Dissertation Proposal

 

 

Exploring the effect of addressing social injustices as a student affairs professional

by
Laura Bestler

A dissertation proposal submitted to the graduate faculty
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Major: Education (Educational Leadership)
Program of Study Committee:

• Nancy Evans, Major Professor
• Pete Englin
• Ryan Evely Gildersleeve
• Patricia Leigh
• Scott McLeod

Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa
2011
Copyright © Laura L. Bestler, 2011. All rights reserved.

Downloads: MSWORD || PDF

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW

The sidewalks were strewn with hate as the October morning sun shattered through the clouds. Hate-filled words in chalk exclaimed violence against lesbians and gays on my undergraduate campus. Obscene phrases like “Get a gun and shoot them,” “Kill the fags,” and “Gays must die” were sketched hastily over the 10% Society’s (a lesbian and gay student organization) National Coming Out Day celebratory words.

From 1987-1992, my undergraduate campus was my home away from home and my friends and I were violated by these hurtful phrases chalked on the cold concrete sidewalks. This written violence became a significant event prompting my personal journey towards social justice. It would not be the first time I would feel frustration about biased actions on a campus.

I was, then, an over-involved undergraduate student leader at a Midwestern public institution of higher learning. Campus was close to home and my new found family included both students and student affairs staff. Those staff members (parental in their actions) helped me as I worked through my personal frustrations with these hateful words and actions. Each staff member played a significant role in guiding me by providing me with opportunities and challenges. My respect for the wisdom they shared with me is still an integral part of my ethical palette of practice. Little did I know when one of these advisers introduced me to a profession in which I would be involved over a decade. I failed to recognize then that these student affairs professionals may have experienced a multitude of unique emotions while helping me, the student, as I dealt with my angst.

Student affairs professionals are a part of a university’s power structure and are uniquely positioned to advocate for students within the constructs of the centuries-old higher education systems of practice (Chang, 2002). Because of this power structure, the role of the student affairs staff member may be rich with diverse experiences and complexities associated with the informal out-of-classroom interactions between students and student affairs professionals.
Higher education, as we know it in the United States, was built upon Eurocentric roots tied to a hierarchal system within the colonial foundation of higher education (Altbach, 2001). The current system continues to privilege the White Euro-American heterosexual Christian student population, and has not yet adapted to a steadily diversifying student body (Chang, 2002). The Eurocentric perspective is considered the universal truth; as such, it fails to take into account the plurality of cultures or a world of multiculturalism (Jung, 2009). As a student affairs professional, I was often stretched between policy, people, and purpose while working towards creating an equitable campus environment. I refused to lose focus on the needs of students, and the incessant political and social pressures took a toll on me, both professionally and personally.

Social justice is a process and a goal (Bell, 1997). The social justice discourse presently taking place on college campuses is a multifaceted transformational opportunity for people, institutions, community, and society as a whole. Practitioners strive to include appreciating viewpoints and social responsibility for all, equity in procedural systems, access to and sharing of resources, and a feeling of being safe and protected in society as a whole and within higher education environments (Goodman, 2001; Reason, Broido, Davis, & Evans, 2005). While the slow transformation of college campuses to adapt to their students’ diverse needs may be providing a unique opportunity to hone more equitable experience, the old power structures continue to test even the most seasoned staff in their attempts to provide a safe campus environment (Chang, 2002). Currently, there is a lack of information available about how student affairs professionals working towards social justice are affected personally and professionally by their experiences.

Problem
Student affairs professionals cannot be fully prepared for the multiple roles they have to juggle in their efforts to create an equitable and conducive living and learning environment for their diverse student population. They are held accountable for supporting the current policies, procedures and programs, while adapting to the myriad new demands on campus with continually decreasing resources.

University and college student affairs professionals interact with students through programs, orientation, student organizations, recreation centers, peer training, and on-campus living. These student affairs professionals may advocate (directly or indirectly) for students confronted by social injustices that directly (or indirectly) affect individual students and their community of fellow students. Supporting campus policies while advocating for students requires a tenuous balance for many student affairs staff, even in the most homogeneous environments. The balance between following campus protocols and being supportive employees, while maintaining a healthy working relationship with students, is difficult. Maintaining this balance may create stress within the personal and professional lives of some student affairs practitioners.

During my training to be a student affairs professional and subsequent career experience I was not taught how to handle difficult situations involving unjust treatment of people on campus. Instead, there seemed to be an expectation that I would just “know” how to cope with these challenges during my 13 years as a student affairs professional. I did not understand the extent to which helping students would affect my personal well-being. There is a dearth of information regarding how student affairs professionals can often times be affected by their experiences of working towards an equitable campus, while simultaneously fulfilling their job responsibilities and attempting to maintain a healthy personal life. Figley (2002) defined compassion fatigue as “resulting from helping or wanting to help a traumatized person” (p. xiv). Identifying the cost of caring as a personal issue and determining how to cope with this symptomatic characteristic of compassion fatigue presents a difficult challenge for professionals (Figley 1995a, 1995b, 2002); it was certainly a difficult challenge for me.

Purpose
The purpose of this autoethnographic study is to explore my personal knowledge of social injustices on a university campus by sharing stories that affected me personally and professionally. As subject and researcher, I will illustrate my personal story of vicarious injustices and oppression of students during my 20-year transformation from undergraduate student to midlevel student affairs professional.

I believe sharing my story may help new and seasoned professionals to become more aware of their personal and emotional boundaries when working in student affairs. These boundaries may become twisted and torn as student affairs professionals help students overcome social injustices, and crises on campus. My story may inspire others to discover how to find the skills to navigate the delicate balance between underrepresented students and institutional politics.

Research Questions
My personal analysis of my experiences as a student affairs professional committed to working towards eradicating social injustices will explore the following questions:

• Upon reflection, how did I respond to social injustices and oppression of students on campus?
• What hurdles did I face in striving to cultivate an equitable campus environment?
• What effects did working to address social injustice in higher education have on me, both professionally and holistically?

Theoretical Perspectives
Transformative learning theory and social justice theory will serve as the foundational theoretical perspectives for my study. Using both of these theories will guide my research questions. Mezirow (1990) stated, “Learners who share a transformative learning experience can effect social change in a variety of ways, by affiliating with like-minded persons who are devoted to change within an organization, by changing interpersonal relationships, or by collective political action” (p. 356).

Transformative Learning Theory
Transformative learning theory will provide a framework within which I will study the effects of social injustices as experienced by a student affairs professional. In transformative learning, one may develop the ability to evolve to new levels by reflecting on one’s personal experiences with unjust situations (Mezirow, 2000). Therefore, transformative learning involves an experience in which deep learning takes place, identified by a metamorphosis in ways of thinking, conceptual understanding, and feelings that result in a rudimentary shift in an individual’s understanding of oneself in relationship to others (Mezirow, 1990). Transformation is defined as a significant change that usually leads to an improvement. I will be able to construct my transformative learning (Kegan, 2000) from my time as a collegiate undergraduate to my life as a midlevel student affairs professional working with social injustices.

My highly personal story will serve as a foundation from which I will draw to explore the dimensions of knowing, understanding of oneself, and creating a more inclusive campus environment. Mezirow (2000) stated,

The justification for much of what we know and believe, our values and our feelings, depends on the context – biographical, historical, cultural – in which they are embedded. We make meaning with different dimensions of awareness and understanding; in adulthood we may more clearly understand our experience when we know under what conditions an expressed idea is true or justified. (p. 4)

The opportunity to critically reflect on my experiences will give a voice to personal beliefs, provide a new dimension of knowledge, and enrich meaning-forming through self-awareness (Kegan, 2000; Mezirow, 2000). How I will position myself regarding social justice will inform how I can further transform myself and the community through this autoethnography. To begin my transformative learning journey I will need to understand my own experiences within a social justice context.

Social Justice Theory

Social justice in education is more than educating students about injustices; essentially it is a commitment to work towards creating equity both locally and globally (Kincheloe, 2004). It is recognizing that education is not neutral (Ng, 2003). Educational settings often enable the construction and reestablishment of social inequalities, and acknowledging this challenge would initiate equity on campus (Ng, 2003). Social justice means going against the grain and traditions of an institution. It is a collaborative partnership between learner and educator where the hierarchy of titles can be shed and individuals can learn from one another.

In social justice theory, each person, no matter what the title, plays an integral role within the community, in this case higher education. However, getting rid of those in power is not the only answer (Young, 1990). As an individual engaging in social justice work, one must acknowledge relational stratification, how differences operate within the structures, and their relationship to power (Ng, 2003; Orr, 1991). It is about tearing down those power dynamics while continually questioning one’s own privilege and oppression while society is reconstructing itself (Cochran-Smith, 2004; Ng, 2003; Orr, 1991). In theory, using a social justice perspective will enable transformational learning to occur through the action of storytelling in my autoethnography.

Methodology
My epistemological framework for this autoethnography will be constructionism. I will be gaining knowledge by constructing meaning through my stories, and from the perceptions shared in responses from key university community members from my past (Crotty, 2003). Through autoethnography, I will study the culture of student affairs, social injustices, and myself within the culture of higher education. As described by Chang (2008), autoethnography is “ethnographic in its methodological orientation, cultural in its interpretive orientation, and autobiographical in its content orientation” (p. 48). This reflection upon my experiences will place me within the social context I left in 2006. It will present how I viewed my student affairs experiences and the impact of culture on the decisions I made during my tenure; my stories and memories will reconstruct my past self. I will be constructing and sharing stories about my transformation from a collegiate student leader to a midlevel student affairs professional and how social injustices affected me professionally and personally.

Autoethnographies are generally written in first person, and the researcher uses lived experiences reflexively as a means of looking in-depth at the interactions between self and others (Ellis, 2004). In this case, others will be represented by the responses collected from a survey of up to 30 participants who were university community members with whom I worked as a student affairs professional. The process “functions as a vehicle of self-examination, a means through which to construct self-knowledge through recourse to the familial other” (Renov, 1999, p. 141). With autoethnographic methodology, the process of writing and the finished text are bound rather than disconnected. Autoethnographers strive to present multiple voices and layers of consciousness in the text, which according to Richardson (1994), “releases the censorious hold of ‘science writing’ on our consciousness, as well as the arrogance it fosters in our psyche: Writing is validated as a method of knowing” (p. 929). It is important to emphasize that the purpose of autoethnography is to link the self to culture within a social context (Reed-Danahay, 1997). As a qualitative researcher, I will be the storyteller illustrating my experience as a student affairs professional in the culture of higher education.

Storytelling will give me voice and, potentially, a way to heal from my past experiences with injustice (Berger & Qunney, 2005; Kovach, 2005). My voice will be expressed as “my experiences that I chose to share with you” (Ellis & Bochner, 2002, p. 15). My autoethnography will offer a platform for readers to construct their own knowledge for meaning-making through a reflective process (Belenky & Stanton, 2000). This story will only be the beginning as it will encourage readers to reflect upon their own experiences with social injustices (Clandinin & Conelly, 2000).

Significance of the Study
The intention of this study will be to share my personal journey as a student affairs staff member, and my personal and professional transformation resulting from advocating for social justice within the field of higher education. I will explore potential relationships among empathic distress, compassion fatigue, and my work as a student affairs professional. Telling my story will offer insights for others about taking care of oneself while handling difficult situations in student affairs that result in emotional strain.

Implications
As a student affairs professional, it is my hope that critically reflecting upon experiences of social injustice will give a voice to personal beliefs, provide a new dimension of knowledge, and enrich meaning-forming through self-awareness (Kegan, 2000; Mezirow, 2000). I hope to strengthen other student affairs colleagues and incoming new student affairs professionals to enable them to develop healthy characteristics that will allow them to enhance campus communities by creating a sustainable climate in which social justice can flourish (Figley, 2002).

Not during my academic graduate coursework nor in my in-service student affairs professional training was I ever taught how to cope with what happens to others with respect to social injustices. Instead, I was expected to just know how to cope with the incidents. Because of the complications I faced, and will face, I believe that learning how to cope with compassion fatigue and secondary trauma is important in the field of student affairs. Not only are student affairs staff members faced with daily challenges all professionals experience, but they are also confronted by crises and incidents of social injustice that directly impact students and the higher education community.

Graduate programs could better prepare incoming professionals by helping them gain an understanding of how working towards social justice may affect a student affairs professional’s daily life (Reason, et al., 2005). According to Freire (1970), “In problem-posing education, people develop their power to perceive critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find themselves; they come to see the world not as a static reality, but as a reality in process, in transformation” (p. 83).

Limitations
As an autoethnography, the use of myself as the primary source of data may be questioned (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Sparkes, 2000). The study will be limited to my knowledge of my career in student affairs, and to the survey responses collected from up to 30 university community members with whom I have worked. Some researchers may claim that my design will lack rigor (Lincoln & Denzin, 1994) because I choose to tell my own story. Autoethnography is often discredited with claims of narcissism (Coffey, 1999). Rather, I believe that the use of autoethnography will demonstrate a deeper systematic self-reflection upon my personal journey to yield ultimately a life account of transformative learning (Kegan, 2000; Mezirow, 2000).

I recognize the extent to which I will open myself to criticism and indifference regarding my story; in a parallel manner, this journey will illustrate the barriers my students and I experienced on campus. My autoethnography will have limitations. I potentially could leave out some stories that may have more meaning to the audience than those I share. My perspective will be one among multiple potential perspectives. Instead of going into detail and depth, I may only highlight a story. I may not always remember the celebratory moments, and dwell on the disheartening events or disappointing outcomes. I do recognize that there may be some things I may be unable to explain, not even for myself, out of, for example, self-preservation. However, I intend to focus on the hope I have that my story and research will provide inspiration.

Delimitations
Because this study will only involve myself, it will challenge the norms of scholarly discourse (Ellis & Bochner, 2000). My primary focus will be to provide the audience with my autobiographical story, which “displays multiple layers of consciousness, connecting the personal to the cultural” (Ellis & Bochner, 2000, p. 739).

Definitions
For the benefit of this autoethnographic study, the following definitions will apply:

• Artifacts: Unique data sources that document and record important aspects of a person or culture (Norum, 2008).
• Autoethnography: A highly personalized genre of writing and research where the author uses personal experience to extend understanding of a particular sociocultural context (Chang, 2008; Ellis & Bochner, 2000).
• Compassion fatigue: Compassion fatigue is the intuitive actions and emotions resulting from knowing or learning about a person’s experiencing a secondary response to an unjust or traumatic event, and the connections between caring for the individual, and little for oneself (Figley, 1995, 2002).
• Diversity: A Eurocentric word used to describe many groups and categories of underrepresented people. The word diversity will be used in my research as a descriptive word. I use this word, with hesitation, due to research examining how the word “diversity” minimizes the continued oppression of communities of color and issues of racism in the United States (Cobham & Parker, 2006).
• Dragon Dictate: A discrete speech recognition software that inputs text into a word processor.
• Empathic distress: A vicarious emotional affect based on the apprehension or comprehension of the emotional experiences of others; indistinguishable to what the other person or group is feeling or would be expected to feel (Eisenberg, 2000; Hoffman, 2000).
• Eurocentric: a perspective considered to be the universal truth that fails to take into account the plurality of cultures or a world of multiculturalism (Jung, 2009).
• Social justice: a perspective that strives to include appreciating viewpoints and social responsibility of all, equity in procedural systems, access to and sharing of resources, and a feeling of being safe and protected (Goodman, 2001; Reason, et al., 2005).
• Social justice allies: Brown (2006) explained, “They [social justice allies] challenge exclusion, isolation, and marginalization of the stranger; respond to oppression with courage; empower the powerless; and transform existing social inequalities and injustices” (p. 711).
• Transformative learning: “The process by which we transform our taken-for-granted frames of reference (meaning perspectives, habits of mind, mind-sets) to make them more inclusive, discriminating, open, emotionally capable of change, and reflective so that they may generate beliefs and opinions that will prove more true or justified to guide action” (Mezirow, 2000, p. 8).

Summary
Ultimately, I believe that my autoethnography will encourage discourse concerning the impact of diversity, as well as the often overwhelming demands of being a professional working to achieve social justice within the field of student affairs (Chang, 2002). Reading my story may illuminate the importance of teaching each other how to cope with emotional dilemmas along with taking care of oneself. As Clandinin and Connelly (2000) stated, “Telling stories of ourselves in the past leads to the possibility of retellings” (p. 60).

In this chapter, I provided information on my background as the researcher. I described how I will position myself on the topic of the social injustices in student affairs, having been affected personally and professionally by these experiences. I stated the purpose of my study and my proposed research questions. Additionally, I identified the value of this study. I also provide a summary of the subsequent chapters below.

Chapter 2 provides a review of literature from several disciplines regarding themes guiding my research on my experience with social injustices in higher education. These themes include the context of higher education; student affairs history, philosophy and practice; social justice; compassion fatigue; and empathic distress as they relate to professional transformation resulting from advocating for social justice within the field of higher education. I begin with a short history of higher education followed by the relationship between student affairs and social justice. Finally I end the chapter with how compassion fatigue and empathic distress may be caused when contending with difficulties surrounding social injustices.

In Chapter 3, I present the methodological framework for my autoethnographic study. I incorporate the theoretical perspectives of transformational learning and social justice to guide this study. I describe the methodological principles used and the methods I will employ to collect and analyze data from my story and the responses from key university community members from my past. I will also discuss the trustworthiness and the criteria for the evaluation of this study.

In Chapter 4, I will present my autoethnography to invite the reader into my lived experience. The main purpose is not to analyze or interpret but to understand the influence of the inner voice.

In Chapter 5, I will reveal the responses from the key university community members from my past; my reactions will be woven within the text.

In Chapter 6, I will consider the results of my research in light of themes emerging from the literature, my autoethnography, and the university community members’ responses.

In Chapter 7, I will provide an elaborate discussion of my research. I will consider the implications regarding social justice in higher education, and possible ways to help student affairs professionals affected by compassion fatigue and empathic distress. I will consider the scope and limitations of this study and the possibilities for future research. Additionally, I intend to explore the implications this work will have on my future in higher education.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

The overarching design of this study will be to tell my story of being a student affairs professional, and how promoting social justice on campus affected my life. As I am both the subject and the researcher, I will focus on perspectives from higher education and student affairs to best support my research questions and chosen methodology of autoethnography. This chapter will examine literature focusing on social justice in higher education, the student affairs profession, and social justice advocacy. I will conclude the literature review with a discussion of empathic distress and compassion fatigue and how these theories inform my autoethnographic study.

Higher Education
A subject important to my research is the historical context of higher education in the United States. The following sections will briefly explain higher education’s roots and notable moments in relation to social justice, the power of knowledge, and promoting equitable educational environments.

The Roots
Religion played a significant role in the creation and funding of the first colleges in the United States (Altbach, 2005; Thelin, 2004). Harvard College was founded in 1636, and a combination of religious and secular leadership shaped Harvard and other early colleges based on the English-style university organization model (Altbach, 2005). Early higher education was established to educate like-minded individuals to serve as leaders in society with the ideals set forth by religion serving as its foundation. Although religion was at the fundamental base of these colleges, religious tolerance was not exhibited by the faculty nor the students (Thelin, 2004). In fact, higher education was only open to privileged young men with money, political ambition, or both of these traits (Thelin, 2004). This original collegiate characteristic is still found today, as society continues to privilege access to higher education for those potential students with money or power. Therefore, the inaccessibility to higher education began at its roots.

Since the founding of post-secondary education, there has always been a social compact between colleges and society in the United States: Higher education exists to educate citizens for the betterment of society, and society supports higher education because the educational process helps the common good through teaching the morals and values of society (Thelin, 2004). As our society continues to change, this social compact should evolve to meet the needs of all rather than just the chosen few. To create an equitable environment on campus, and in our society, a dramatic shift in the ways higher education promotes the greater good for society must happen to include all people, and all knowledge.

Notable Moments
To help ensure the social compact between society and higher education, the United States government enacts legislation to administer and regulate educational policy. These notable acts of legislation outlined governmental expectations, as well as increases in accessibility for students.

The Morrill Acts. The Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1867 were first and foremost land grants to expand the United States westward by giving land to eligible states; higher education was not a primary objective (Thielen, 2004). However, both of the Morrill Acts helped to cultivate the growth of universities, as America began to build the future by spurring economic growth, and expanding the western territories of the United States (Thielen, 2004). Both acts were also instrumental to how higher education would teach students in the United States, along with demonstrating the usefulness of education to citizens (Geiger, 2005).

Under the 1862 Morrill Act, if a state was eligible it was given 30,000 acres of federal land to enhance or establish post-secondary institutions (Thielen, 2004). If a state had seceded to be a part of the Confederate rebellion against the United States during the Civil War it was ineligible to receive the land grant (Thielen, 2004). However, as long as race was not an admission criteria, the 1867 Morrill Act extended the grant to southern states (Thielen, 2004). The United States government added an addendum allowing these states to create a separate land grant institution for people of color (Thielen, 2004). Many of the residing states neglected to provide funding to these Black land grant institutions, thus creating an inequitable learning environment for people of color (Thielen, 2004). Even with these financial discrepancies, Black land grant institutions were innovative in helping their surrounding communities by developing extension programs (Thielen, 2004). Thielen (2004) explained, “Black land-grant colleges pioneered a feature that would eventually diffuse to the entire Morrill Act Legacy: the extension program of providing direct advice on crops and home economics to local farm families” (p. 136). Many of the Black land-grant institutions evolved into the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) that still exist today (Thielen, 2004). One of the United States government’s intentions for the 1867 Morrill Act may have been to create equitable educational opportunities for people of color, but it divided education by allowing states to propagate segregation through poorly funded Black land grant institutions. This is an example of how inequities have occurred, with the U.S. government authorizing these discriminating acts in education.

These governmental endorsements, along withadoption of the German-style university model in the late 19th century, built the foundation of what became the American university model for higher education. The Germany-style university model was built upon academic freedom, combining research and teaching, provisions for advanced studies, certification, and organization (Thelin, 2004).

Prestige, philanthropy, and women. In 1900, the Association of American Universities was founded and membership in the organization quickly became a measure of prestige (Thelin, 2004). The association initiated a set of standards for membership and as a consequence those benchmarks influenced the expansion and influx of state and private universities (Thelin, 2004). This period also saw a growth of philanthropic endowments from private wealthy businesspersons who competed with each other to create the university ideal (Thelin, 2004). While high standards and business investments benefitted the institutions, it deepened the inaccessibility for those with no money or upper-class connections to attend higher education. This was because those in power set the agenda for the institutions, including who would attend and what knowledge would be taught – despite the academic freedom seemingly afforded to faculty. During this same time, even though it was unpopular, at least 45 United States institutions began to allow the attendance of woman (Thelin, 2004).

G.I. Bill. The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, popularly known as the G.I. Bill, was passed by Congress in 1944 (Thelin, 2004). The government, as well as society, saw college as a way to create opportunities for the average U.S. citizen, particularly veterans returning from World War II. This act contributed to a thriving student population enrolling in higher education. Individual institutions and the system as whole required new management techniques, increased numbers of administrators, and greater planning due to the high student enrollments (Thelin, 2004). Thus, greater levels of bureaucracy became evident and affected student life.

Civil Rights. Segments of society began to question who should and should not be allowed to attend college (Thelin, 2004). These arguments were usually about the terms of access, equity, and excellence. College campuses became a symbolic focus and battleground for civil rights in American life due to racial segregation and other forms of discrimination (Geiger, 2005). College students across the country joined these conversations for equality and rights in higher education (Geiger, 2005). These civil rights acts were enacted beginning with Brown v. the Board of Education in 1954 and continuing with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972 (later renamed the Pell Grant in 1980) to increase access to education. The intent of these equal opportunity acts was to increase accessibility for all students; however, researchers have concluded that these acts should be considered interest convergence (Ladson- Billings, 1998; DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; McCoy, 2006, as cited in Hiraldo, 2010), where Whites benefitted over the intended equity recipient: underrepresented people.
Three additional pieces of legislation addressed needs for people with disabilities: the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which protects and provides support for people with disabilities who participate in higher education; the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act, which made it easier for qualified students with disabilities to enter postsecondary education; and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990 that provided additional protections (Geiger, 2005; Thelin, 2004). Each act helped create opportunities for students with disabilities from an environmental perspective; however, the societal construction of the disability identity, with society determining what is normal or abnormal for a person (Evans, Assadi, & Herriott, 2005), still needs to be deconstructed in order to create an equitable higher education experience. The creation of a socially just campus involves not just enhancing the operational and learning environment, it also requires deconstructing how society interacts, works, and learns with and from people with disabilities (Evans, et al., 2005).

Competition and the Power of Knowledge
The United States continues to adapt to global economic competition and cooperation; socioeconomic challenges, technological evolution, environmental issues, and terrorism have all led to unsettling changes in higher education. Given the global economy, institutions have had to develop business models to become economically relevant, with their export being academic knowledge (Geiger, 2005). Competition between institutions has increased with the implementation of multiple institutional ranking systems and because the numbers of typical students who have attended higher education–those who are White, age 18-24 years old, and have access to higher education—have decreased (Zusman, 2005). Despite their increased numbers in the U.S., African Americans and Latino Americans continue to be underrepresented in 4-year institutions of higher education (Zusman, 2005). Shifting demographics, economic pressures, and the continued debate over who should be allowed to attend college, continue to perpetuate inequalities in higher education (Zusman, 2005).

Being the U.S.’s primary export, knowledge possessed by students and the campus community must be shared to help the world with its present challenges. A campus does not exist without students, since they are both the primary product and the consumer. Recognizing how the past is still having an impact on the status of higher education, it will be vital to shift societal expectations of who should attend college to include all underrepresented people (Zusman, 2005). One of the fears that may be prohibiting this transformation is how knowledge production might be changed by the diverse demographics of the potential student body. Higher education influences all of society because the knowledge it produces is shared with more than just the enrolled students (Apple, 2007; Calhoun, 2006; Gildersleeve, Kuntz, Pasque, & Carducci, 2010). Educational institutions reproduce the official knowledge, a process known as social reproduction, which maintains our society (Apple, 2007). In a recent article, Gildersleeve et al. (2010) stated,

Social reproduction becomes a guarded and trusted function of education, based on desires to protect one’s social status and to reward individualism. The protectionist and individualist values that in many ways fuel conservative modernization reinscribe racist, sexist, and classist human relations, justified by particular religious convictions and effectively curbing freedom for entire cultural communities, often demarcated along racial and ethnic lines. (p. 89)

Foucault (1982) illuminated the relationship between power and knowledge, as it is unavoidable in the realm of education. Foucault (1980) stated, “The exercise of power perpetually creates knowledge and conversely knowledge constantly induces effects of power … it is not possible for power to be exercised without knowledge, it is impossible for knowledge not to engender power” (p. 52). Considering this statement, one may conclude that because higher education institutions are in a position of power, they hold the knowledge, therefore supporting the power relationship. Although society may choose to accept the knowledge as truth or not, the action itself will inevitably end up reinforcing the power of some and restricting the power of others (Foucault, 1982). Because society continues to allow those in power to set what is and is not taught in education; therefore, it sustains the current production of knowledge to reflect those in power, and not those without a voice. If society begins to give voice to the underrepresented, knowledge sharing will change and power will begin to metamorphose into a socially just community.

Promoting Equitable Educational Environments
If higher education intends to adapt to societal needs it will have to work towards an inclusive campus community by transforming its founding Eurocentric roots. To accomplish this goal, higher education will have to take steps to attract and retain a diverse student population while changing the funding paradigm (Calhoun, 2006). The talents of underrepresented students will go unused unless higher education takes on the responsibility of investing in critical student support resources: staff, faculty, financial support, and equitable environments (Zusman, 2005). Institutions will also have to work collaboratively with the government to increase accessibility for students from socioeconomically challenged communities (Zusman, 2005). According to Freire (1970), in a safe environment, students “come to see the world not as a static reality, but as a reality in process, in transformation” (p. 83). With the creation of a safe social justice environment on campus, students will be able to explore their societal role regarding power and privilege without repercussions (Ayers, 1998).

The Student Affairs Profession
Colleges and universities are expected to prepare students from different backgrounds to live and work in a diverse society (Hurtado, 2005). The position of student affairs professional was developed primarily to support students while in college (American Council on Education, 1937; American Council on Education, Committee on Student Personnel Work, 1949). Therefore, student affairs professionals support and prepare students for living in a diverse society. They accomplish these goals by orienting students to campus, coordinating student activities, operating residential facilities, organizing living arrangements, addressing disciplinary needs, and providing involvement opportunities, using the university or college’s mission as a guide to its core values while supporting students. While serving as a student affairs professional I was informed by the history and philosophy of student affairs, and the importance of diversity in my work with students.

History of Student Affairs
Originally, faculty members not only taught students, they also supervised all activities of students until the instatement of educational officers (i.e., student affairs professionals; American Council on Education, 1937). The American Council on Education met in 1937 to officially formulate a plan and philosophy to help develop students as whole persons and not just intellectually (American Council on Education, 1937). The creation of the student affairs position provided a means for faculty to concentrate their time on research, as stressed in the German model of higher education (Nuss, as cited in Evans & Reason, 2001).
In 1949, the American Council on Education updated the 1937 report with the expectation for student affairs professionals to help individual students become “an integrated whole — as a human personality living, working, and growing in a democratic society of other human personalities” (American Council on Education, Committee on Student Personnel Work, 1949, para. 7). The American Council on Education (1949) report continued,

Individual development is conditioned by the kind of society in which a person lives, and by the quality of interpersonal and group relationships which operate around him [sic]. He is constantly affecting society; and society is constantly shaping him. These relationships constitute the cultural patterns with which higher education must be concerned in its efforts to stimulate and guide the development of each of its students. (para. 14)

Dewey (1938) argued that taking the time to learn by observing students would help educators to plan the best way to meet students’ needs. He advocated for educators to trust their experience and knowledge and to recognize that they were not just teaching curriculum but also shaping society. As a student affairs professional, I was shaping society through the coordination of every program, enacting of each policy, and implementation of each procedure that directly or indirectly would affect students’ experiences. Therefore, observing, knowing, and understanding the needs of students should influence the following of procedures and policies.

Shaping Student Affairs Philosophy
National professional associations have been developing reports to shape student affairs philosophy ever since the early twentieth century. Each report outlines the importance for student affairs professionals to shape the whole student by establishing a supportive campus environment (Evans & Reason, 2001). Evans and Reason (2001) compared many of these reports and summarized how each report demonstrated the significance of “educating all students about diversity, appreciation of differences, and respect for all people, regardless of background” (p. 372). The philosophical statements addressed learning, development, and service to students, but omitted student advocacy as one the foundations for student affairs professionals (Evans & Reason, 2001).

Connection between Student Affairs and Diversity
Higher education institutions are uniquely situated to encourage interactions among students from diverse backgrounds (Pettigrew, 1991, 1998). Research has found that students’ out-of-classroom interactions with diverse peers positively influenced educational outcomes for university students (P. Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & G. Gurin, 2002). Student affairs professionals are often acknowledged as diversity experts to promote and carry out these objectives (Caple, 1996; Sandeen & Barr, 2006).

Higher education should consider these interactions as an asset for student learning because there currently are no other societal environments that promote diversity in these manners (Gurin et al., 2002). Students who learn in these diverse social environments will be more successful in the evolving complex society we live in today (Gurin et al., 2002). Student advocacy should be a part of the philosophical foundations of student affairs, considering the expectations of student affairs professionals to provide students with a supportive campus environment in which diverse interactions can occur on a regular basis.

Social Justice Advocacy
While I worked in student affairs, I found myself fighting for the rights of students. I was compelled to help students gain equitable rights on campus. I did this not because of history nor my position description, but for the simple fact that it was the right thing to do for students. Being a social justice ally to advocate for students may have positive rewards when one is successful, but such actions are often met with challenges in higher education. The next sections will explain the terminology, the challenges, and the benefits surrounding student advocacy on campuses.

What is a Social Justice Advocate or Ally?
I find the terms advocate and ally to be of equal importance in my research; therefore, I use them interchangeably throughout. Washington and Evans (1991) defined an ally as “a person who is the member of a dominant or majority group who works to end oppression in his or her personal and professional life through the support of, and as an advocate for, the oppressed population” (p. 195). Alternatively, Jenkins (2009) defined the meaning of ally by summarizing Reason and Broido (2005): “Allies reside outside of a community or group and may have some of the privileges of the dominant group. Though they are not members of the target group, they actively support the group’s struggles” (p. 28). Jenkins (2009) proposed that student affairs professionals use the term ally in relational terms, advocate when giving voice to underrepresented students, and agent,

as one who acts or has the power or authority to act. An agent is a means by which something is done and a force that causes change. Agents may or may not identify with the community or group on whose behalf they are acting. Agents orient themselves toward action and go beyond developing empathetic relations or vocal oppositions; they work to create change within dimensions of society in which they may or may not have power. (p. 28)

For my autoethnography, I will continue to use ally and advocate to describe the work I attempted to do on campus while hoping to be an agent of social justice. In some ways I did social justice work to help others, while in other situations I was attempting to reconnect to my sense of humanity (Edwards, 2006; Freire, 1970).

Challenges
The boundary between student affairs professional and social justice ally is a fragile one. Professionals who identify as social justice allies are pulled between the administration’s dictates and students’ needs (Harrison, 2010). Student affairs professionals must support the needs of students while balancing the professional consequences of having little training, feelings of isolation, and the potential for job loss.

Feelings of isolation. Being an advocate often means speaking up against the very people you work for to create systematic change. This action may alienate student affairs professionals from their colleagues, thus leading to feelings of isolation and lack of support (Harrison, 2010; Reason & Broido, 2005; Reason & Davis, 2005). Finding like-minded professionals and community members who can listen, support, and work together is important to create a campus culture of equity to help remedy the feeling of isolation (Reason & Broido, 2005).

Little training. A struggle student affairs professionals face in advocating for students is a lack of training (Harrison, 2010). In academic preparation programs and national associations, student affairs professionals are trained and educated to help students. In Harrison’s (2010) study she found there was lack of training regarding the consequences if professionals overstepped their boundaries while challenging the status quo on campus (Harrison, 2010). The lack of training forced student affairs professionals to either work against the system using trial and error strategies or do nothing at all (Harrison, 2010).

Potential job loss. When challenging the institutional system, some student affairs professionals may worry about their careers (Harrison, 2010). Harrison (2010) found that if student affairs professionals had experienced negative job consequences previously, they were less likely to engage in advocacy to confront oppression. Although the consequence of job loss is extreme, it is important for student professionals to understand the campus dynamics before challenging the status quo.

Benefits of Being a Social Justice Ally
Because of the current unwritten expectation for student affairs professionals to serve as the primary diversity champions for campuses (Caple, 1996; Sandeen & Barr, 2006), it may be concluded, rightly or wrongly, that they are considered social justice advocates. Student affairs professionals have a unique power position between the institution’s administrators and the students (Broido & Reason, 2005). It is a responsibility for student affairs professionals to advocate for students while influencing positive change on campus to develop a more equitable environment (Evans & Reason, 2001). Advocating for students on campus will eventually help transform society. The Practicing Diversity Leadership in Higher Education (2006) report stated, “Leaders can challenge the dominant discourse that marginalizes diversity in higher education, making it powerless as a social force and change agent in society and higher education” (p. 86). However, due to the significant Eurocentric roots of higher education, change does not come easily when working for the creation of social justice environments on college campuses.
Student affairs staff members, because of their role, have the opportunity to break down barriers in order to shape and cultivate a socially just campus (Bell, 1997). Some of the barriers experienced may relate to the following components of the environment: “relationships maintained between people, bureaucratic procedures, structural arrangements, institutional goals and values, traditions, and the larger sociohistorical environments where they are located” (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, & Allen, 1999, p. 69). Each person plays an integral role within the college’s or university’s power structures. Because of the core relationship connecting student affairs staff with students (Evans & Reason, 2001), finding the appropriate balance between power, position, personal lives, and policies is essential for a healthy life balance (Manning, 2007). To create a just environment, the transformation must begin within oneself, as a social justice ally (Reason et al., 2005).

Hoffman’s Theory of Empathic Distress
Social justice work is empathic in nature because of how a person (or group) is helping oppressed groups gain equity through the dismantling of power structures and systems. Goodman (2000) stated,“Empathy allows people to connect with others who are different, see their common humanity, and begin to care about the situation” (p. 1067). The arousal of empathy can occur with or without the victims being present; it can happen when a person imagines, reads, discusses, or hears about issues that involve people, groups, or animals suffering (Hoffman, 2001). While social justice allies see the reasoning behind creating change, those in power may not see its significance (Goodman, 2000). For student affairs professionals, “empathic distress” (Hoffman, 2000) may occur due to the lack of resources to support students. Systematic pressures may take precedence over the students’ need for equity on campus. The subsequent areas in this section of the literature review will explore the meaning of empathic distress, prosocial behavior, and challenges from empathic distress.

Empathic Distress
Hoffman (2000) discussed the complexity of empathic distress: “One not only feels distressed but knows this feeling as a response to something unfortunate happening to someone else and to what one assumes to be the victim’s feeling of pain or discomfort” (p. 63). Empathic distress exceeds the respective situation and eventually matures to empathic distress regarding whole groups who may be exploited, oppressed, or otherwise treated unfairly (Hoffman, 2000). Empathic distress may to take many forms, occurring both locally and globally; intermittently with groups in times long past; and beyond familiarity, when empathizing with other ethnic groups, races, or species (Hoffman, 2000, p. 80). While maintaining institutional protocols, student affairs professionals may confront social injustices and their experiences could contradict their personal moral structures, behavioral norms, rules, sense of right and wrong, images of hate, and associated self-blame and guilt (Hoffman, 2000).

Prosocial Behavior
Hoffman (2000) viewed empathic distress as a form of prosocial behavior. Prosocial behavior is defined as someone doing good acts for others without concern about external benefits or penalties (Eisenburg, 2000; Gibb, 2003; Hoffman, 2000). People who engage in prosocial behavior should work together and steer away from those who would take advantage of their compassion (Goetz, Keltner, & Simon-Thomas, 2010). Compassion is the action oriented feeling that drives the desire for one person to help another who is suffering (Goetz, et al., 2010). In other words, the emotional form of prosocial behavior is empathic distress, which leads to the reaction of being compassionate for another person, group, animal, or place.

Challenges of Empathic Distress
One of the challenges when handling difficult situations while exhibiting empathic distress is over-arousal: “an involuntary process that occurs when an observer’s empathic distress becomes so painful and intolerable that it is transformed into an intense feeling of personal distress, which may move the person out of the empathic mode entirely” (Hoffman, 2000, p. 54). Empathic distress may be gauged on an action continuum with one end of the continuum being “individualistic or me-oriented with self-interest” and “selfish concern,” the midpoint described as a “relational view of self-interest with a benefits for both you and me,” and finally, an “interdependent perspective [that] has a greater relational view between you and me to see ‘us’” (Goodman, 2000, p. 1074).
Hoffman (2000) explained self-focused role-taking: “When people observe someone in distress they may imagine how they would feel in the same situation. If they can do this vividly enough, they may experience some of the same affect experienced by the victim” (p. 54). Helping others to achieve a common goal may have a cost. For example, “bystanders may have learned from experience that helping makes one feel good, but the prospect of feeling good may be overridden by helping’s potential cost” (Hoffman, 2000, p. 34).

Persons may avoid or distract themselves from helping another when they are stimulated too much or too often by a victim’s suffering (Hoffman, 2000). Empathic over-arousal occurs when individuals’ personal distress surpasses the victim’s suffering and overwhelms persons so much that they center their attention on themselves and not the victim (Hoffman, 2000). Hoffman (2000) explained that “one way to deal with it [the pain] is to turn off emotionally” (p. 200). This form of empathic distress (Hoffman, 2000) may lead to compassion fatigue (Figley, 1995a, 1995b, 2002).

Compassion Fatigue
In theory, student affairs professionals, because of the nature of their position with students, may experience a degree of compassion fatigue (Figley, 1995a, 1995b, 2002) simply from learning about social injustices directed towards a student. These occurrences may interrupt the ability of student affairs professionals to cope with challenges surrounding social injustices on a campus, blocking their ability to perform their respective duties, and interrupting their personal lives. The context in which the staff come to know about these social injustices may inform the development of systematic structures, policies, and practices that occur on campus (Mezirow, 2000). There is limited information available in regards to how student affairs professionals cope with stress factors created from coping with social injustices. According to Figley’s (1995a) secondary traumatic stress (STS) theory, “People can be traumatized without actually being physically harmed or threatened with harm. They can be traumatized simply by learning about the traumatic event” (p. 4). Thus, the importance of constructing a definition of compassion fatigue, and understanding its effect on student affairs professionals will be “meaning-forming, the activity by which we shape coherent meaning out of the raw material of our outer and inner experiences” (Kegan, 2000, p. 52).

Defining Compassion Fatigue
Compassion fatigue consists of the intuitive actions and emotions resulting from knowing or learning about a person’s experiencing a secondary response to an unjust or traumatic event, and the connections between caring for the individual, and little for oneself (Figley, 1995a, 1995b, 2002). Figley (1995a) defined secondary traumatic stress (STS) as “consequent behaviors and emotions resulting from knowing about a traumatizing event experienced by a significant other – the stress resulting from helping or wanting to help a traumatized or suffering person” (p. 7). Figley (2002) explained, “Repeated exposure among workers, the lack of recognition, and the failure to treat secondary stress contribute to burnout (as cited in Herbison, Rando, & Plante, 1984; Maslach, 1978)” (p. 53). Whether an incident is violence against oneself, or others, a hate crime, social injustices, natural disaster, or a terrorist attack, it is in the best interest of student affairs professionals to learn about compassion fatigue and how to support themselves through appropriate training and understanding to avoid it.

How Compassion Fatigue May Affect Student Affairs Professionals
Student affairs professionals who serve as the first contact for students are often called to respond to student and campus incidents of social injustice, or discuss incidents with the students; staff may be negatively affected by their contact with these events. Although staff may feel a positive effect associated with their ability to help, they may experience secondary negative effects, called compassion fatigue (Figley, 2002). Professionals who have a wide range of responsibilities and work in an overtaxed environment may experience these characteristics in more advanced stages. Figley (2002) proposed that the combined effects of the continuous barriers faced by professionals when hearing stories of injustices and trauma can create a condition that progressively debilitates the caregiver that he has called “compassion stress.”

While professionals may be able to cope with the stressors involved in overcoming various social justice barriers, they may not be able to sustain themselves without intentional concern for a healthy life balance (Gentry, 2002). Most importantly, Gentry (2002) encouraged, “Making best use of available resources to establish respite and sanctuary for ourselves, even in the most abject of circumstances, can have an enormous effect in minimizing our symptoms and maximizing our sustained effectiveness” (p. 47). While I may not have found my life balance while active as a professional, I continue to strive for it. I hope this autoethnography will provide me an additional opportunity to critically reflect and engage others as readers as I examine this topic.

Summary
In this chapter, I have reviewed literature to address my research questions with respect to how student affairs professionals are affected by social injustices professionally and personally. I began this literature review with a brief history of higher education and its relation to social justice. I followed it with a discussion of the philosophy of student affairs and how diversity informs the work. I then reviewed social justice advocacy in higher education. I concluded with an introduction to the concepts of empathic distress and compassion fatigue as they inform my autoethnography exploring the effects of coping with social injustices in higher education.

In Chapter 3, I present the methodology for my autoethnography. To help explore my research questions for this study, I use transformational learning and social justice as my theoretical perspectives. I discuss how I intend to collect and analyze my story, along with the responses gathered from university community members from my past. I complete the chapter with a discussion about the trustworthiness and criteria for evaluation of my study.

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this autoethnographic study is to present a personal narrative exploring my student affairs experience. This chapter will provide a rationale for using autoethnography informed by transformational learning and social justice theoretical perspectives. Next, the methods of data collection and data analysis, as well as ethical considerations and design issues will be discussed to conclude the chapter.

Epistemology
Constructionism will be my epistemological framework for this autoethnography. By using constructionism, I will seek to understand how I interpret the context of my experience (Crotty, 2003). Using a constructionist perspective, I will engage myself by examining my experiences in higher education (Crotty, 2003). By sharing these experiences, I will construct the culture of student affairs along with my understanding of the field. In addition, I will construct the connections between my story and the university community members’ responses in relation to the culture of student affairs.

I will construct myself, though writing, as a way to feel, interpret, and make meaning (Richardson, 1997, 2000) from my experience in student affairs. My experience – autoethnography – will be fragmented through this process and I will have to construct my story from these pieces and their complex interweavings. I will solicit information from a few university community members with whom I interacted at various institutions during my time in student affairs. I will interpret their responses to gain an understanding of those people’s experiences and perceptions of me. The use of university community members’ perceptions of me will be informative for investigating the construction of my self, and critical analysis of these perceptions will deepen my understanding of the complexity of autoethnography, my lived experience, and the culture of student affairs.

It is my objective to create a narrative in this dissertation that will help construct social reality regarding the culture of student affairs, as well as to construct a meaningful transformational learning framework that draws the reader into my autoethnographical text. As with all constructive approaches to research, there is an assumption of multiple realities. My reality will be one view, and the perceptions that others have of me will be another viewpoint. The university community members who serve as participants will have a certain way of viewing their perceptions of me within their life story and I, in turn, will interpret those responses to construct my story. The construction of my story will be the principal pathway to understanding how my self was transformed within the culture of student affairs.

Theoretical Perspectives
My autoethnographic study will present the opportunity to explore the culture of student affairs by deconstructing my self to construct meaning from my experiences within a transformative learning and social justice theoretical perspectives framework.

Transformative Learning Theory
Using transformative learning theory will provide a framework for me to learn about myself and my experience within the student affairs culture. It will help me to construct meaning derived from my lived experience in student affairs. Mezirow (1991) proposed a theory of transformative learning
that can explain how adult learners make sense or meaning of their experiences, the nature of the structures that influence the way they construe experience, the dynamics involved in modifying meanings, and the way the structures of meanings themselves undergo changes when learners find them to be dysfunctional. (p.xii)

Transformative learning is the process by which one reinterprets or enhances previously existing personal knowledge and perceptions from lived experiences to guide future actions (Mezirow, 1990). Transformational learning theory addresses how experiences may change and transform persons in ways they and others may recognize (Merriam, 1993). These unique learning experiences may have an impact on a person’s particular frame of reference. Thus, the learning may change a person’s opinions, feelings, or assumptions about a person, people, or events (Mezirow, 1997). Self-reflection is one of the key components of personal transformation. As individuals develop their own critical reflection skills, they are encouraged to become “autonomous thinkers” (Mezirow, 1997, p. 5). Transformative learning through critical reflection does not mean there is a right or wrong answer; rather, persons use their own knowledge to interpret what they are learning (Mezirow, 1991).

Mezirow (1981) coined the transformational learning concepts “meaning perspectives” to refer to a person’s overall world-view, and “meaning schemes” to suggest the smaller elements that hold distinct pieces of knowledge, values, and beliefs about one’s experiences within the world (p. 293). Meaning perspectives are nurtured in our youth, and are the focus of transformation during adulthood (Mezirow, 2000). These meaning perspectives may evolve and act as lenses to determine how we will interpret the meaning of our life’s experiences. This process is especially true for moments that may provoke intense emotional reactions in a person. It is these meaning perspectives that Mezirow saw as the raw material of the changes that occur in transformational learning.
In this autoethnography about my experience in the culture of student affairs the transformational learning will focus on me finding my voice (McGregor, 2008; Mezirow, 2000). I will be knowledge-gathering by exploring my “meaning perspectives” (Mezirow, 2000, p. 293) from my story and “meaning schemes” (Mezirow, 2000, p. 293) from the responses I receive from the university community members with whom I worked at various points in my career. The meaning perspectives will be the lenses through which I view the world (Cranton, 1994). As I use transformational learning theory to guide my writing, I may identify meaning perspectives that reflect how I came to expect certain outcomes throughout my lived experiences. These perspectives are the direct result of the way one grew up, the culture in which one lives, and what one has previously learned (Mezirow, 1991).

However, when I am confronted with remembering an experience or reading a university community member’s perception of me that cannot be reconciled into my meaning perspective, the experience must be rejected or my perspective must change to accommodate the new experience (Taylor, 1994). Once I gain this new knowledge, I may reconstruct it and respond in a different way (Taylor, 1998). Adaptations in these meaning perspectives may be essential when I am presented with circumstances where my past does not correlate with this new knowledge. Disconnects incite individuals to adapt their meaning schemes and perspectives to make sense of their world. The acceptance of the ideas, diverse cultures, and understanding of social justice will be some of the key elements that will support my growth through critical reflection while writing this autoethnography (Mezirow, 2000).

Critical self-reflection could arguably be said to be based on “knowing the inside of people’s minds” (Foucault, 1982, p. 214) since its explicit intent is to externalize people’s innermost reflections. Critical reflection provides a structured way for me to transform my knowledge by purposefully questioning my beliefs to enable me to grow personally and professionally (Herod, 2003). The opportunity for me to reflect upon my knowledge will encourage me to intentionally interact with the ever-changing world (Mezirow, 1995). Mezirow (1995) argued that the educational task of critical reflection involves helping people to become aware of oppressive structures and practices, developing tactical awareness of how they might change these, and building the confidence and ability to work for collective change. Mezirow (1991) viewed rational discourse as a means for testing the validity of one’s construction of meaning.

Upon exploring my new knowledge by writing this autoethnography based on critical reflection, I may find others who share similar perspectives, and move towards collective social action (Freire, 1970; Mezirow, 1990; Taylor, 1998). The transformative learning process develops a wider “equity mindset” (Love & Estanek, 2004, p. 211) for building the multiple dimensions of knowing and understanding oneself, to create a more inclusive society. Reason et al. (2005) affirmed, “Teaching others about power, privilege, oppression, and the actions to counteract them requires a thorough understanding of the role these constructs play in one’s own daily life” (p. 82). Viewing the way in which we position ourselves with regard to our work will inform how we can transform ourselves and the larger community in which we live and work.

Social Justice Theory
I have been guided by social justice as a theoretical perspective while working on this research. Social justice exists as a goal, a process, and a stance (Grant & Agosto, 2008). It is not only paving a path to equality for all, it is also a means for deconstructing oppressive systems and policies, and the ability to question and critically reflect on viewpoints and actions. Social justice involves being willing to tear down preconceived notions to build a better world.

Social justice theory promotes a mutually equitable and safe environment (Bell, 1997). Social justice is about how we as a people can live together without oppressive structures and systems. It is intended to guide learning and action about privilege, understanding self, inspiring action, demonstrating the realm of influence, providing support for victims of injustice, and implementing aspects of social justice education advocated by Reason, et al. (2005).

A vital part of social justice is finding a voice, and giving voice to the oppressed: The voice being purpose, change, and action. Social justice is about using those voices for discourse and action to understand power and privilege while removing societal barriers (Friere, 1970; Ng, 2003). Those people and groups who make societal decisions and have an impact are in positions of power. The power of a group or individual may sometimes be used for influential good and sometimes for oppressing others. As Foucault (1980) explained, “power reaches into the very grain of individuals, touches their bodies and inserts itself into their actions and attitudes, their discourses, learning processes and everyday lives” (p. 39). Privilege is an “unearned entitlement” for a group who has access to something of value and refuses to allow others to have it only because of the group they belong to, and not because of anything measurable (McIntosh, 1990). Those who are in power and use privilege remain in these dominant roles because they are the ones who create the knowledge and have access to it (Apple, 2007; Foucault, 1980; Yosso, 2005).

Encouraging the exploration of existing structures, challenges, celebrations, policies, and practices are all a part of the social justice discourse. The discourse is not an easy one, and has been made even more difficult given current societal structures (Friere, 1970). Why is the discourse difficult? Differences are often exploited as weaknesses by the dominant group, who creates and places individuals in additional nondominant groups over which they have power (Ng, 2003). This distinction promotes the hierarchal structures within the society. Thus, social justice is a means to recognize the imbalance, deconstruct it, and remove power and privilege. Gerwitz (1998) explained, “A politics of recognition or an ethics of otherness involves not only a commitment to respond to others and otherness but also a commitment to avoiding practicing the power of surveillance, control and discipline upon others” (p. 476).

Because of my administrative role in student affairs, social justice theory will inform my study. My actions, as a higher education administrator, may have perpetuated or extinguished social injustices. This study will construct meaning from my student affairs experience attempting to create an equitable campus environment.

Using both transformative learning and social justice theoretical perspectives will provide a means for me to share my personal story. My autoethnography will explore my transformative learning from campus social injustices that may encourage others to critically reflect upon their perspectives. It is my hope that this story may break down barriers to help create positive change leading to the creation of socially just campuses, while fostering healthy student affairs professional experiences.

Methodology
This study will be based on my story of my experiences while working in student affairs, therefore using autoethnography as my methodology will enable me to make meaning of my experience. Reed-Danahay (1997) explained autoethnography as a writing practice consisting of a highly analytical, personalized account drawing extensively from personal experiences to broaden knowledge of a particular way of life, discipline, or phenomenon within a social context. Its adherents maintain that writing about and through oneself can be done in a scholarly manner (Ellis, 2004; Ellis & Bochner, 2000).

How did autoethnography become my primary methodology? This methodological decision occurred when a colleague in my dissertation course asked, “What is it about Hoffman’s (2000) empathic distress theory that gets you excited about your research?” I replied, “It is finally something I personally can relate to regarding my experiences within the field of student affairs.” The professor who was facilitating the class asked, “Have you considered doing an autoethnography?” I explained, “It had crossed my mind; yet, I have always thought it was a cop-out.” Another colleague said, “I would definitely read your story based upon our previous discussions.” I sat astonished. The professor eloquently stated, “Anyone can write a dissertation, it is how well you write it that truly matters.”
Autoethnography provides a way to show “multiple layers of consciousness, connecting the personal to cultural” (Ellis & Bochner, 2000, p. 739). Employing autoethnography will give me the opportunity to write myself into the studied culture of student affairs by sharing the story of my unique connection to societal issues as a student affairs professional. This process will be deeply introspective as I reflect on my role in the often oppressive environment of higher education and my experience within the student affairs culture. This personal narrative will be written as critical reflection; I will be using my vulnerability, personal feelings, and emotions as a form of knowledge-sharing and as vivid illustrations of cultural phenomena to explore and portray “feelings,” “motives,” and “contradictions” (Ellis & Bochner, 2000, p. 738).

Therefore, the added significance of this study is that it will use the autoethnographic method as an interpretive and autobiographical approach to elicit the depths of my own biases, my own ethical orientation, and my own accounts of the cultural interaction in dialogical exchange with university community members. This goal will be accomplished by inviting up to 30 university community members (students, staff, and faculty) who I view as essential players in my experience in higher education, to participate in a 5-question survey about their perceptions of me. Each of the collected participant responses, personal reflective writing, and journaling will all serve as unique entry points for research. These data sources will also allow me to examine my own personal ethical, moral, and philosophical views or principles through examining my past. This autoethnography will reflect my life experience by connecting me as a researcher with the cultural contexts existing in higher education (Holt, 2003).

With myself as the writer and performer within this narrative, the reader will become the audience. This collaborative relationship will potentially provide a foundation to heal, and to inform the readers about the social injustices in higher education. The possibility to become a part of the story by engaging in the story line morally, emotionally, aesthetically, and intellectually is a benefit of autoethnographical studies (Ellis & Bochner, 2000). Reading this dissertation will potentially provide an opportunity for readers to understand the experiences of a student affairs professional within the higher education system.

Methods
The following sections will describe the methods I will use to collect external and internal data, and to analyze these data for this study.

Data Collection Procedures
For my autoethnography I will be collecting data from external and internal data sources. External data will be constructed from survey responses to questions asking how others perceived me while I was a student affairs professional and internal data will be derived from my lived experience.

Internal data sources. Since autoethnography is the study of oneself as a member of a culture, I will be the primary participant. In autoethnography, data collection involves a method where I will emotionally reflect upon past events within my experience as a student affairs professional (Ellis & Bochner, 2000). I will employ the observation of myself, the oneself. This data collection method requires that I, the researcher, look back on specific, memorable episodes and experiences, paying particular attention to the emotions and physical surroundings during the recollection and record them. Emotional recall is expressed through writing that includes thoughts, events, dialogue, and physical details of the particular event.

To collect my story, I shall record myself through the use of audio voice digital recording software, and Dragon Dictate discrete speech recognition software. These forms of collection will lend to creating a more organic construction of my story. Because the survey responses will inform my story, I shall also record the reading of the responses. In addition, I will record any initial reactions I may have to the participants’ responses. I will also reflect upon my primary personal artifacts including email correspondences, and personal written reflections during my time as a student affairs professional. A unique aspect of a qualitative autoethnographic study is my ability, as the researcher, to let the data emerge as the research and writing is progressing.

External data sources. To explore the perceptions (Chang, 2008; Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Ellis, 2004; Fontana & Frey, 2000; Spradley, 1979; Woolcott, 2004) others had of me, I will be collecting university community members’ responses from an online questionnaire (see Appendix A). I will be contacting up to 30 participants who were students, staff, and faculty with whom I interacted as a student affairs professional at various points during my student affairs career to invite them to participate as additional sources for my autoethnographic study. This intentional sampling will hopefully provide rich perspectives based upon their relationships with me (Jones, Torres, & Armino, 2006).

Creswell (2003) stated that “the idea behind qualitative research is to purposefully select participants…that will best help the researcher understand the problem” (p. 185). These participants will be selected based upon the significant interactions I had with them while I was a student affairs professional. At least 15 percent of the 30 potential participants are Black, while the rest are White. Half of the potential participants may identify as female; and the other half male. Up to 30 percent of the participants may identify as homosexual. The potential participants were born in the period between 1950 and 1984. Since this survey will involve the participants disclosing their personal perceptions about me, my knowing and purposely selecting them will allow me to read their private thoughts about me and connect their responses to my story. The collection of their stories will add to the credibility of my research findings.

I will begin to contact participants through written email correspondence, and follow-up with a phone call, if necessary. Participants will be sent an informed consent form, which includes a contextual summary of the study, along with the questionnaire (Appendix A), through the online survey tool, Survey Monkey, hosted on a secure server. The participants’ responses will serve as additional artifacts for my study. Each response may trigger additional memories, and the participants’ perceptions may or may not align with my own lived experiences.

Data Analysis
In this study, data will be gathered from outside participants and my own recollections. Through data analysis, I will explore my experience by deconstructing my text and the participants’ responses and then construct a summary to capture both perspectives and how they relate to my research questions (Mautner, 2008). I will use the research questions to guide my analysis of data, and I will place heavy emphasis on each of the following issues as my study unfolds. These questions will be consistently a part of my thought processes:

• Upon reflection, how did I respond to social injustices and oppression of students on campus?
• What hurdles did I face in striving to cultivate an equitable campus environment?
• What effects did working to address social injustice in higher education have on me, both professionally and personally?

Analysis of the data will begin with traditional qualitative methods that employ an inductive and iterative approach (Lichtman, 2006, p. 161). Open coding will be the primary process used to analyze the data. I will look through the data without any preconceived notions and code the data as I read. I will review the codes to identify larger themes, list these themes, think about these themes, modify the themes, collect new ideas, add new themes, think about the new themes, and continue this process until no new themes are identified in the data. I will summarize the key themes found based on the meanings I extracted from both the participants’ responses and my story.

Setting
Because this is an autoethnography, my personal, educational, and work settings will set the stage for my story about the culture of student affairs. I grew up in a middle class, White, Christian neighborhood in Minnesota. My education and work backgrounds both took place at predominantly White institutions (PWIs) in the Midwest region of the United States from 1987 to 2006. I received my Bachelor of Science Degree in studio art at a university with just over 5000 students, and my Masters of Education degree in educational leadership at a Midwestern institution double the size of my undergraduate school. Upon graduating with my Masters, I worked for two years at a very small private liberal arts, religiously-based college. I followed that experience with working for almost ten years at a four-year, large research-focused public university.

Participant
I am the primary participant for this autoethnography. I have had many experiences in my life that have given me the opportunity to grow and develop. There have been some experiences that have played an important role in who I am as a person. These experiences will serve as a background to inform my research.

My Family Upbringing
I was born in 1968, and put up for adoption by my biological teenage parents. I was adopted by my parents and raised in a Catholic household, attending Catechism every Wednesday and Sunday until I graduated from high school. My mother stayed home to care for my younger brother and me until I was age 11, then she went to work full-time. My dad started his own home business around that same time. My parents divorced while I was a sophomore in high school. My mother moved out, and remarried my senior year. I met my biological parents when I was 18. They are married and I have a biological younger sister. I am reasonably close to all of my family who live, primarily, in the Midwestern United States.

Over Involved Undergraduate
I attended an undergraduate college that was approximately 80 miles away from home and earned a degree in art. I became involved on campus within the first week of attending college when I was elected to serve as the floor representative for the residence hall council. Then I was elected by my residence hall to serve as the residence hall association representative during my second semester as a freshman. These roles helped snowball me into many more leadership roles throughout college: president of residence hall association, sorority vice president, Panhellenic council president, Greek council president, homecoming queen, student newspaper advertising director, and even a radio deejay. During my last year of undergraduate college I was elected to serve as the Student Senate President. I did all of this while working three part-time different jobs.

While I had every intention of becoming an art director or creative director for an advertising agency, my love of organizations and involvement often distracted me from that dream; not because of relationships, but because the only coursework I felt confident in was art. The other courses just did not seem to help, and professors’ lectures seemed to fly over my head during classes.

Redefining My Career Path
After graduating with my Bachelor of Science degree in art I believed that I would be automatically given the opportunity to be a creative director for an advertising agency. Not only was I an artist, I was involved on campus and held many leadership positions. Alas, the world was in turmoil as a result of the Gulf War, and I had the opportunity to be a furniture sales person for a year of my life. During this time, I was able to make quite a bit of money, but I did not feel valued because I was not doing what I believed I should be doing in my life. The ethics of selling furniture also drained my spirit. I did not feel good about taking money from people with poor credit ratings. Thank goodness I had an adviser from my undergraduate college who let me know I could have a career in student affairs. She handed me a flyer for a graduate assistantship at a larger university in the Midwest. A few months later, I was living in a different state and working on a Master’s degree. My experience at graduate school included working with the Greek community and the programming board.

Creating Change
During my graduate experience, I volunteered with a national association that links education and entertainment for colleges and universities. I held various leadership positions for over 13 years with this non-profit association, including serving as a member of the board of directors. This was a wonderful opportunity to connect and network with student affairs professionals from around the country.

The Professional Work Begins
After graduating with my Masters, I worked at a small, religious-based liberal arts college as the director of student life. I oversaw the residence halls, programming, and the Greek community for two years. The college went through many financial challenges during this time, closing departments, and eliminating various majors. My department was one of the casualties, and I had to find a new job elsewhere.

Elsewhere
Elsewhere started in 1997, as I began my role as assistant director of student activities at a research-based university. During my tenure I had many experiences working with students who were growing as people, including some who needed guidance and support to get to their next level. I worked in large groups, small groups, and one on one with students. I worked with over 600 registered organizations, helped coordinate major events, and directly advised a number of organizations.

Conclusion
My background information does not touch upon social justice as those stories will be a part of my research. Merriam and Caffarella (1999) noted: “The process of transformative learning is firmly anchored in life experience. All human beings have a need to understand their experiences to make sense of what is happening in their lives” (p. 320). These life experiences informed how I worked professionally in student affairs for 13 years.

Ethical Considerations
An ethical challenge will be that my professional experience is limited to only a few institutions and higher education associations. To maximize anonymity, I will use aliases for all students, colleagues, associations, and institutions I mention (Crotty, 2003).

Limitations
Significant personal and observed experiences will become richer as I develop my voice through storytelling (Clandinin & Conelly, 2000). To stay true to my story, it will be important to not censor even the failures I experienced professionally as a student affairs staff member. It will also be a disservice to not discuss how my personal life may have been altered through the obstacles I faced professionally. According to Ellis (as cited in Roth, 2005):
A story’s validity can be judged by whether it evokes in the reader a feeling that the experience is lifelike, believable and possible; the story’s generalizability can be judged by whether it speaks to the reader about their [sic] experience. (p. 238)

Strategies such as systematic self-observation, field journaling, chronicling, inventorying, as well as data collection from participants’ responses and their perceptions of my role in student affairs will contribute to the validation and triangulation of data to address potential limitations.

Validity and Evaluation
A central fact about autoethnography is that the writing process is the primary source from which to obtain data. Because there is not a universal standard for evaluating autoethnography, it will be important for readers to resist the desire to “seek universal foundational criteria lest one form of dogma simply replaces another” (Sparkes, 2002, p. 223). Instead, the evaluation of autoethnography involves a veritable, deep-rooted, and emotional process of considering the study’s emotional and intellectual effect (Richardson, 1995, 2000). Essentially, the criteria traditionally used to evaluate qualitative research should not necessarily guide the academic review process to judge autoethnography (Garratt & Hodkinson, 1999; Sparkes, 2000). Richardson (1994) suggested the following five criteria for evaluating the quality of autoethnographic studies—“substantive contribution,” “aesthetic merit,” “reflexivity,” “impact,” and “expression of reality” (p. 937). An adaptation of Richardson’s (2000) personal narrative techniques will serve as a reference to determine the validity and evaluation of my autoethnography method:

• How does my study contribute to the understanding of the culture of student affairs in higher education?
• How does this piece succeed aesthetically? Is the text artistically shaped, satisfyingly complex, and not boring?
• How did I come to write this text?
• How does this work affect the reader emotionally and/or intellectually? Does it generate new questions or move the reader to action?
• Does this text include dramatic recall for the readers to “relive” the experience with me? (pp. 15-16)

In addition, Feldman’s (2003) criteria will inform the validity of my process. Feldman (2003) encouraged researchers to provide detailed research methods of how and what is collected for data in self-study; demonstrate how the data is constructed for representation of the story; define why one source of data was used over another; and why the study itself should be valued and important. The academic review process of autoethnography will become clearer than it currently is as more members of the academy are willing to challenge themselves within this form of research.

Conclusion
This chapter encapsulated how constructionist epistemology will inform my use of transformative learning and social justice as theoretical foundations for this autoethnographic study. The benefits and constraints of using autoethnography as my research methodology were also discussed. I included information about of the university community members who will be invited to participate in a survey about their perceptions of my role in student affairs as well as information about my background and the settings in which I have studied and worked. Design issues were summarized in the final section of this chapter.

References

• Altbach, P. G. (2001). The American academic in comparative perspective. In P. G. Altbach, P. J. Gumport, & D. B. Johnstone (Eds.), In defense of American higher education (pp. 11-37). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
• Altbach, P. G. (2005). Patterns in higher education development. In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (pp. 15-37). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
• Altbach, P. G., Berdahl, R. O. & Gumport, P. J. (Eds.). (2005). American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
• American Council on Education. (1937). The student personnel point of view (American Council on Education Studies, series 1, no. 3). Retrieved from American College Personnel Association website: http://myacpa.org
• American Council on Education, Committee on Student Personnel Work. (1949). The student personnel point of view (American Council on Education Studies, series 6, no. 13). Retrieved from American College Personnel Association website: http://myacpa.org
• Association of American Colleges and Universities. (1995). The drama of diversity and democracy: Higher education and American commitments. Washington DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from http://aacu.org
• Belenky, M. F., & Stanton, A. V. (2000). Inequality, development, and connected knowing. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 71-102). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Bell, L. A. (1997). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 3-15). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Berger, R. J., & Qunney, R. (Eds.). (2005). Storytelling sociology: Narrative as social inquiry. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
• Brennan, J. (2008). Higher education and social change. Higher Education, 56(3), 381–393. DOI 10.1007/s10734-008-9126-4
• Brennan, J., & Naidoo, R. (2008). Higher education and the achievement (and/or prevention) of equity and social justice. Higher Education, 56(3), 287–302.
• Broido, E. M., & Reason, R. D. (2005). The development of social justice attitudes and actions: An overview of current understandings. In R. D. Reason, E. M. Broido, T. L. Davis & N. J. Evans (Eds.), Developing Social Justice Allies (pp. 17-28). New Directions for Student Services, no. 110. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Brown, K. M. (2006). Leadership for social justice and equity: Evaluating a transformative framework and andragogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 700-745.
• Calhoun, C. (2006). The university and the public good. Thesis Eleven, 84(7), 7–43.
• Caple, R. B. (1996). Contributing to learning: The role of student affairs. New Directions for Student Services, 75, 33-43.
• Chang, H. (2008). Autoethnography as method. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
• Chang, M. J. (2002). Preservation or transformation: Where’s the real educational discourse on diversity? The Review of Higher Education, 25(2), 125-140.
• Clandinin, J. D., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Cobham, B. A., & Parker, T. L. (2007). Resituating race into the movement toward multiculturalism and social justice. New Directions for Student Services, 120, 85-93.
• Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Coffey, A. (1999). The ethnographic self: Fieldwork and representations of identity. London, United Kingdom: Sage.
• Crotty, M. (2003). The foundations of social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The policies and practices of interpretation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 897-992). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Introduction. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 1-43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
• Edwards, K. E. (2006). Aspiring social justice ally identity development: A conceptual model. NASPA Journal, 43(4), 39-60.
• Eisenberg, N. (2000). Empathy and sympathy. In Eds. M. Lewis & J. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (1st ed., pp. 677-691). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
• Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 733-768). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Evans, N. J., & Reason, R. D. (2001). Guiding principles: A review and analysis of student affairs philosophical statements. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 359-377.
• Evans, N. J., Assadi, J. L., & Herriott, T. K. (2005). Encouraging the development of disability allies. In R. D. Reason, E. M. Broido, T. L. Davis & N. J.
• Evans (Eds.), Developing Social Justice Allies (pp. 67-79). New Directions for Student Services, no. 110. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Feldman, A. (2003). Validity and quality in self-study. Educational Researcher, 32, 26-28.
• Figley, C. (Ed.). (1995a). Compassion fatigue: Coping with secondary traumatic stress disorder in those who treat the traumatized. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.
• Figley, C. (1995b). Compassion fatigue as secondary traumatic stress disorder: An overview. In C. Figley (Ed.), Compassion fatigue: Coping with secondary traumatic stress disorder in those who treat the traumatized (pp. 1-20). New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.
• Figley, C. (2002). Brief treatments for the traumatized: A project of the green cross foundation. Westport: Greenwood.
• Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 645-672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
• Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
• Geiger, R. L. (2005). The ten generations of American higher education. In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (2nd ed., pp. 38-70). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
• Gerwirtz, S. (1998). Conceptualizing social justice in education: Mapping the territory. Journal of Education Policy, 13(4), 469-484.
• Gibbs, J. G. (2003). Moral development & reality: Beyond the theories of Kohlberg and Hoffman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Gildersleeve, R. E., Kuntz, A. M., Pasque, P. A., & Carducci, R. (2010). The role of critical inquiry in (re)constructing the public agenda for higher education: Confronting the conservative modernization of the academy. Review of Higher Education, 34(1), 85-110.
• Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion: An evolutionary analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 351-374.
• Goodman, D. J. (2000). Motivating people from privileged groups to support social justice. Teachers College Record, 102(6), 1061-1085.
• Goodman, D. J. (2001). Promoting diversity and social justice: Educating people from privileged groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Grant, C., & Agosto, V. (2008). Teacher capacity and social justice in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feinman-Nemser, J. McIntyre, & K. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 175-200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Greene, M. (1988). The dialectic of freedom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 330-366.
• Harrison, L. M. (2010). Consequences and strategies student affairs professionals engage in their advocacy roles. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 47(2), 197–214. doi:10.2202/1949-6605.6003
• Hayward, C. R. (2000). De-facing power. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
• Hoffman, M. (1978). Empathy, its development and prosocial implications. In C. B. Keasey (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 25, 169-218.
• Hoffman, M. (1989). Empathy and prosocial activism. In N. Eisenberg, J. Reykowski & E. Staub (Eds.), Social and moral values: Individual and societal perspectives (pp. 65-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Hoffman, M. (2000). Empathy and moral Development. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
• Hoffman, M. L. (2001). Prosocial behavior and empathy: Development processes. In N. Smelser & P. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 12230-12233). Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier Science.
• Holt, N. L. (2003). Representation, legitimation, and autoethnography: An autobiography. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(1), 18-28.
• Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pederson, A., & Allen, W. (1999). Enacting diverse learning environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 26. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.
• Jenkins, T. (2009). A seat at the table that I set: Beyond social justice allies. About Campus, 14(5), 27-29. DOI: 10.1002/abc.305
• Johnson, J. R. (2004). Universal instructional design and critical (communication) pedagogy: Strategies for voice, inclusion, and social justice/change. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37, 145-153.
• Jones, S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2006). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative research on higher education. New York, NY: Routledge
• Jung, H. Y. (2009). Transversality and the philosophical politics of multiculturalism in the age of globalization. Research in Phenomenology, 39, 416-437. DOI: 10.1163/008555509X12472022364208
• Kegan, R. (2000). What “forms” transforms?: A constructive-developmental approach to transformative learning. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 35-69). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2005). A developmental model of intercultural maturity. Journal of College Student Development, 46(6), 572-592.
• Kincheloe, J. L. (2004). Critical pedagogy primer. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
• Kovach, M. (2005). Emerging from the margin: Indigenous methodologies. In L. Brown & S. Stega (Eds.), Research as resistance: Critical, Indigenous, and Anti-Oppressive Approaches (pp. 19-36). Toronto, Canada: Canadian Scholars Press.
• Manning, K. (2007). Ethic of care for new student affairs professionals: Keeping them out of the trenches. Student Affairs Leader, 35(19), 6.
• McClellan, G.S., Stringer, J., & Barr, M.J. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of student affairs administration. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• McIntosh, P. (1989). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Peace and Freedom Magazine, pp. 10-12. Retrieved from http://www.library.wisc.edu/
• Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Mezirow, J. D. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education Quarterly, 32(1), 3-24.
• Mezirow, J. (1990). How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning (pp. 1-20). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Muncey, T. (2005). Doing autoethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4(1). Retrieved from http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca
• Ng, R. (2003). Toward an integrative approach to equity in education. In P. Trifonas (Ed.), Pedagogies of difference: Rethinking education for social change (pp. 206-213). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Norum, K. (2008). Artifacts. In L.M. Given (Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, 1 (pp. 25). London, United Kingdom: Sage.
• Orr, D. (1991). What is education for?: Six myths about the foundations of modern education and six new principles to replace them. In Context: A Quarterly of Humane Sustainable Culture, 27, 52-55.
• Pettigrew, T. F. (1991). Normative theory in intergroup relations: Explaining both harmony and conflict. Psychology and Developing Societies, 3, 3-16.
• Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Prejudice and discrimination on the college campus. In J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem and the response (pp. 263 – 279). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Practicing Diversity Leadership in Higher Education. (2006). ASHE Higher Education Report (Vol. 32, pp. 71-107).
• Reason, R. D., & Broido, E. M. (2005). Issues and strategies for social justice allies (and the student affairs professionals who encourage them). In R. D.
• Reason, E. M. Broido, T. L. Davis & N. J. Evans (Eds.), Developing Social Justice Allies (pp. 81-89). New Directions for Student Services, No. 110 San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Reason, R. D., & Davis, T. L. (2005). Antecedents, precursors, and concurrent concepts in the development of social justice attitudes and actions. In R. D. Reason, E. M. Broido, T. L. Davis & N. J. Evans (Eds.), Developing Social Justice Allies (pp. 5-15). New Directions for Student Services, no. 110. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Reason, R. D., Broido, E. M., Davis, T. L., & Evans, N. J. (2005). Developing social justice allies. New Directions for Student Services, No. 110. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Reed-Danahay, D. (1997). Auto/Ethnography. New York, NY: Berg.
• Reed-Danahay, D. E. (1997). Introduction. In D. E. Reed-Danahay (Ed.), Auto/Ethnography: Rewriting the self and the social. New York, NY: Berg.
• Renov, M. (1999). Domestic ethnography and the construction of the “other” self. In J. Gaines & M. Renov, (Eds.), Collecting visible evidence (pp. 140-155). Minnesota, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
• Richardson, L. (2000). New writing practices in qualitative research. Sociology of Sport Journal, 17, 5-20.
• Richardson, L. (1997). Fields of play: Constructing an academic life. New Brunswick, NJ : Rutgers University Press.
• Richardson, L. (1995). Writing stories: Co-authoring ‘The sea monster,’ a writing story. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 189-203. doi:10.1177/107780049500100203
• Sandeen, A. & Barr, M.J. (2006). Critical issues for student affairs: Challenges and opportunities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Schwandt, T. (2007). The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Thielen, J. R. (2004). A history of American higher education. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins Press.
• Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Description, analysis, and interpretation in qualitative inquiry. In Transforming qualitative data (pp. 9-54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press.
• Yosso, T. J. (2005). Who’s culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91.
• Young, I. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference (16-65). Princeton, UK: Princeton University Press.
• Washington, J., & Evans, N. J. (1991). Becoming an ally. In N. J. Evans & V. A. Wall (Eds.), Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals on campus (pp. 195-204). Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association.
• Zusman, A. (2005). Challenges facing higher education in the twenty-first century. In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (2nd ed., pp.115-160). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.

 

APPENDIX A: Questionnaire
To ensure confidentiality to the extent allowed by law, the following measures will be taken. Participants will be able to select a unique name that will be used on the questionnaire instead of their name. If the results are published, your identity will remain confidential.
Please select your unique name: ___________________
You can skip any questions that you do not wish to answer.

Please explain how you may know me:

• What was your initial reaction to me?
• Considering your experience working with me, how did I handle social injustices? Could you describe a specific incident or incidents?
• Is there anything you wish I had done differently? What would you keep the same?
• What hurdles did you face as a (student, faculty, staff member, colleague) in striving to cultivate an equitable environment? How did or didn’t I support you with these efforts?
• Did you notice any effect working to address social injustices in higher education had on me, professionally and/or personally?
• Is there anything else you would like to share about Laura Bestler?

APPENDIX B: Letter of Recruitment
Dear ,
Hello to you, . I do hope your year is going well. I am in the process of working on my dissertation in Educational Leadership at Iowa State University. My dissertation topic will be an autoethnography titled, “Exploring the effect of social injustices.” It will be reflecting upon my personal account as a student affairs professional in higher education. Your recollection about working with me during my time in student affairs will serve as an important information source for my study. Because of our unique relationship, I hope you will be able to take a few moments to answer the 6 questions.
At the beginning of the study is the Iowa State University Informed Consent Form. If you agree to participate as an informant for my study, please accept the terms and you will gain access to the questionnaire. If you choose to not accept, no worries as you will be exited out of the study. The questionnaire may take up to 45 minutes to complete. Your participation will last while you are completing the questionnaire.
To ensure confidentiality to the extent allowed by law, the following measures will be taken: You will be able to select a unique name that will be used on the questionnaire instead of your actual name. If the results are published, your identity will remain confidential.
If you have any questions about the study, please contact me at bestler@iastate.edu or 215-272-7993.
Sincerely, Laura Bestler