Rethinking College Student Development Theory Using Critical Frameworks

Elisa S. Abes, Susan R. Jones, D-L Stewart, Elisa S. Abes, Susan R. Jones, D-L Stewart

• Publisher: Stylus Publishing
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781620367667
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Higher Education

A major new contribution to college student development theory, this book brings "third wave" theories to bear on this vitally important topic.The first section includes a chapter that provides an overview of the evolution of student development theories as well as chapters describing the critical and poststructural theories most relevant to the next iteration of student development theory. These theories include critical race theory, queer theory, feminist theories, intersectionality, decolonizing/indigenous theories, and crip theories. These chapters also include a discussion of how each theory is relevant to the central questions of student development theory. The second section provides critical interpretations of the primary constructs associated with student development theory. These constructs and their related ideas include resilience, dissonance, socially constructed identities, authenticity, agency, context, development (consistency/coherence/stability), and knowledge (sources of truth and belief systems). Each chapter begins with brief personal narratives on a particular construct; the chapter authors then re-envision the narrative's highlighted construct using one or more critical theories. The third section will focus on implications for practice. Specifically, these chapters will consider possibilities for how student development constructs re-envisioned through critical perspectives can be utilized in practice.The primary audience for the book is faculty members who teach in graduate programs in higher education and student affairs and their students. The book will also be useful to practitioners seeking guidance in working effectively with students across the convergence of multiple aspects of identity and development.

PART ONE

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT ENTERING THE THIRD WAVE

As noted in the preface to this book, we are believers in the power of theory. And in particular, the potential of theory to point the way toward more emancipatory and inclusive policies and practices in higher education. In this first part of the book, six different theoretical perspectives are offered both as examples of critical and poststructural theories and for their utility in helping to rethink college student development. These six are not in any way meant to be an exhaustive or definitive set of examples; instead, we selected these six because several of them are almost completely missing from the theoretical landscape in higher education and because of what we see as their theoretical power in helping to scrutinize some more taken-for-granted student development constructs. Together, these theories offer new vantage points from which to understand student development, insights regarding the influence of inequitable power structures on the developmental processes of all students, and analytic tools that center minoritized populations of college students. More specifically, and by way of an example of our intent in showcasing each of these theoretical frameworks, the poststructural approach of crip theory carries specific relevance to students with disabilities, but importantly it also exposes the ableism in student development theories generally.

Before proceeding with an overview of the frameworks presented in this part and the approach taken by chapter authors, we want to briefly comment on critical and poststructural theories and what distinguishes them from one another. Although we took care to note in the preface that we use the term critical frameworks as an umbrella term that includes both critical and poststructural theories, there are some significant differences between these two schools of thought. Because some of these differences are evident in the chapters that follow, we thought it helpful to provide a mention of several distinguishing characteristics.

As introduced in the preface, critical theory emerged from scholars associated with the Frankfurt School in Germany and in response to the social, political, and cultural conditions of capitalist society. The term critical theory is attributed to Max Horkheimer, the director of the Institute for Social Research, which was founded in Frankfurt Germany in 1923 and is anchored in the philosophical views of those such as Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Hegel, and Karl Marx (Jessop, 2014). As Martínez-Alemán (2015) noted,

According to Horkheimer . . . the goal of critical theory is to develop interdisciplinary research that is both empirical and historical as a means for solving socio-philosophical problems, or more specifically, those problems that are the consequence of domination within and across human communities. (p. 7)

The critical in critical theory involves critique of “life as it is—within the practices, traditions, values and beliefs of a particular society” (Jessop, 2014, p. 194). A central aim of critical theory is social and political action leading to societally relevant practical solutions and transformation (Martínez-Alemán, 2015). In the area of student development, critical race theory (CRT) is a critical theory that is increasingly used in research and scholarship to expose the permanence and pervasiveness of racism in higher education. For examples of the application of CRT in student development research, see Harper (2009), Hernández (2016), and Patton (2014).

Whereas critical theory illuminates life as it is, poststructural perspectives suggest that structure to life cannot exist, hence the term poststructuralism. Poststructural thought emerged from scholars such as Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Judith Butler, who theorized the constructs of deconstruction, power, and performativity (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012). As suggested by Lather (2007),

Poststructuralism refers more narrowly to a sense of the limits of Enlightenment rationality. It particularly foregrounds the limits of consciousness and intentionality and the will to power inscribed in sense-making efforts that aspire to totalizing explanatory frameworks, especially structuralism with its ahistoricism and universalism. (p. 5)

That is, poststructuralism pushes against the limitations of positivist constructions of truth and what Foucault (1984) referred to as “regimes of truth” (p. 73) or grand narratives. Deconstruction is a core strategy in post-structuralism and enables the “undoing, reversing, and displacing of taken-for-granted binary oppositions that structure discourse” (Schwandt, 2001, p. 204). Central themes characterizing poststructural theories include the decentering of the notion of an individual, the idea that everything is a text and all texts are interrelated, the idea that meaning is unstable and never fixed, and the emphasis on deconstruction as a strategy for displacing taken-for-granted texts and binary oppositions (Schwandt, 2001). In student development work, the poststructural school of thought of queer theory is put to use to expose normative assumptions associated with genders and sexualities, illuminate the performative nature of much of what is called student development, and open up possibilities. Examples in student development scholarship include the works of Abes and Kasch (2007), Denton (2016), Miller (2015), and Nicolazzo (2016).

In sum, most notable about what distinguishes critical theories from poststructural perspectives is that while critical theories hold up specific categories for interrogation using social, cultural, and historical critique, post-structural theories aim to deconstruct the very notion of categories. In fact, a lean interpretation of the application of poststructuralism to student development would suggest this is impossible; that is, development or identity is in constant motion with no predetermined end point and therefore impossible to hold up for scrutiny. This very tension is evident in several chapters, where the differences between critical and poststructural frameworks show up in, for example, the structural power analysis of intersectionality (critical theory) and the deconstruction of gender binaries in queer theory (poststructural).

In spite of these differences, there are some overlapping elements between these two theoretical frameworks, most notably a concern with marginalization, oppressive power structures, and emancipation. As noted in the preface, it is these common commitments that warrant the use of the term critical framework as an overarching umbrella to encompass both critical and poststructural theories. Specific to higher education theory and research, Tierney and Rhoads (2004) were among the first to advance a set of principles to consider when using critical theory. These interacting aspects of critical theory include emphasis on marginalization and emancipation, the role of culture, the role of power, a critique of positivism, and the union of theory and practice, or praxis (see pp. 319–324 for a more detailed discussion). Each of these elements, both individually and interconnected, may be seen in the critical theoretical frameworks presented in this text.

We want to note that the chapters that follow in this part are purposely brief. That is, each of the theoretical frameworks highlighted are book-length worthy in themselves. Chapter authors introduce these frameworks by illuminating core tenets or characteristics for each and point readers to the foundational and contemporary texts on these theories. Each chapter also includes discussion of the relevancy of critical frameworks to student development theory. That is, chapter authors take up the question of how student development theory might be different if reconsidered through a critical lens. For example, how might the developmental domains of self-authorship be conceptualized and experienced differently if a critical lens is applied? We want readers to leave these chapters with a basic understanding of the theories so as to grasp the application of them in the chapters that follow in Part Two and Part Three and also with a thirst to delve more deeply into them.

We begin this part on critical theoretical frameworks with an overview of the evolving theoretical developments in the field. Extending the metaphor of theoretical waves first introduced by Jones and Stewart (2016), Susan R. Jones explores the sociohistorical ways in which student development theories are created and viewed. Through the presentation of three waves of student development, Jones discusses the central theoretical contributions of each wave and suggests ways in which these contributions are both enduring and evolving. With the first wave broadly addressing earlier psychological theories and the second wave focusing on social identities, the introduction of the third wave, encompassing critical theoretical perspectives, paves the way for the theories that follow.

In chapter 2, Jessica C. Harris and OiYan A. Poon discuss the importance of accounting for racism and white supremacy in student development theory using the framework of CRT. In applying core tenets of CRT to student development, Harris and Poon both elevate the importance of race and racism and expose how systems of oppression operate with the goal of disrupting these systems. In chapter 3, Charmaine L. Wijeyesinghe provides an overview of intersectionality, addressing historical origins, as well as core tenets and assumptions. Wijeyesinghe then reexamines several central topics in student development by applying an intersectional analysis and emphasizing the importance of social location and social systems to students’ development. Next, in chapter 4, Claire Kathleen Robbins introduces guiding definitions of critical feminist theories (FemCrit) and how these might be put to work as a framework for student development. Robbins also examines central questions of student development theory using FemCrit, encouraging thought-provoking reflections on the possibilities for understanding, deconstructing, and reconstructing student development. In chapter 5, Nicole Alia Salis Reyes and Maria Tauala present an overview of Indigenous and decolonizing paradigms, emphasizing the shared values in Indigenous paradigms of relationality, reciprocity, self-determination, and sovereignty. They then discuss how Indigenous and decolonizing paradigms shape Native college students’ development and inform an understanding of non-Native students and existing structures of inequality (Indigenous erasure) in higher education. J. Michael Denton, in chapter 6, delves into queer theory, highlighting foundational works and core tenets. Denton then more closely examines how the application of queer theory to student development domains provides new insights into ways of thinking about gender and sexualities. Last in this part, Elisa S. Abes advances an understanding of crip theory in chapter 7 through an exploration of its key ideas organized using the domains of holistic student development. Abes demonstrates how crip theory can be engaged to not only better understand college students with disabilities but also reconceptualize the meaning of student development and rethink student development theory.

We hope these critical theoretical frameworks, taken together, advance an understanding of the origins, core tenets, and applications to student development of individual theoretical frameworks, as well as provide a foundation for the analyses and applications that follow in Part Two and Part Three, respectively. We also hope that readers will (re)discover the power of theory to deepen our understanding of the complex issues facing higher education today and improve practices that stand to benefit all students.

References

Abes, E. S., & Kasch, D. (2007). Using queer theory to explore lesbian college students’ multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 48(6), 619–636.

Denton, J. M. (2016). Critical and poststructural perspectives on sexual identity formation. In E. S. Abes (Ed.), Critical perspectives on student development theory (New Directions for Student Services, No. 154, pp. 57–69). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Foucault, M. (1984). Truth and power. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 51–75). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Harper, S. (2009). Niggers no more: A critical race counternarrative of Black male student achievement at predominantly white colleges and universities. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(6), 697–712.

Hernández, E. (2016). Utilizing critical race theory to examine race/ethnicity, racism, and power in student development theory and research. Journal of College Student Development, 57(2), 168–180.

Jackson, A. Y., & Mazzei, L. A. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research. New York, NY: Routledge.

Jessop, S. (2014). Critical theory. In D. C. Phillips (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational theory and philosophy (Vol. 1, pp. 193–196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jones, S. R., & Stewart, D-L. (2016). Evolution of student development theory. In E. S. Abes (Ed.), Critical perspectives on student development theory (New Directions for Student Services, No. 154, pp. 17–28). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lather, P. (2007). Getting lost: Feminist efforts toward a double(d) science. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Martínez-Alemán, A. M. (2015). Critical discourse analysis in higher education policy research. In A. M. Martínez-Alemán, B. Pusser, & E. M. Bensimon (Eds.), Critical approaches to the study of higher education: A practical introduction (pp. 7–43). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.

Miller, R. A. (2015). “Sometimes you feel invisible”: Performing queer/disabled in the university classroom. The Educational Forum, 79(4), 377–393.

Nicolazzo, Z. (2016). “It’s a hard line to walk”: Black non-binary trans* collegians’ perspectives on passing, realness, and trans*normativity. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(9), 1173–1188.

Patton, L. D. (2014). Preserving respectability or blatant disrespect? A critical discourse analysis of the Morehouse College appropriate attire policy and implications for conducting intersectional research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(6), 724–746.

Schwandt, T. A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tierney, W. G., & Rhoads, R. A. (2004). Postmodernism and critical theory in higher education: Implications for research and practice. In ...