Running Head: MIND AND MEND THE STUDENT AND ACADEMIC AFFAIRS GAP

Mind and Mend the Student and Academic Affairs Gap Nicole Ponticorvo Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Peer reviewed by: Rachel Jimenez, Abby Stern & Tricia Torley M.Ed. Candidates in College Student Affairs at Rutgers University

MIND AND MEND THE STUDENT AND ACADEMIC AFFAIRS GAP Mind the Gap. Anyone who has ever been on the London Underground recognizes these words of warning. In many ways, higher education has its own gap to mind. . . .[that is,] the chasm that sometimes exists between student affairs and academic affairs [emphasis added] (Hogan, 2008, Mind the Gap, para. 1-2). A pervasive gap between academic and student affairs divisions affects institutions of

higher education nationwide. As many campuses have undergone major physical and intellectual expansions, they have responded to increased complexity through creating highly specialized hierarchical organizations (Schroeder, 1999, p.9). As a result, student affairs and academic affairs have formed disconnected camps that too often function independently. In order to bridge the silos in which student and academic affairs tend to operate, many scholars advocate for the creation of cross-divisional partnerships. Yet, debates often arise as to whether the positive student learning outcomes of collaboration outweigh the effort necessary to implement collaboration despite cultural obstacles existing within polarized divisions. The following paragraphs highlight convincing arguments expressing both the benefits of cross-divisional collaborations and firm cultural obstacles that render partnerships difficult to achieve. Following analyses of these perspectives, I argue my position regarding the worth of crossdivisional partnerships and offer implications for the student affairs profession. In support of cross-divisional partnerships stands the notion that shared responsibility leads to greater student learning outcomes. According to the American Association for Higher Educations Powerful Partnerships: A Shared Responsibility For Learning: A Joint Report (1998), only when everyone on campusparticularly academic affairs and student affairs staffshare the responsibility for student learning will we be able to make significant progress in improving it (Bourassa & Kruger, 2001, p. 18). This perspective implies that the beneficial

MIND AND MEND THE STUDENT AND ACADEMIC AFFAIRS GAP impact of cross-divisional partnerships renders them worth the effort, given that shared responsibility leads to cooperative relationships. . .that provide opportunities to improve the practices that benefit our institutions and our students (Arminio, Roberts, & Bonfiglio, 2009, p.20). Furthermore, partnerships that connect, in a seamless fashion, formal curricular experiences with informal cocurricular experiences can be particularly effective in promoting student success (Schroeder, 1999, p. 14). Research provides convincing evidence supporting the worth of cohesive student and academic affairs partnerships. Project DEEP (Documenting Effective Educational Practice), concluded that [w]hat is common among high performance schools is that a mix of administrators, faculty and staff members, and students work together to set direction and to create and maintain student success efforts (Kinzie & Kuh, 2004, p. 5). Furthermore, Whitt, Nesheim, Guentzel, and Kelloggs (2008) qualitative study, The Boyer Partnership Project,

identifies principles of good practice, which state that effective partnerships advance institutional mission, foster learning, build relationships, support institutional culture, utilize resources creatively, value assessment and cultivate leadership. These findings suggest that crossdivisional partnerships can contribute to both student and institutional success. In contrast, a compelling body of literature details the cultural, values-based obstacles, which suggest that cross-divisional partnerships are not worth the fight against a polarized tradition. The notion that [f]aculty often value independent creation and dissemination of knowledge, whereas student affairs educators value holistic student development and collaboration (Schroeder, 1999, p.10) demonstrates the competing values working against cross-divisional partnerships. Additionally, academia tends to value autonomy, collegiality and thinking and reflection, while student affairs professionals value collaboration, teamwork and

MIND AND MEND THE STUDENT AND ACADEMIC AFFAIRS GAP doing (Love, Kuh, MacKay, & Hardy, 1993, p. 50). One explanation for traditional faculty values lies in the fact that institutional rewards for faculty are based on research productivity,

scholarship, and teaching rather than on collaborative initiatives with student affairs (Schroeder, 1999, p. 10). Additionally, the polarized cultures of the student and academic affairs divisions invite a lack of respect and trust between divisions. As many faculty view themselves not only as the core of the educational enterprise, but as the agents responsible for important educational outcomes (Love et al., 1993, p. 52), they also exhibit a tendency to view student affairs as ancillary, supplementary, or complementary to the academic mission of the institution (Schroeder, 1999 p. 8-9). Beyond a lack of respect, Kuth and Banta (2000) describe the lack of trust between student and academic affairs as dysfunctional territorialism that makes [divisions] concentrate on protecting their turf for fear of losing some of what they have (p. 6). Within this cultural framework, cross-divisional partnerships would require overcoming the tyranny of custom (Schroeder, 1999, p. 10) and the dissolution of a deeply ingrained cultural tradition, which would be extremely difficult to eradicate. Although the inherent cultural differences between academia and student affairs often pervade cross-divisional interaction, I believe that academic and student affairs partnerships are worth pursuit. In order to provide students with a more cohesive, learner-centric and experiential educational experience, practitioners of curriculum and co-curriculum must find ways to operate as one unified body, as a means to better serve the student. Although ill-planned partnerships that favor academic superiority could isolate student affairs professionals, effective collaborations would help student affairs professionals develop valuable skills and experience in some new areas, such as curriculum, teaching, learning communities, research, and outcomes assessment

MIND AND MEND THE STUDENT AND ACADEMIC AFFAIRS GAP (Price, 1999, p. 82). Just as partnerships must avoid divisional isolation, institutional leaders must carefully [consider] whether a particular partnership has merit (Magolda, 2005, p. 17). With these caveats in mind, higher education must create a framework that welcomes and rewards collaboration, restructuring faculty promotion and tenure policies [that] give little recognition to collaborative service activities [and] non-traditional scholarship (Sandeen, 2004, p. 31). Additionally, leadership at all levels must integrate divisional missions in order to merge the philosophies and values that can compartmentalize the educational experience. Professionals from all functional areas and across the hierarchy must engage in communication with institutions that have successfully instituted cross-divisional programs within their units. The reality remains that the student affairs profession emphasizes the holistic education of the whole student, whereas academia focuses on individualized research and disjointed subject specializations; therefore, the former must take the lead and proactively recruit the academic sector to collaborate. As the leading division, student affairs must not only mind, but also mend the gap.

MIND AND MEND THE STUDENT AND ACADEMIC AFFAIRS GAP References Arminio, J., Roberts, D. C., & Bonfiglio, R. (2009). The professionalization of student learning practice: An ethos of scholarship. About Campus, 14(1), 16-20. doi:10.1002/abc.279. Bourassa, D. M., & Kruger, K. (2001). The national dialogue on academic and student affairs collaboration. New Directions for Higher Education, (116), 9.

Hogan, T.L. (2008, Winter). Mind the gap. Developments, (6),4 number). Retrieved from http://www2.myacpa.org/publications/developments Kinzie, J., & Kuh, G.D. (2004). Going deep: Learning from campuses that share responsibility for student success. About Campus, 9(5), 2-8. Kuth, G. D., & Banta, T. W. (2000). Faculty--student affairs collaboration on assessment. About Campus, 4(6), 4. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Love, P. G., Kuh, G. D., MacKay, K.A., & Hardy, C.M. Side by side: Faculty and student affairs cultures. In G. D. Kuh (ed.), Cultural Perspectives in Student Affairs Work. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1993. Magolda, P. M. (2005). Proceed with caution: Uncommon wisdom about academic and student affairs partnerships. About Campus, 9(6), 16-21. Sandeen, A. (2004). Educating the Whole Student. Change, 36(3), 28-33. Schroeder, C.C. (1999). Partnerships: An imperative for enhancing student learning and institutional effectiveness. New Directions for Student Services, (87), 5. Whitt, E.J., Nesheim, B.E., Guentzel, M. J., & Kellogg, A.H. (2008). Principles of good practice for academic and student affairs partnership programs. Journal of College Student Development, (49), 3.