesosystems or “settings in which two or more microsystems interact” (p.221) aptly describes what I felt was unexplained in Kegan’s chapter.  My own experiences as a student and professional support the identification of environmental variables that shape self-authorship.  While there are many examples to choose from, I suppose it makes the most sense to recall (or attempt to recall) my experiences as an undergraduate.  While I struggle to remember with much clarity the details of my development through college, I can remember vividly how changed I felt over the course of my four years there.  I came in thinking all college was great (because I so valued my independence) and left able to think critically about the institution and my experience.  In my own case, I suspect that that meaning-making stemmed, in part, from a comfort with and understanding of my environment; I imagine I would have struggled to analyze another dissimilar institution to the same degree. 

            On the other hand, I appreciated other works that presented the reverse opinion: that self-authoring is often prompted by a jarring departure from the ordinary.  In Pizzolato (2003) this is referred to as a “disequilibrium.”  In a study of 35 high-risk students, Pizzolato reports that “As students experienced higher levels of disequilibrium they appeared more likely to feel compelled to alleviate the intense dissonance by committing to new goals” (p. 803).  For me, this also resonates.  The first connection that immediately comes to mind for me is the experience of studying abroad as an undergraduate.  At first the experience was overwhelming and I felt ill-equipped to adapt to this new environment.  In France, I didn’t have a great grasp of the language nor did I understand the bureaucracies, transportation systems or interpersonal dynamics of this foreign place (to name but a fraction of the challenges I remember facing).  The new environment forces reflection and introspection which prompts self-authoring, perhaps sooner than I was on-track to experience this transformational learning.

            Although Kegan initially left me with a somewhat incomplete understanding of his orders of consciousness, I have come to appreciate the many ways in which others have contributed to Kegan’s work.  Despite Kegan’s insistence that the event is extraneous to the internal meaning-making, the external people and events that both prompt reflection and act as the object of reflection are all a part of the epistemological experience, I think.  If I am to work in higher education and possibly work with student populations, I think it is more valuable to contextualize individual experiences – both internal and external – to better understand the developmental moment in which one resides. 

References:

Kegan, R. (2000). What “form” transforms? A constructive-developmental approach to transformative learning. In J. Mezirow and Associates, Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 35-69). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Love, P. G. & Guthrie, V. L. (1999). Kegan’s orders of consciousness. In P. G. Love and V. L. Guthrie (Eds.), Understanding and applying cognitive development theory. New Directions for Student Services, no. 88 (pp. 65-76). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pizzolato, J. E. (2003).  Developing Self-Authorship: Exploring the Experiences of High-Risk College Students.  Journal of College Student Development, 44 (6), pp. 797-812. 

Taylor, K. B. (2008).  Mapping the Intricacies of Young Adults’ Developmental Journey from Socially Prescribed to Internally Defined Identities, Relationships, and Beliefs.  Journal of College Student Development, 49 (3), pp. 215-234. 

Colleen Campbell - Reflective Questions for Kegan's Orders of Consciousness

There is a lot in Kegan’s work that resonates with me. I feel that I have long understood the concepts of subject and object but have not been able to articulate them. Much of my personal learning comes from situations in which I have been challenged and have not easily overcome that obstacle or tension. In these times, I have turned to self-reflection and frequently shared those reflections with my friends and mentors. I realize, too, that I have used holding environments that I have constructed and that were already in place.

I think it’s important to emphasize the self-authorship side of Kegan’s theory, and to understand that this process is never resolved. Often, the way in which we conceive of ourselves as object is not accepted by others, or appears different from the subject that others may see. Our self-authorship can be jarring and emotional. I was reminded of this after watching a Soul Pancake video (which, if you’ve never seen any, you should definitely watch) in which two strangers sit in a sandbox together and answer questions about what they wish they knew when they were younger. These individuals share the events that shaped their development, and explain how they orient themselves toward the world. These individuals have encountered an environment that is conducive to reflection, and for some this stirs emotion, and for others, it is an opportunity to consider their concept of self.

This prompts me to think more about how we, as student affairs professionals, can shape environments to be appropriately challenging and supportive. This can be a difficult balance to strike. I also wonder how to assess how to determine if a student has sufficiently built a bridge between stages. In my work with students, it has sometimes been hard to know how much to push a student, and to have them willingly participate in meaning-making activities. In the times that I have transitioned between stages, I find that it is often through experiences in which I was not a passive actor; I stepped into the role or situation, typically not knowing what to expect.

I can recall two distinct situations where I have shifted my conception of a situation from subject to object. The first of these experiences came when I joined the Program on Intergroup Relations (IGR) and began training as a facilitator. IGR was “effective in creating [an environment] where challenge and support [were] blended to foster students’ growth” (Love & Guthrie, 1999, p. 74). This experience made me reorient myself toward my social identities and made me actively experience them in relation to others.

I also recall another experience during my sophomore year of college. I was fencing at Club National Championships and was asked to be the captain of my squad, which was comprised of two seniors. This sudden responsibility over older peers was jarring; instead of only being responsible for myself (and my performance), I was responsible for theirs as well. I fenced poorly on the first day of the tournament and felt as if I had let the entire team down. That evening, I spent time by myself, reflecting on my role on the team and my new responsibilities. I fenced better the next day and felt like I was a more effective leader for my teammates.

These shifts occurred at times when my life curriculum challenged my orientation toward myself. With the informational knowledge that I gained in IGR, I could not continue to understand my identities as a subject. Rather, they became object, something that I can “reflect on, handle, look at, be responsible for, relate to each other, take control of, internalize, assimilate, or otherwise act upon,” as defined by Kegan (as cited in Love & Guthrie, 1999, p. 66). A similar shift happened during the fencing tournament, but the process of assimilation had to occur more quickly. Instead of understanding myself as a good fencer, I instead had to take on the role of leader, and separate both from my sense of self so that I could be an effective captain.

 These transformations can be jarring. Both of these experiences led me to reconsider how I orient myself toward the world, and toward my understanding of myself. In their book Dialogue Across Difference, Gurin, Nagda, and Zúñiga (2013) describe “active processing,” which “refers to the complex cognitive processes through which students ultimately create meaning from new information and experiences” (p. 233). In active processing, there is some cognitive dissonance, in which students cannot reconcile the things that they experience with their current mindset. I feel like this happens frequently when we perceive a tension between subject and object.

Additional Sources:

Gurin, P., Nagda, B. R. A., & Zúñiga, X. (2013). Dialogue across difference: Practice, theory, and research on intergroup dialogue. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Soul Pancake (2013, September 23). Two strangers in a sandbox: Lessons for life. Retrieved on January 26, 2014 from http://youtu.be/vWiVDEtdkeI.

Required Readings:

Love, P. G. & Guthrie, V. L. (1999). Kegan’s orders of consciousness. In P. G. Love and V. L. Guthrie (Eds.), Understanding and applying cognitive development theory. New Directions for Student Services, no. 88 (pp. 65-76). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Kegan, R. (2000). What “form” transforms? A constructive-developmental approach to transformative learning. In J. Mezirow and Associates, Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 35-69). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. & King, P. M. (2012). Nudging minds to life: Self-authorship as a foundation for learning.  Assessing meaning making and self-authorship: theory, research, and application.  ASHE Higher Education Report, 38(3), 1-19. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Complex lives. In M. B. Baxter Magolda, Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-development (pp. 3-36). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing

Baxter Magolda, M. B., & Crosby, P. C. (2011). Preparing students and graduates to navigate life’s challenges: A dialogue on self-authorship and the quest for balance of agency and communion. Journal of College & Character, 12(3), 1-11.

Christine Oldenburg-McGee: Reflective Questions Blog Post on Self-Authorship

                Self-Authorship is an interesting concept that up until now, with little background in psychology, I would have just called one’s journey through life’s experiences.  In a normal developmental process, this journey should result in a mature, well-grounded individual capable of balancing their own ideals, ethics and beliefs within the context of family, vocational and interpersonal relationships.  Having now read a few works of Kegan, Baxter Magolda, King and Pizzolato, I realize that this process defined as “self-authorship” encompasses great depth and thought into personal development that is especially appropriate for understanding overall development in the undergraduate student.  “The degree to which students are self-authored mediates what and how they learn from their experiences (King, 2011).”

Pizzolato developed an assessment of self-authorship which comprised of a Self-Authorship Survey along with the Experience Survey comprising of four subscales to provide an estimate of students’ developing self-authoring abilities.  Pizzolato did find that “the SAS provides a reasonable and statically sound measure of self-authorship and an identification of strengths and weaknesses relative to skills underlying self-authorship (Pizzolato, 2007).”  She further discusses actions consistent with reasoning where both action and reasoning evidence self-authorship.  “If a student wants to do something because it feels right, it is independent knowing.  If a student wants to do something because it is most consistent with the internally defined goals, it is more likely to be self-authoring (Pizzolato, 2007, p.40).”

Kegan’s dimensions of cognitive, intrapersonal and interpersonal capacity needed for self-authorship make total sense by definition when examining developmental stages.  His transformational theory regarding “subject” and “object”, on the other hand, was a bit harder to grasp.  What I do understand of this theory is that it is ever flowing.  “When a way of knowing moves from a place where we are “had by it” (captive of it) to a place where we “have it, “and can be relationship to it, the form of our knowing has become more complex, more expansive.  This is the real meaning of transformation” (Kegan, 2000).   I equate this much like Chickering’s “crisis” that moves us through the various vectors at different stages of our lives as we studied last week in our readings. 

                Of all the readings presented on self-authorship, I found “Nudging minds to life:  Self-authorship as a foundation for learning” (Baxter Magolda, 2012) to make the most sense of transformation and meaning making.  The journey from external meaning making through crossroads where one starts to construct and listen to the internal voice eventually building an internal foundation leading to self-authorization was explained well in this article.  When looking back at my undergraduate experience, I related best to this explanation of self –authorization. 

                Reliance on external sources such as parents and musical instructors was a mainstay of my college experience.  After all, they had successfully made it through college and on into successful careers; therefore, why would I question their instruction and advice?   For the most part through college, I just kept doing the right thing – working hard at my violin performance skills, making the grades in my non-music classes while working part-time at The Alumni Association of The University of Michigan.  After graduation I continued on at the Alumni Association as a student advisor to the Student Alumni Council as full-time temp employee.  It was at that stage in my life where I started to construct my identity aside from my musical persona into the person I wanted to be instead of the person I thought my parents wanted me to be.  I was still playing my violin, however branched back into singing and dancing by becoming involved in community musical theater and eventually started taking dressage lessons—dancing with horses.

 I eventually left the Alumni Association to pursue a career as a dressage trainer much to my parent’s dismay.  I can still hear my mother saying “we didn’t spend $40,000 on a college degree so you could shovel horse poop!”  Taking that position broke every norm my parents had instilled in me in regards to choosing a career path.  I justified it by working hard and building a solid business over the years.  The interesting part of the process is that by taking that job, I walked right back in to a situation where external sources led the way as I learned to both ride and teach dressage.  As my skills improved, I strove to be independent as a trainer.  Balancing my values and needs with those of my main instructor clashed and I eventually left the business to pursue a more lucrative career in medicine.  It was that disequilibrium in my life that has finally allowed me to progress into self-authorship in my own life.  Though gut-wrenching at the time to make such big changes, I would not trade that time in my life for anything that may have made things easier, as that path led me to find my husband, a new career which I am very passionate about, and time to enjoy our growing family which includes 6 grandchildren. 

                If we are true to ourselves, there will always be disequilibrium along the way which will in turn, continue to improve our capacity for self-authorship. 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/n9wS1Ct88Qw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Works Cited

Baxter Magolda, M. K. (2012). Nudging minds to life: Self-authorship as a foundation for learning. Assessing meaning making and self-authorship: theory, research, and application. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kegan, R. (2000). What "Form" Transforms? A Constructive-Developmental Approach to Transformative Leraning. In J. M. Associates, Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 33-69). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

King, P. B. (2011). Maximizing Learning From Engaging Across Difference: The Role of Anxiety and MEaning Making. Equity & Excellence in Education, 468-487.

Pizzolato, J. (2007). Assessing Self-Authorship. New Directions For Teaching and Learning, 31-42.

 Marcia Baxter Magolda’s Theory of Self-Authorship (AHE 552), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9wS1Ct88Qw

Hamida Bhagirathy-Bastin: Reflective Questions Foundational Theories Blog Post--Chickering

Although I have worked in Student Life in student and professional positions for almost eleven years this is one of my first forays into student development theory. Admittedly student affairs seems to embody lofty aspirations of creating supportive and inclusive learning environments that are conducive to growth, but within the University Housing realm we often spend most of our time on less heady questions—“What is today’s crisis?” While “Chickering’s model is particularly effective in developing overall program priorities and strategies” there is a constant tension between expending our energy on intentional programs and supports for our students, and addressing the nitty-gritty crisis occurring right now (Evans et al., 2010 p. 67). As a student affairs professional my work is often very idiosyncratic and shaped by the institution, culture of the department, region of campus, building, the rhythm of the semester, the age of our residents, and even the specific programs our residents are part of. In setting my contextual stage I work in University Housing, on the very privileged central campus, in East Quad Residence Hall, that houses undergraduate students of all years and two living learning communities.

After exploring the theories in this week’s readings, Chickering’s seven vectors of development resonated with my experiences as a student and professional as it considers the student within the “emotional, interpersonal, ethical, and intellectual aspects” (Evans et al., 2010 p. 67) While reading through the vectors of development I was struck by two things—the seeming lack of acknowledgement of severe crises when moving through the vectors, and the great responsibility we entrust to our student staff, who are simultaneously experiencing these vectors while supporting other students.

I’ve been in the industry for a meager eleven years, but within that time I have witnessed a large increase in resident mental health crises as “documented high levels of depression, anxiety, suicidal…and other serious mental health issues affecting college students that profoundly shape the campus community” (Reynolds, 2013 p. 98). I am aware of missing context—Chickering’s vectors are from 1969, and in my brief reading of his work I may not be aware of future allowances made for mental health needs as he didn’t initially write for student affairs folks, or perhaps contemporary students experience mental health crises more keenly and are much more forthcoming about such experiences nowadays. Mental health supports should play a larger role in the development discourse, as all of Chickering’s vectors entail a massive amount of growth—from developing competence, managing emotions, moving toward interdependence, developing interpersonal relationships, establishing an identity developing purpose, and developing integrity (Evans et al., 2010 p. 67-69).

In Chickering’s model environmental influences are acknowledged through student-faculty relationships, curriculum, teaching, and friendships and student communities, and student development programs and supports (Evans et al., 2010 p. 71). Although these influences provide support, if a student were to follow Chickering’s trajectory of vectors their supports would exist mostly within the academic realm with informal relationships that may not provide comprehensive mental health support. An environment that proactively builds and encourages mental health and resilience is important to allow students to the ability to pursue development in each of these vectors. While such support may be implied within “student development programs and supports” I would suggest further developing this to include proactive and reactive systems for students so they may be equipped to tackle the issues that come with developing a sense of self such as how to build confidence in an effort to create a sense of competence, ways to manage emotions rather than through one’s academic and social context, ways in which one may become emotionally independent, examples of healthy relationships, and how to honestly examine one’s own aspirations for purpose.  

In writing this I have realized that perhaps my belief in the need such explicit mental health supports may lie in how relationship dynamics have changed with the rise of technology, and social media that at times can make being social  in real time difficult. In my work with student staff members many of them have shared the challenges they experience in developing deep and meaningful relationships with their residents who may have a very large virtual presence, but may struggle with developing offline relationships. In those conversations I am struck by how adept our student staff are in navigating both through the trendy Instagrams, Facebooks, and Reddits networks and the interpersonal interactions, conversations, and physical presence that demonstrates real engagement, care, and compassion. While at times working in University Housing may seem overwhelming for a professional staff member, and as I am learning more and more for a student staff member I think back to a clip that I show all of my students before kicking off the school year. All of our students are to experience a great deal of development within the four to five years they are at our institution, and while students may experience these developments independently, as student affairs staff we it is important for us to explicitly show students we care, and are there to support them.

Everyday Leadership

Works Referenced:

Dudley, D., TED Ideas Worth Spreading. (September, 2010) Everyday Leadership.  Retrieved January 18th, 2014. http://www.ted.com/talks/drew_dudley_everyday_leadership.html

Evans, N. J., Forney, D S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Chickering’s theory of identity development.. In Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2^nd ed) (pp. 64-81). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Reynolds, A. L. (2013). College Student Concerns: Perceptions of Student Affairs Practitioners. Journal of College Student Development, 54(1), 98-104.

Amanda Kanter: Reflective Questions Blog Post - Foundational Theories

                In examining the foundational theories of college student identity development, I am unsure that any directly mirror my development.  That said, it seems several critical factors including the opportunity to interact with diverse populations, study abroad in a foreign country, develop meaningful relationships with peers and faculty, and gain exposure to a variety of perspectives through interesting courses and extracurricular activities contributed greatly to my development in college.  The emphasis on the development of the whole person within the psychosocial theories resonated with my experiences attending a small, private liberal arts college with the mission of building intercultural and civically engaged lifelong learners.  As a traditionally aged, Caucasian, heterosexual college student, I fit into the typical student classification these theories seek to describe.  This emphasis on specific, majority demographic populations, however, has important implications for the applicability of these theories to diverse audiences.

In my college experience, Erik Erickson’s “watershed stage” of identity versus role confusion (Jones & Abes, 2013, p. 29) was particularly salient.  For me and my peers, college was a time for exploration of who we claimed to be and who we wanted to become.  We regularly participated in deep conversations about values, beliefs, and world views in relation to course subjects and extracurricular experiences.  I experienced many periods of confusion and questioning what I wanted to do with my life and the type of person I would be proud to be in the future.  Erickson’s stages, however, seem to apply too narrowly to an individual’s age.  This theory relies on the transition from childhood to adulthood as a central component in college student development.  However, as not all college students are of the traditional age, the linear, stage-based model may not apply to everyone. 

As these stages appear specifically descriptive of American culture and transitions, I wonder if this theory would apply to individuals outside of the United States.  How might the biases and world views of these theorists contribute to the specific components of their student development theories?  In collectivist countries, would identity development be more centered on communal growth rather than the goal of becoming an autonomous and independent thinker? How might an individual’s identity development differ in countries with different socially pronounced value systems? While Erickson’s stages happen to be somewhat relevant to my experiences, Arthur Chickering’s vectors may apply more broadly as it is possible to experience more than one vector at a time, following a more “spiral”, rather than linear, age-centric path (Evans et al., 2010, p. 66).  

The examination of specific identity groups, particularly target identities, is important to our understanding of the potential variations in the development of students.  Daniel Macari, Mary Finn Maples, and Livia D’Andrea (2006) explored differences in the development of traditional and nontraditional college students.  The researchers (2006) compared students using three of Chickering’s seven vectors: “Developing Purpose, Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships, and Moving Through Autonomy Toward Interdependence” (p. 288).   In every category, traditional students showed greater levels of development.  As nontraditional students often have important life commitments outside of college, understanding how development varies across populations may improve diverse student experiences through more intentional programming.  Macari et al. (2006) offer suggestions for program implementation for nontraditional students in their analysis on pages 293-297. 

                With the consideration that not all college students are of the same identity groups, age, level of life experiences, and backgrounds, the uniqueness of each individual’s identity development seems particularly important.  While many traditional college students may experience similar transitions, it is important to think about the diversity of the students we serve.  I question whether factors of any identity development theory are necessarily specific to the college environment.  Would James Marcia’s emphasis on crisis and resolution in different identity statuses apply to individuals who never attend college or enroll at a nontraditional time in their life?  What about students who take a gap year prior to entering an institution?  Is it possible that individuals experience the proposed crises and commitments that support development in other contexts?

Joe O’Shea (2014) suggests that critical experiences during a gap year between high school and college can foster identity development in young adults.  Many of the attributes described by the foundational theorists such as intercultural intelligence, autonomy, and deep relationships are argued to be attained during this transitional period.  O’Shea (2014) states “trying to occupy another's way of life in a different culture -- living with a new family, speaking the language, integrating into a community, perhaps working with local youth, for instance -- these are valuable experiences that help young people understand themselves, develop empathy and virtue, and expand their capacity to see the world from others' perspectives”.   How does this contrasting view affect your thinking about identity development during the college years?  Would you encourage future college students to take a gap year as an opportunity to foster development?

Additional References:

Macari, D. P., Maples, F. M., & D'Andrea, L. (2006). A comparative study of psychosocial development in nontraditional and traditional college students. Journal of College Student Retention, 7(3), 283-302. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/196740440?accountid=14667

O’Shea, Joe. (2014, January 16). Don’t go to college next year. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/01/16/more-students-should-take-gap-years-going-college-essay

Required Readings: 

Evans, N. J., Forney, D S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Part Two Introduction: Foundational theories. (pp. 41-46). In Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2^nd ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Psychosocial identity development. In Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2^nd ed) (pp.47-63). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Chickering’s theory of identity development.. In Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2^nd ed) (pp. 64-81). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jones, S. R. & Abes, E. S. (2013). Chapter 2: Situating the study of identity in the evolution of student development theories. In Identity development of college students: Advancing frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity (pp.19-45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lindsay Miller: Reflective Questions on "Foundational Theories"

To me, “identity” is anything that answers the question, “Who am I?” And this answer may be different depending on the point of reference or the point in time. For example, “Who am I to others?” begs a very different answer than “Who am I to myself?” yet I believe these are both facets of identity. Another belief I hold about identity is that it doesn’t have an end-goal. I see identity as a process and a performance that is always evolving and taking new shape. One of my favorite quotes reflects this quasi-post-modernist perspective, “Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself.”

Social identities are particularly interesting for me because they are constructed. We choose what characteristics or behavioral patterns are important to categorize, and place people in those groups even if it doesn’t feel salient or important to them. That being said, I still fully recognize and appreciate the importance of studying social identities, being aware of what social identities are constructed, and how those identities are reflected in dynamics of power and privilege.  In this way, social identity can be a very empowering concept because it allows us to articulate and address systems of oppression that affect us based on our belonging to any number of these groups. But few of the foundational theories, I felt, adequately addressed the complexity of social identities as part of identity. A model of identity that I have seen before that seems to resonate with my experience as well as many of my peers is Jones and McEwen’s (2000) multiple dimensions of identity. At the center of their model is the “core,” or one’s personal sense of self.  Around the core, but often closely tied to the core sense of self, are externally defined dimensions of identity, such as religion or gender.  Lastly, all of these components are situated within a broader context. Even though this model was developed based on a small sample size, I have found it captures several dimensions of identity formation, maintenance, and salience in one model.

When asked to describe my identity, I usually feel obligated to list my social identity groups as those often seem most real and apparent. Yet, when thinking more in depth about my identity, I tend towards words and ideas that indicate how I choose to live my life, what roles I tend to fulfill: helper, healer, explorer, lover, believer. In other words, I most readily describe my identity as something that I do, something I enact.

Because I don’t believe identity is fixed or innate, I have some difficulty with Erikson’s eight stages of psychosocial development.  While I can see grains of similarity between my own experiences and observations and Erikson’s stages, most of what I have experienced and observed is not linear and not necessarily even sequential.  I think that, in some sense, Marcia’s theory addresses this limitation of Erikson’s theory in that he recognizes the dynamic nature of identity. He also highlights what I’ve witnessed frequently among college students: a re-negotiation of identity as similar to or distinct from parent identities. I have seen so many students throughout their college experience challenge their family or parental values, try out new ways of being, and ultimately reconcile those identities in a way that feels comfortable to them.

Although I was excited to learn more about Josselson’s work with women, it also seemed like the developmental trajectories described were strongly rooted in a specific sociopolitical era. While I think that much remains the same today, I also think that the meanings surrounding social identity groups, such as gender, change throughout time and thus make it difficult to create an identity-based stage theory that can endure multiple generations. I do not think that takes away from the value and contribution of these theories, I just think it calls for a different approach and a careful attention to context when studying development of specific identity groups.

In light of the previous models, which felt incomplete in describing the college student experience, I really appreciated Chickering’s vector model. It captured the idea that multiple tasks are involved in student development, and that, while not linear, these tasks are related to one another and may build upon one another. It reminded me of the old adage “You cannot love another before you love yourself,” which speaks to the supposed importance of knowing, understanding, and valuing yourself before you can form intimate relationships with others. This slam poetry piece by Ashley Wylde (2013) addresses that notion of building developmental tasks and also begs the questions: How do we really come to know ourselves?  Is how we see ourselves how we really are?

 I also appreciated Chickering’s emphasis on the various elements of the “environment” that can foster positive student development.  Having attended three different universities (two for undergraduate, one for graduate), I have witnessed first-hand the role that the environment plays in development—both positively and negatively.

During my undergraduate experience, I always felt like there were ample opportunities for participation and involvement outside the classroom. I was very much a “student affairs student”—actively involved in several organizations, employed by a student affairs office, and participated in student affairs initiatives. The availability of these opportunities and my involvement encouraged me along the vectors of developing competence, integrity, and purpose. However, regarding student-faculty relationships, I think that having more accessible and authentic professors earlier on in my college career would have fostered more personal and professional growth and would have helped me to integrate and connect my work and learning in a more meaningful way. In graduate school, my relationships with faculty members have become more authentic and more meaningful, and as a result, I have experienced a new level of deep, integrated learning. 

Further questions for discussion:
How do social identities fit into your definition of your identity?
Given the diverse range of experiences, circumstances, and environment, is it possible to come up with a developmental stage theory that holds "true" for most people?
 Given the vast developmental changes that students experience during college, do you think those who don't attend college are "under-developed?" Or do they just develop differently? Do you think they are achieving the same tasks or developing along the same vectors?

References

Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41(4), 405-414.

Wylde, A. (2013, October, 15). Meet yourself in the mirror. Retrieved January 20, 2014, from  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qqm8B2p1aI

Welcome to the class blog!

Hi Awesome 662-ers,

This is our class blog.  Please use this space to post your assigned blog responses and share anything else that you think might be interesting to your fellow student development scholars.

Happy posting and feel free to contact me at any time with questions,
Jess
jyjoslin@umich.edu