Final Dissertation - acuho-i

Transcription

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY TO IDENTIFY COMPETENCIES FOR
ENTRY-LEVEL RESIDENCE LIFE PROFESSIONALS
by
Brian Joseph Haggerty
June 23, 2011
A dissertation submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of
the University at Buffalo, State University of New York
in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Educational Leadership and Policy
UMI Number: 3475322
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3475322
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
ii
Copyright by
Brian Joseph Haggerty
2011
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to extend my sincere gratitude to members of my dissertation committee
for their time and support in helping me complete this study and the final document. To
Dr. Raechele Pope, thank you for agreeing to serve as the chair of my committee and for
providing a focus to this work. I am appreciative of the consideration you have given to
my research and to my writing. I have a better document because of your attention to it.
To Dr. Henry Durand, I appreciate the time you have spent with me over the years,
discussing my topic and my progress in this endeavor. You have been available to a
fault, and I am so thankful. Your patience and mind have benefitted me greatly. Finally,
to Vice President Dennis Black, thank you not only for your work as a member of this
committee, but also for your leadership within our university. I have enjoyed having you
as a resource in this project, but have also come to appreciate all of the different
resources you have provided to me as a student and as a professional. I continue to be
grateful for the opportunities provided to me to both work with you and for you. I wish
to also acknowledge Dr. Marcia Roe-Clark for her work as my advisor and for her initial
work with me as I began the dissertation process.
When I think about the amount of writing and editing I have done over the past
few years, it is this piece that I looked forward to writing the most. Though I doubt what
I will write here will adequately convey the immense gratitude I have for those who have
brought me to this place, I offer this as a means of sharing just a little bit about how
grateful I am.
To begin at the beginning, I was blessed with two amazing parents who have been
nothing but supportive in everything I have chosen to pursue. This degree being no
iv
exception, I am so pleased to be able to share this moment with my parents Dan and
Laura Haggerty. Their sacrifices have resulted in my good fortune, to be able to pursue
the education, career and life I wanted. Though they instilled the value of working hard
in school for me at an early age, no amount of higher education could instill in me the
values they have taught me over a lifetime. For this, I am forever grateful.
Familial support came from many other sources, including my brother Steven
Haggerty. Much as he functions in day to day life, he has always been there to remind
me to stay focused and to get it done. In addition, his ability to lighten the mood was
especially appreciated in these past few months. Countless other family members like
cousins, aunts and uncles, and family-friends have all provided support in their own
ways, with pep talks, gentle prodding, and much needed humor. Through this process, I
have also been welcomed into another family. Never pressuring, and always
encouraging, my in-laws Beth and Francis Hardy and Joe and Val Zampogna have been a
tremendous positive support to me in this endeavor. While I didn‟t have them with me as
I started my doctoral program, I am so very happy to have them with me as I finish it.
The actual research itself would not have been possible without the generous
endorsement of the Association of College and University Housing Officers –
International (ACUHO-I), and the Northeast Association of College and University
Housing Officers (NEACUHO). An incredible network of colleagues from these
organizations and the National Housing Training Institute (NHTI), including Ms. Joanne
Goldwater, Dr. J. Diane Porter, Dr. Doug Hallenbeck, and Ms. Stephanie Ketterl were
especially helpful in speaking with me or helping me secure sponsorship and membership
lists.
v
I have been quite fortunate to work in a variety of settings rich with incredible
colleagues. I have found peers, supervisors, and staff at the University at Buffalo,
Buffalo State College, and the College Student Personnel Association of New York State
(CSPA-NYS) to have given their time and energy to support me in pursuing this degree,
and in some cases taken on more so that I could focus on school work. I am especially
thankful to Dr. Matt Weigand who offered many hours of editorial support to my work. I
respect him as a scholar-practitioner and I am fortunate to have had him as a resource.
Every doctoral student has their story, and mine is shared with some great
academic partners in this process. I did all of the things you‟re not supposed to do while
pursuing a doctorate – I got married, bought a house, had a kid, and changed jobs (three
times), and would not have made it through the coursework, the writing, or any of the
other things life throws at you without some of my fellow classmates, including Justin
Alger, Elizabeth Musick, Amy Wilson, Danielle Johnson, and Cathleen Morreale. In this
sometimes lonely process, they understood (sometimes better than anyone could) the
challenges of getting this thing done. Thank you for helping me finish.
As I wrap up this experience and look to the next professional path, I am mindful
of the strong foundation I was given very early on in my career by Dr. S. Regina Sargent
and Dr. Patrick Love. I am indebted to their early and continued influence on me as a
professional. As my mentors, cheerleaders, and sounding board, their voices will help to
shape my next professional steps. I respect them both tremendously.
Finally, I offer the biggest thank you to my best friend and roommate, my
beautiful and patient wife Melinda. I think of the incredible journey that brought us to
this place, where we will both finish at the same time. I cannot wait to walk across that
vi
stage with her! Very little about this process has been easy, but the walk-always have
been significant. I have learned that she is an amazingly tolerant individual, with many
gifts. I am very fortunate. She gives of herself more than she takes. She offers
unconditional support, even when I have not been the easiest person to give it to. There
is no doubt in my mind that I only finished because of her support and encouragement;
this degree is as much mine as it is hers. I am indebted to her for this, and for the
amazing child she has given me in Camryn. As we both finish our dissertations, I look
forward to many years celebrating dissertation-free weekends!
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... xiv
CHAPTER I ........................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
Background ................................................................................................................. 4
Issues in Residence Life Employment .................................................................... 7
Use of Competencies in Professional Preparation and Professional Development
............................................................................................................................... 12
Competencies for Student Affairs and Residence Life Professionals .................. 16
Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................... 21
Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 22
Research Questions ................................................................................................... 23
Significance of the Study .......................................................................................... 23
Definition of Terms ................................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER II ..................................................................................................................... 27
Review of the Literature ............................................................................................... 27
Residence Life Work ................................................................................................ 29
Recruitment, Retention and Attrition in Residence Life .......................................... 35
Professional Development in Student Affairs and Residence Life ........................... 42
Student Affairs and Residence Life Competencies................................................... 52
viii
Student Affairs Competencies .............................................................................. 53
Mid-level student affairs competencies ............................................................ 64
Entry-level student affairs competencies .......................................................... 68
Residence Life Competencies ............................................................................... 78
Senior-level residence life competencies .......................................................... 81
Entry-level residence life competencies ........................................................... 85
Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................... 90
CHAPTER III ................................................................................................................... 92
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 92
Description of the Participants .................................................................................. 92
Expert Participants ................................................................................................ 94
Entry-level and Supervisor Participants................................................................ 96
Research Design ...................................................................................................... 102
The Delphi Method ............................................................................................. 102
Strengths and Weakness of the Delphi Method .............................................. 105
Variations of the Delphi Method .................................................................... 108
Modifications and Considerations for This Study .......................................... 111
Procedures ............................................................................................................... 115
Data Collection ................................................................................................... 115
Technology Pilot test ...................................................................................... 115
Round One ...................................................................................................... 117
Round Two...................................................................................................... 118
Round Three.................................................................................................... 119
Data Analyses ..................................................................................................... 119
Round One ...................................................................................................... 120
Round Two...................................................................................................... 121
Round Three.................................................................................................... 122
Research Questions ......................................................................................... 122
CHAPTER IV ................................................................................................................. 125
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 125
Analyses ...................................................................................................................... 126
Research Question 1 ........................................................................................... 127
ix
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 166
CHAPTER V .................................................................................................................. 170
Discussion ................................................................................................................... 170
Important Competencies According to Whom? ......................................................... 172
Important Entry-level Residence Life Competencies Identified by Entry-level
Professionals ........................................................................................................... 173
Important Entry-level Residence Life Competencies Identified by Supervisors .... 179
Important Entry-level Residence Life Competencies Identified by Experts .......... 187
Differences Between The Participant Groups ......................................................... 193
Implications ................................................................................................................ 201
Limitations .................................................................................................................. 204
Recommendations for Future Research ...................................................................... 206
Summary and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 208
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 212
Appendix A: Letter of endorsement from ACUHO-I................................................. 213
Appendix B: Solicitation of Recommendations for Expert Participants .................... 215
Appendix C: Website to Submit Recommendations for Expert Group Participants .. 218
Appendix D: Round One Invitation to Recommended Experts ................................. 223
x
Appendix E: Round One Invitation to Entry-level and Supervisor Participants ........ 226
Appendix F: Informed Consent for All Participants, All Rounds .............................. 229
Appendix G: Demographic Questionnaire for Expert Participants ............................ 232
Appendix H: Demographic Questionnaire for Entry-level and Supervisor Participants
.................................................................................................................................... 235
Appendix I: Round One Survey for All Participants .................................................. 240
Appendix J: Round Two Invitation to All Participants .............................................. 244
Appendix K: Round Two Survey for Entry-level Participants ................................... 247
Appendix L: Round Two Survey for Supervisor Participants .................................... 262
Appendix M: Round Two Survey for Expert Participants ......................................... 276
Appendix N: Round Three Invitation to all Participants ............................................ 287
Appendix O: Round Three Survey for Entry-level Participants ................................. 290
Appendix P: Round Three Survey for Supervisor Participants .................................. 305
Appendix Q: Round Three Survey for Expert Participants ........................................ 317
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 326
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Scholarly Work Identifying Student Affairs Competencies ................................ 59
Table 2 Scholarly Work Identifying Mid-Level Student Affairs Competencies .............. 67
Table 3 Scholarly Work Identifying Entry-level Student Affairs Competencies ............. 76
Table 4 Scholarly Work Identifying Residence Life Competencies ................................ 82
Table 5 Scholarly Work Identifying Senior-level Residence Life Competencies ............ 83
Table 6 Scholarly Work Identifying Entry-level Residence Life Competencies ............. 88
Table 7 Description of Expert Participants ....................................................................... 96
Table 8 Description of Entry-level Participants................................................................ 99
Table 9 Description of Supervisor Participants .............................................................. 101
Table 10 Number of Entry-level Participants by Round ................................................ 127
Table 11 Round Two Competencies Identified by Entry-level Participants, Rank Ordered
Based on Group Mean .................................................................................................... 127
Table 12 Round Three Competencies Identified by Entry-level Participants, Rank
Ordered Based on Group Mean ...................................................................................... 131
Table 13 Competency Themes Identified by Researcher for Round Three Competencies
Identified by Entry-level Participants ............................................................................. 137
Table 14 Number of Supervisor Participants by Round ................................................. 140
Table 15 Round Two Competencies Identified by Supervisor Participants, Rank Ordered
Table 16 Round Three Competencies Identified by Supervisor Participants, Rank
Ordered Based on Group Mean ...................................................................................... 143
xii
Identified by Supervisor Participants .............................................................................. 149
Table 18 Number of Supervisor Participants by Round ................................................. 152
Table 19 Round Two Competencies Identified by Expert Participants, Rank Ordered
Table 20 Round Three Competencies Identified by Expert Participants, Rank Ordered
Identified by Expert Participants .................................................................................... 159
Table 22 Frequencies for Competencies Proposed by All Three Participant Groups .... 161
Table 23 ANOVA Table for Competencies Proposed by All Three Participant Groups 164
Table 24 Tukey‟s Post Hoc Analysis for Competencies Found to Be Statistically
Different Between Participant Groups ............................................................................ 165
Table 25 Entry-level Residence Life Competencies Identified by Entry-level Residence
life Professionals ............................................................................................................. 177
Table 26 Entry-level Residence Life Competencies Identified by Supervisors of Entrylevel Residence life Professionals ................................................................................... 185
Table 27 Entry-level Residence Life Competencies Identified by Residence life Experts
......................................................................................................................................... 192
Table 28 Competencies Identified by All Three Groups ................................................ 194
Table 29 Chi-Square Analysis of Competency Category Distribution for All
Competencies for All Participant Groups ....................................................................... 195
xiii
Table 30 Chi-Square Analysis of Competency Category Distribution for the Top 20 Most
Important Competencies for All Participant Groups ...................................................... 196
xiv
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to identify the competencies important for success
in entry-level residence life positions. The literature suggests that student affairs
professionals must ascertain which skills require further development in order to identify
professional development activities that will increase proficiency and improve overall
practice. A structured professional development model for entry-level residence life
professionals may help to reduce role ambiguity and burnout, leading to reduced attrition
rates and increased retention. A three-round modified Delphi study was conducted to
identify three sets of competencies important for success in entry-level residence life
positions. Three different groups of participants were used for this study, (a) those in
entry-level residence life positions, (b) those who currently supervise entry-level
residence life professionals, and (c) residence life experts.
Participants were members of the Northeast Association of College and
University Housing Officers (NEACUHO). Nominations were solicited for the expert
participant group, and individuals in the entry- and supervisor groups were selfidentified. At the conclusion of the study, 28 entry-level participants completed all three
rounds of the modified Delphi study producing 114 individual competencies. There were
99 individual competencies identified by the 17 supervisor participants who completed
all three rounds. Finally, the 11 expert participants who completed all three rounds
proposed 66 individual competencies.
The resultant sets of competencies identified by the three participant groups offers
a current inventory of the skills deemed important by those groups. Most competencies
identified were assigned a rating indicating some level of importance, though some
xv
differences between the groups are seen in the competencies identified as most important.
The identified competencies help to highlight similarities and differences between
stakeholder groups. Without an agreed upon set of competencies that are important for
success in entry-level residence life positions, there will continue to be debate as to which
competencies should guide the preparation, selection, training, development, and
evaluation of entry-level residence life staff. The development of an exhaustive list of
competencies, identified by different stakeholder groups, will help to inform the
discussion around the development of an agreed upon set of competencies for entry-level
residence life professionals.
1
CHAPTER I
Introduction
More than 22 million undergraduate students were enrolled at institutions of
higher education in the United States during the 2007-2008 academic year (Chronicle of
Higher Education, 2010b). To help meet the varying academic and personal needs of
these students, individuals are employed in professional student affairs positions at
colleges and universities. These professionals are responsible for the intellectual, social,
and personal development of the whole student while supporting the academic mission of
their institution (Nuss, 2003). Though the day to day work of student affairs staff varies
from institution to institution due to differences in size, type, tradition, and culture, one
consistent feature of student affairs work is that it is often organized into and managed by
different functional areas (Dungy, 2003). Student affairs services are clustered together
based on the nature of their commonalities and purposes (Ambler, 2000). Some of the
traditional student affairs functional areas include admissions, financial aid, residence
life, and counseling and psychological services (Dungy, 2003). The largest functional
area, employing the most student affairs staff, is residence life (Frederiksen, 1993).
Dungy (2003) states that the primary responsibility of residence life is to provide
healthy, clean, and safe environments that support the academic mission of the
institution. In discussing the programs and services offered by residence life staff, Schuh
(1996) describes a variety of residence life programs available on any campus, including
social, recreational, cultural, and academic programs. Residence life professional staff
facilitate programs and services in anticipation of, and in response to, the developmental
and educational needs of the students they are working with. Residence life plays a
2
critical role, not only through its impact on students and their education, but on the field
of student affairs itself (Collins & Hirt, 2006). Entry-level residence life positions are the
most common entry-level position in student affairs, often serving as an entry point into
the profession (Belch & Mueller, 2003; Collins & Hirt, 2006).
The Association of College and University Housing Officers – International
(ACUHO-I), the major professional association for those working in residence life
(Dungy, 2003), has acknowledged concerns about the current state of the entry-level
residence life position, particularly with regard to recruitment, retention, and attrition of
entry-level residence life staff (Krajnak, 2001). Topics explored in one or more recent
studies examining entry-level residence life employment issues have included the quality
and nature of professional and personal life, remuneration, a perceived lack of interest in
residence life as a career path, the ability to pursue professional development
opportunities, relationships with other professionals on campus, mentorship and
supervision, burnout, and role ambiguity (Association of College and University Housing
Officers - International [ACUHO-I], 2008; Belch & Mueller, 2003; Collins & Hirt, 2006;
Jennings, 2005; St. Onge, Ellett, & Nestor, 2008). These studies suggest that many of
these issues may contribute to retention and attrition problems in entry-level residence
life positions. The training and specific skills needed for entry-level residence life
professional positions have not been explored in great depth.
Collins and Hirt (2006) contend that there are considerable investments to be
made in the recruitment and training of entry-level residence life staff, and that reducing
attrition and increasing effectiveness would be beneficial to entry-level residence life
staff and the departments that employ them. In another study sponsored by ACUHO-I,
3
career commitment among housing professionals was examined, and role ambiguity was
found to have an impact specifically with entry-level residence life professionals
(ACUHO-I, 2008b). The report recommended training and orientation for entry-level
residence life staff that focused on clarifying tasks and responsibilities, and skill building,
as possible ways to reduce role ambiguity amongst this professional group. Further,
Belch and Mueller (2003) argue that solid training and education for entry-level residence
life staff is essential. They state that a lack of entry-level residence life professionals
with strong education and training will significantly impact community development,
student learning, and students‟ personal development. Belch and Mueller, as well as
ACUHO-I (2008b) and Kretovics and Nobles (2005) suggest that an examination of the
training needs of entry-level residence life professionals and the skills critical for
successful practice in these professional positions may be warranted.
This study attempted to identify specific competencies needed for success in an
entry-level residence life position. It was anticipated that identifying competencies for
success could assist in developing appropriate training and professional development
models for entry-level residence life staff. This type of training and professional
development may reduce recruitment and retention issues within these positions. This
first chapter serves to introduce the study. Information about the background of student
affairs and residence life work, entry-level residence life employment issues, and the
professional preparation and development of staff, will be presented. This will be
followed by the statement of the problem and the purpose of the study. The research
questions that guided this study will also be presented. Finally, the significance of the
study is asserted along with a definition of terms to be used throughout this study.
4
Background
Student affairs and residence life work is grounded in the earliest roots of
American higher education (Frederiksen, 1993). Influenced by a parental role the earliest
faculty had with their young students, student affairs later evolved into organizational
roles as deans of men and deans of women. Today student affairs staff function in
myriad organizational roles. The student affairs field has changed over time, both in its
scope and day to day responsibilities (Nuss, 2003). The profession has its own history
and philosophical bases, with its own set of values and beliefs (Barr, Desler, &
Associates, 2000).
Rhatigan (2000) states that The Student Personnel Point of View (American
Council on Education [ACE], 1937) is arguably one of the student affairs profession‟s
foundational documents. It outlines basic purposes of higher education and describes the
core philosophical assumptions of the student affairs field, which emphasizes not just the
student‟s intellectual development, but their development as a whole person. Essentially,
the document suggests that those charged with facilitating the development of students
should consider all of the student‟s developmental needs, including their physical needs
and social relationships, as well as their intellectual capacities. Shaffer (1991) explains
“student development” as an application of human development principles and cites this
as the theory base and philosophy used by the student affairs field. Today, the student
affairs profession includes a broad approach to ensuring the development and well-being
of students both inside and outside of the classroom. This holistic approach is prevalent
in the literature outlining the espoused values of the student affairs field (R. Young,
2003). Residence life is holistic in nature due to its unique role in meeting the many
5
different needs of students through programs and services, including the need for shelter,
academic support, and leadership development.
On residential college campuses, residence life has a significant influence on the
experiences of students (Blimling & Miltenberger, 1981; Pascarella, Terenzini, &
Blimling, 1994; Schuh, 1996). The findings of a meta-analysis of thousands of studies
about the impact college has on students suggest that living on campus positively
influences general cognitive growth and intellectual development (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005). Pascarella and Terenzini conclude that there is a positive and
statistically significant relationship between living on campus and college persistence and
educational attainment. Further, Blimling (1993) argues that residence life provides more
opportunities to influence the development and growth of students than other student
affairs functional areas. Given the impact residence life has on students‟ experiences,
development, and success while in college, the training and ongoing development of its
professional staff, and particularly its entry-level staff, may be critical to the success of a
residence life program and its students (Belch & Mueller, 2003).
Within residence life there are a variety of staff roles and staff levels. Although
staff titles vary from campus to campus, the tasks performed are generally consistent
(Schuh, 1996). The professional staff member with direct responsibility for the
supervision of a residence hall or halls, and its staff of resident assistants (RAs) or
resident advisors, is the resident director (RD) or hall director (St. Onge, Ellett, & Nestor,
2008). The RD is the typical entry-level professional position in residence life (Schuh,
1996) and usually requires the staff member to live in the residence hall or complex he or
she oversees. RAs, on the other hand, are often upper-class undergraduate students who
6
live on residence hall floors and provide services to resident students. RAs generally
assess student needs and plan activities, conduct administrative duties, and enforce
institutional policies. RAs are supervised by RDs. Area directors typically have several
years of full-time experience, provide supervision to RDs (who each direct an individual
building), and often report to a senior residence life staff member or the person who has
overall responsibility for the residence life program. In larger systems there are often
additional professional staff at the mid- and senior-level who have specific
responsibilities. Examples of these responsibilities are in the operations area where
duties might include responsibility for room assignments or budget preparation, or in the
physical facilities area where duties might include oversight of housekeeping services or
rehabilitation and construction plans (Schuh, 1996). Though the staffing model used may
differ from campus to campus, residence life‟s role is consistent (Jones, 2002a); residence
life staff seek to provide safe, academically supportive living environments for students.
While residence life employs the largest number of staff members in student
affairs (Collins & Hirt, 2006), and there are many different staffing levels within
residence life, consistent and considerable concerns have been raised specifically about
the entry-level position in this functional area. Some have noted decreases in the number
of qualified or interested candidates for these positions (ACUHO-I, 2008b; Belch &
Mueller, 2003). Others have stated that retaining staff in these positions is a matter the
field should concern itself with, and that perhaps this can be addressed through better
training and professional development for entry-level residence life staff (ACUHO-I,
2008b). Given the number of staff employed in these positions, residence life
employment issues could have a potential impact on the student affairs field. In the next
7
section, a brief introduction to current issues in residence life employment will be
presented. This will be followed by a review of previous scholarship examining the use
of competencies in the professional preparation and professional development of student
affairs practitioners; and finally, an overview of the literature identifying competencies
for student affairs staff in general, and residence life staff in particular.
Issues in Residence Life Employment
The entry-level residence life position is a unique student affairs position (Englin,
2001). Entry-level residence life professionals often live in the same environment in
which they work, creating the potential for a significant number of personal and
professional challenges to arise for these professionals. For example, it may be more
difficult to balance work and personal commitments, or to distinguish them as separate,
due to working in the same place that one lives. Palmer, Murphy, Parrott and Steinke
(2001) attribute the high potential for burnout among entry-level residence life staff to
stress-related factors. A few examples of the stress factors they identified in their
international study of burnout among residence hall directors included: role stress
associated with being accountable to multiple constituencies such as parents or faculty;
continual or excessive stimulation related to interpersonal contacts due to working and
living with students in the same environment; inadequate supervision; inadequate rewards
such as opportunities for professional development or involvement on campus
committees; poor living conditions; and poor health habits such as poor diet or a lack of
exercise. Although some scholars have identified challenges faced by many entry-level
student affairs professionals (Amey & Reesor, 2002; Magolda & Carnaghi, 2004; Renn &
8
Hodges, 2007; Renn & Jessup-Anger, 2008), residence life staff may face additional
challenges.
In a study examining the nature of professional life for residence life staff, Collins
and Hirt (2006) suggest that residence life professionals‟ perceptions of work life are
unique compared to those of other student affairs professionals. They also note that due
to the fact that residence life employs the largest number of entry-level student affairs
professionals, success in the first professional position may increase the chances for later
career success in student affairs. This suggests that the experiences of entry-level
residence life staff, and the impact of those experiences on entry-level residence life
employment issues, may merit further empirical study.
In 2004, ACUHO-I commissioned research on issues concerning entry-level
residence life positions, specifically recruitment and retention of these staff members.
The research was undertaken in response to some institutions reporting fewer candidates
applying for the entry-level residence hall director position (ACUHO-I, 2008b). Six
studies were conducted by ACUHO-I, examining (a) the recruitment and retention factors
for entry-level residence life staff positions internationally; (b) the elements of the RD
position and work environment, as well as factors that predict current RD attitudes
toward their organization and their career; (c) the best practices in hiring and retaining
entry-level, live-in staff; (d) the nature of the mentoring and supervisory relationships
that contribute to staff attrition and retention; (e) the image of the RD job and the
residence life profession among potential applicants; and (f) the impact of professional
development on the retention of residence life staff. The topics chosen reflect the breadth
9
of residence life employment issues that potentially affect recruitment and retention in
entry-level positions.
The recruitment and selection of entry-level residence life staff has been
examined in the literature for some time (American College Personnel Association
[ACPA], ACUHO-I, & Syracuse University Office of Residence Life, 2002; Kazlauskas
& Ellett, 2003; Kretovics & Nobles, 2005; Ostroth, 1981b). In fact, Jahr (1990), as well
as Kazlauskas and Ellett (2003), identify the most critical areas for the housing
profession to be the recruitment, preparation, and retention of young professionals. The
recruitment of entry-level residence life staff has implications for the success of both the
individuals hired as well as the success of employing departments. In discussing
challenges associated with entry-level residence life recruitment, Belch and Mueller
(2003) cite a perceived lack of interest in the entry-level residence life position as a major
concern for the residence life field. The concern with the decline in interested and
qualified candidates for entry-level residence life positions has also been cited by others
in the literature (ACUHO-I, 2008b; Krajnak, 2001; St. Onge, et al., 2008). Beyond
recruiting challenges, Ostroth (1981b) discusses difficulties in selecting qualified
residence life staff, noting that it is a challenge to identify the specific competencies
possessed by candidates for entry-level residence life positions and that selecting the
most effective and skilled staff has the potential to determine the success or failure of a
residence life program. His research identified specific competencies used in hiring
entry-level residence life staff. A later study, conducted by Kretovics and Nobles (2005),
also identified competencies used in recruiting and selecting entry-level residence life
staff. The findings of both studies suggest that identifying entry-level residence life
10
competencies may be of use to individuals who hire entry-level residence life
professionals. Candidates that possess the appropriate skills and qualities may be more
equipped to handle the challenges and responsibilities of an entry-level residence life
position, and in turn be more successful.
Similarly, the residence life field has also acknowledged a concern with the
attrition of residence life staff (ACUHO-I, 2008b; Collins & Hirt, 2006; Dunkel &
Schreiber, 1992; Jones, 2002b; Palmer, et al., 2001). Jones (2002b) argues that staff
attrition and staff retention are two issues to be considered jointly. The previously
mentioned stress-related factors identified by Palmer, et al. (2001) may potentially
contribute to attrition in entry-level residence life positions. The literature suggests that
there may also be other contributing factors. For instance, findings from an ACUHO-I
(2008b) study suggest that job burnout occurs over time, usually when there is a
mismatch between the job design and the employee‟s skills. The researchers recommend
training focused on skill building and clarifying job tasks as a way to reduce job burnout.
Additionally, Dunkel and Schreiber (1992) suggest a well-defined professional
development plan as a way to reduce burnout. A joint study conducted by ACPA,
ACUHO-I and Syracuse University (2002) examining the recruitment and retention of
residence life professionals also suggests that proper training has a positive influence on
the retention of entry-level residence life staff. The researchers also suggest that the
opportunity to develop professionally is an important factor in retaining residence life
staff, particularly at the entry-level. The identification of training competencies for entrylevel residence life staff may assist those with responsibility for ongoing training and
professional development of entry-level staff, including supervisors and chief housing
11
officers, in reducing role ambiguity and increasing retention. This is supported by
Scheuermann and Ellett (2007) who note that within residence life and student affairs,
new professionals who are not supervised or trained properly have limited probability of
being retained in the field. Additionally, Dunkel and Schreiber (1992) suggest that,
because of attrition concerns, residence life professionals should pay close attention to
the design of professional development activities due to occupational restraints and
highly stressful work situations.
In summary, the literature suggests that the identification of competencies for
entry-level residence life professionals may be beneficial to both professionals and the
field. Schreiber, Dunkel, and Jahr (1994) suggest that each student affairs functional
area identify competencies associated with successful practice so that practitioners can
develop competency-based professional development plans. Additionally, a 1990 report
of a joint ACPA and National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA)
Task Force on Professional Preparation and Practice suggests that national student
affairs professional associations identify competencies, skills and experiences for
students preparing for work in specific functional areas (ACPA & National Association
of Student Personnel Administrators [NASPA], 1990). In light of the current issues with
recruitment, retention and attrition of professionals in entry-level residence life positions,
identifying competencies as a tool for developing improved training and professional
development opportunities, in order to reduce attrition and increase retention, warrants
further inquiry.
12
Use of Competencies in Professional Preparation and Professional Development
Since the earliest graduate preparation program in student affairs was founded in
1913 to provide training in the professional preparation of deans of women (Waple,
2006), graduate preparation programs have grown to become an accepted foundational
requirement for entry-level work in the field (ACPA, 2006b; ACPA & NASPA, 1990;
Creamer, Winston, & Miller, 2001; Hyman, 1988; Kretovics, 2002; Kuk, Cobb, &
Forrest, 2007; McEwen & Talbot, 1998; Waple, 2006). Schwartz and Bryan (1998)
describe the graduate preparation of entry-level student affairs professionals as important
in that it permits new professionals to become acquainted with the theories, basic
knowledge, and skills of the field. They depict individuals pursuing a graduate degree in
student affairs as apprentices, learning from faculty and experienced practitioners.
Despite the fact that a masters degree in the field of student affairs is a commonly
expected prerequisite for entry-level work in the field, some practitioners either do not
possess a degree in the field, or any graduate degree at all (Creamer et al., 1992; Janosik,
Carpenter, & Creamer, 2006a). Furthermore, while there has been broad acceptance of
the Council for the Advancement of Standards (CAS) guidelines for masters-level
graduate programs in student affairs, there is still no set of professional standards to
which preparation programs are required to adhere (Creamer, et al., 2001). As a result,
graduate preparation programs often differ in their orientation. Waple (2000) describes
three types of student affairs preparation programs: (a) those that emphasize counseling,
(b) those that emphasize theory of higher education and the development of student, and
(c) those that emphasize the building of skills and competencies for successful practice.
Though the argument can be made that many programs have more than one focus and
13
perhaps place at least some emphasis on two or all three of the concentrations Waple
states that the most prevalent of these programs is the one that emphasizes professional
preparation based on competencies and skills for successful practice.
The professional preparation of individuals for student affairs work, as well as the
skills necessary for successful practice, have been examined in the literature over the
course of many years (e.g., ACPA, 2008; ACPA & NASPA, 2010; Barr, et al., 2000;
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education [CAS], 2003b; Cuyjet,
Longwell-Grice, & Molina, 2009; Ebbers & Kruempel, 1992; Evans & Tobin, 1998;
Herdlein, 2004; Keim, 1991; Komives, Woodard, & Associates, 2003; Kuk, et al., 2007;
Lovell & Kosten, 2000; McEwen & Talbot, 1998; Ostroth, 1975; Pope, Reynolds, &
Mueller, 2004; Renn & Jessup-Anger, 2008; Sandeen, 1982; Waple, 2006; D. Young &
Janosik, 2007). Two recent studies examining competencies addressed in gradate
preparation programs suggest that different groups within student affairs (e.g., graduate
preparation faculty, mid-level managers) may identify different competencies as
necessary for success as an entry-level student affairs professional (Herdlein, 2004; Kuk,
et al., 2007). Identifying such competencies, particularly for those at the entry-level, may
also benefit those seeking additional training and preparation for student affairs work.
Regardless of whether or not an individual possesses a formal degree in the field,
no amount of graduate preparation can provide an individual with all of the knowledge
and skills necessary for an entire career (ACPA, 2008; ACPA & NASPA, 1990; Cooper
& Miller, 1998; Komives, 1998; Komives, et al., 2003; Kruger, 2000). In 2006, the
American College Personnel Association (ACPA) has stated that even with the benefit of
a graduate degree, student affairs professionals did not have an intentional structure
14
available to them in planning activities and learning opportunities that aid in maintaining
professional competence over the course of a career. Structured professional
development, based on established professional knowledge and skills, would make
pursuing professional development an easier task for professionals (ACPA, 2006b).
Some scholars have argued that in order to be successful as a student affairs
practitioner, it may be necessary to identify an established skill set that outlines what
student affairs practitioners need to know (ACPA, 2008; Pope, et al., 2004). However,
Waple (2006) argued that efforts to generate a common core of knowledge have not been
successful because of a lack of research identifying specific knowledge and skills for
student affairs work. A common understanding of the skills and competencies necessary
for effective student affairs work, at different levels and within different functional areas,
may assist the field in identifying graduate preparation program curricula as well as
training and professional development models for student affairs staff (ACPA, 2008;
Creamer, et al., 1992; Herdlein, 2004; Kuk, et al., 2007). Furthermore, because entrylevel residence life positions are often the first position held by many student affairs
professionals, a professional development model that utilizes competencies to assist those
staff members in being more successful has the potential to reduce attrition in residence
life, and in turn student affairs. For some time scholars have suggested the use of an
identified set of skills and competencies as a basis for designing professional
development plans (e.g., Creamer, et al., 1992; Janosik, Carpenter, & Creamer, 2006b;
Schreiber, et al., 1994).
The literature offers some examples of student affairs professional development
models (c.f., Carpenter, 1991; DeCoster & Brown, 1991; Dunkel & Schreiber, 1992),
15
though few models offer specific skills or competencies upon which to base professional
development plans. In their discussion of competency-based professional development in
student affairs, Schreiber, et al. (1994) describe systematic professional development as
an involvement in activities that develop skills and improve professional effectiveness.
They propose using competencies to design professional development plans which allow
professionals to identify outcomes that will increase their greater competence. A
structured, intentional professional development model may make planning professional
development much more manageable in that professional development activities could be
tracked based on knowledge and skills (ACPA, 2006b).
Some form of self-evaluation would likely be necessary to identify which
knowledge and skill areas could benefit from further development. Kruger (2000) states
that professionals should practice a form of self-assessment, to evaluate current gaps in
their own skills and abilities, in order to determine outcomes for intended professional
development activities. Carpenter (1991) and Winston and Creamer (1997) suggest selfassessment and identification of necessary knowledge and skills is required when
determining staff development needs. What appears to be necessary is the identification
of an established set of skills or competencies for professional development upon which
individuals can evaluate themselves. Within the field, there may be some student affairs
professionals who support the establishment of a competency-based approach to assess
and guide their professional development.
In 2005, ACPA‟s Task Force on Certification conducted a survey of its
membership regarding their interest in an established process for continuing professional
education. Responses from 92% of participants indicated agreement that the
16
identification of a professional development curriculum based on core professional
competencies would be helpful to practitioners (ACPA, 2006b). Entry-level
professionals, among other participants, were the strongest supporters of structured
professional development programs. (Janosik, et al., 2006b). One of the tasks force‟s
recommendations was that the profession study and clarify the competencies needed for
the preparation and continued professional development of “exemplary” student affairs
professionals (ACPA, 2006b). The next section will provide a brief synthesis of relevant
scholarship identifying competencies for student affairs and residence life staff.
Competencies for Student Affairs and Residence Life Professionals
As previously mentioned, several scholars have identified specific competencies
necessary for effective student affairs work. Others have examined competencies for
different levels of staff within student affairs, such as mid-level staff (c.f., Fey &
Carpenter, 1996; Gordon, Strode, & Mann, 1993; Schmitt Whitaker, 2005; Sermersheim,
2002; Tyrell & Farmer, 2006), and entry-level staff (c.f., Burkard, Cole, Ott, & Stoflet,
2005; Kuk, et al., 2007; Ostroth, 1981a; Saidla, 1990; Waple, 2006). While some
research built upon earlier studies, and commonalities do exist between studies, there is
no agreement regarding which competencies are necessary for different levels of student
affairs staff (ACPA, 2006b). Furthermore, scholars have also examined competencies for
residence life practitioners at different levels (Brandel, 1995; Dunkel & Schreiber, 1992;
e.g., Englin, 2001; Porter, 2005). This section provides an overview of key themes from
a review of the scholarship examining student affairs and residence life competencies. A
more thorough examination is presented in the second chapter.
17
Miller and Prince (1976) proposed a model for student affairs staff to use in
designing programs based on student development theory that includes six competency
categories. The competency categories are focused less on specific administrative skills
such as budgeting or technical skills, and instead are focused on skills relative to students
and their development such as assessing students‟ learning needs and assisting them in
establishing goals. The competency categories outlined portray the work of student
affairs professionals, and the skill sets required of them, to be more educationally and
holistically oriented as opposed to administratively oriented. Moore (1985) (as cited in
Pope & Reynolds, 1997) identified a different set of competencies said to be found in
typical student affairs job descriptions. Moore‟s competencies are not presented solely in
the context of students and their development; rather, the emphasis is on skills such as
communication skills and group functions.
Building upon the work of Moore (1985), and others (Barr & Associates, 1993;
Creamer, et al., 1992; Delworth, Hanson, & Associates, 1989), Pope and Reynolds
(1997) introduced a different set of competency areas for student affairs staff. Through
an extensive literature review, they proposed competence areas for effective student
affairs practice, which was later updated by Pope, Reynolds, and Mueller (2004). The
competence areas proposed include broad skills that are both administratively based as
well as developmentally focused. What distinguishes the competencies proposed by
Pope and Reynolds from earlier proposed competencies is that multicultural awareness,
knowledge and skills are included, and presented as their own competency area. The
model proposed by Pope and Reynolds is important, not only in that it introduces
multicultural competence as a distinct skill set for student affairs practitioners, but also
18
because it illustrates how scholarly work on student affairs competencies is evolving.
Previous work on competencies had not included multicultural skills which some might
argue is compulsory today. The same might be said for earlier work that did not include
technological competencies.
An examination of two books that present core competencies for student affairs
work also demonstrates that the identified “essential” competencies have changed over
time. In The Handbook of Student Affairs Administration - 3rd Edition , McClellan,
Stringer and Associates (2009) offer skills and competencies they suggest are essential
for student affairs managers to possess for successful practice. Competencies introduced
in the more recent editions of the book, suggest a greater emphasis on assessment and a
competency category that discusses the skills needed to work with academic personnel,
while still including competencies from earlier versions (e.g., responding to campus
crisis). The competencies presented in this book are also distinctly administrative and
managerial in focus. In comparison, the competencies outlined by Schuh, Jones, Harper
and Komives (2011) in the book Student Services: A Handbook for the Profession - 5th
Edition, emphasize more basic skills for student affairs staff, particularly entry-level
student affairs staff. Those competencies have also changed over time. For instance,
professionalism, conflict resolution, and community building and programming were
competence areas that were added to the latest edition of the book, while assessment and
evaluation were not included in the most recent edition. An examination of the
competencies presented both by McClellan, et al. and Schuh, et al. suggests that the
student affairs core competencies identified have evolved over time. Due to the nature of
student affairs practice (and how it may differ from campus to campus), ACPA (2008)
19
notes that any list of competencies is unavoidably incomplete and has the potential to
become outdated. Additionally, because the McClellan, et al. and Schuh, et al.
competencies differ in their focus, one for student affairs managers and one for graduate
students and new professionals, perhaps different competencies are essential for different
levels of staff.
In 2008, ACPA adopted a report of its Steering Committee on Professional
Competencies, which outlined eight competency areas (ACPA, 2008). This document
was later updated by ACPA and NASPA (2010) to include 10 competency areas and is
entitled, Professional Competency Areas for Student Affairs Practitioners. Though a
description of basic, intermediate, and advanced skills is presented for each of the
competency areas, it does not indicate that these skill levels can be unilaterally equated
with different levels of student affairs staff, just that each student affairs professional
should have competencies described in the basic level of each area. Each student affairs
functional area may require a specific set of skills or competencies (ACPA, 2008). For
example, basic skills in advising and helping may be appropriate for most entry-level
student affairs staff, however, what constitutes basic skills in advising and helping for an
entry-level staff member in a college counseling center would certainly be different.
While the document outlines different skill levels within each competency area, more
specific scholarship examining the competencies for different levels of student affairs
staff has also been conducted.
Findings from some studies specifically identifying competencies for entry-level
student affairs staff suggest that communication skills are the most important. (Burkard,
et al., 2005; Herdlein, 2004; Ostroth, 1981a; Saidla, 1990; Waple, 2006). Other studies
20
suggest that the identified competencies for entry-level student affairs staff may differ
depending on the group being asked to identify them. The previously mentioned Kuk, et
al. (2007) study suggests that there are differences between what faculty and non-faculty
identify as the necessary competencies for entry-level student affairs positions.
Additionally, a study conducted by Saidla (1990) suggests that while the same four
competencies were identified across student affairs functional areas as most important for
entry-level staff, there were differences by functional area regarding the relative
importance of other competencies. For example, residence life staff identified staff
supervision as “essential” for entry-level staff, whereas those in career
planning/placement did not consider this area to even be “important.” Findings from
both studies suggest that examining competencies for entry-level student affairs staff may
generate findings that differ based on the functional area being examined and the staffing
level of the participants asked to identify the competencies.
Dunkel and Schreiber (1992) identified a list of competencies for residence life
professionals when they surveyed senior housing officers affiliated with ACHUHO-I.
The findings produced a list of 50 competencies, used as the basis for a week-long
training seminar for residence life professionals called the National Housing Training
Institute (NHTI). Participants explore each of the competencies through presentations,
mentorship, and literature. Participants then develop a professional development plan
based on the competencies.
Upon the completion of research conducted by Porter (2005) the competencies
used at NHTI were updated to include 57 competencies. Additionally, Porter‟s research
focused on developing a competency model specifically for senior college housing
21
officers. Her findings suggest that there are 15 competencies considered important for a
successful senior housing officer. The research conducted by Porter set out to
accomplish two things. First, the research was undertaken in response to the need for a
contemporary set of competencies necessary to be an effective housing officer at the
senior level. Second, the research also provided an opportunity to identify updated
competencies for the larger residence life group. Prior to Porter‟s research, there had
been no broad empirical examination of competencies conducted for the general
residence life population, or for a specific level of residence life staff, in over a decade.
Competencies for entry-level residence life staff have not been identified through
empirical means. Due to its unique nature and the scope of responsibilities usually
involved, an examination of the entry-level residence life position, and specifically the
competencies important for success in these positions, may warrant further exploration.
Statement of the Problem
Competencies have been identified for the general residence life field, and
specifically for senior housing officers. Additionally, a review of the scholarship
identifying competencies for the broader student affairs population suggests that different
competencies may be required depending on one‟s staffing level within the field (e.g.
entry-level, mid-level, senior-level). Finally, the specific competencies identified as
critical may differ depending on which group is identifying the competencies (e.g.
graduate preparation program faculty, entry-level professionals, chief student affairs
officers).
22
There has been no broad examination of the competencies important for success
in an entry-level residence life position. Furthermore, no recent empirical examination
identifying entry-level residence life competencies has examined the differences between
groups who are being asked to identify competencies. The literature also cites ongoing
concerns with the current state of employment issues associated with entry-level
residence life positions. Concerns outlined by ACUHO-I related to the recruitment and
retention of entry-level residence life staff have highlighted the need to examine the
training and professional development needs of this population as a potential means of
addressing retention and attrition issues. Further, a set of competencies does not
currently exist for use by entry-level professionals in guiding training activities and
identifying areas for professional growth.
Purpose
in entry-level residence life positions. A set of competencies for this population is absent
in the literature. Scholars argue that in order to increase professional competence and
improve overall practice, student affairs professionals must ascertain which skills require
further development in order to identify professional development activities that will
increase proficiency. The findings from empirical studies suggest that a structured
professional development model for entry-level residence life professionals may help to
reduce role ambiguity and burnout, leading to reduced attrition rates and increased
retention. An identified set of competencies will assist entry-level residence life
23
professionals in being successful in their positions and help to guide professional
development activities.
Research Questions
This study seeks to answer the following research questions:
(a) What competencies do entry-level residence life professionals identify as
important for success in entry-level residence life positions?
(b) What competencies do those who supervise entry-level residence life
professionals (“supervisors”) identify as important for success in entry-level
residence life positions?
(c) What competencies do a panel of experts (“experts”) identify as important for
success in entry-level residence life positions?
(d) Are there differences in the perceived importance of competencies that are
identified by all three groups?
Significance of the Study
Competency based professional development models provide a framework for
consciously planning activities that are intended to improve professional effectiveness.
Based on an assessment of skills, activities can be chosen by student affairs professionals
to enhance skill development (Schreiber, et al., 1994). The identification of an agreed
upon set of competencies for entry-level residence life staff will assist in the development
of a tool for professionals to identify skills to be targeted through professional
24
development endeavors. This study sought to identify the competencies important for
success in an entry-level residence life professional position. The significance of the
study comprises three main points.
First, this research assists in the development of a competency-based professional
development model to be used by entry-level residence life professionals. One
implication for such a model is that entry-level residence life professionals may be more
productive, increasing the potential positive impact on the development of students.
Entry-level residence life professionals may also experience less burnout and role
ambiguity, increasing the potential for reduced attrition and increased retention in the
field. Scott (2000) suggests that the key to retaining student affairs staff is the creation of
professions development programs.
Second, this research contributes to the extant scholarship on student affairs and
residence life competencies. An identified set of competencies for entry-level residence
life staff can now be compared to existing competencies for senior-level residence life
professionals to identify potential differences and similarities by staffing level within
residence life. These identified competencies for entry-level residence life staff can now
also be evaluated against competencies for entry-level staff within other functional areas
to identify potential differences and similarities.
Third, the findings of this study are useful to student affairs organizations such as
ACPA, NASPA and ACUHO-I in developing professional development curricula for
entry-level residence life staff. ACPA/NASPA has already identified competencies for
the larger student affairs population, and ACUHO-I has already identified competencies
for the general residence life professional as well as senior residence life professionals.
25
The findings of this study provide guidance to those with responsibilities for planning
training workshops, seminars, and continuing education courses for association members.
Definition of Terms
The following terms will be used throughout this dissertation:
Competency is defined by the researcher as “specific knowledge of” and “skills
needed” to successfully perform the job-related duties of an entry-level residence life
professional today.
Entry-level residence life professional is defined by the researcher as an
individual who minimally possess a bachelors degree, is working full-time position in a
position in residence life at a domestic institution housing 2,000 or more students, and
has worked in the field of student affairs for five years or less.
Expert residence life professionals are defined by the researcher as an individual
who has reached a level of success in their role(s) within the residence life field and is
marked with positive renown and esteem by colleagues. Experts often have made
significant contributions to the field, sometimes through scholarly activitieds or through
service in professional associations.
Residence life is the student affairs functional area that is responsible for the
oversight of student housing on college and university campuses. In addition to
providing for students‟ living needs such as safety and shelter, the scope of a
responsibilities that an individual residence life department has can include services as
well as programs to meet students‟ social, recreational, cultural, and academic needs and
interests (Schuh, 1996). Dungy (2003) states that the primary responsibility of residence
26
life is to provide healthy, clean, and safe environments that support the academic mission
of the institution.
Success is defined by the researcher as the realization of a desired outcome or
result. Specific to this study, the desired outcome is the achievement of duties, goals and
responsibilities that should be expected of an entry-level residence life professional; and,
accomplishing this achievement outcome at a high level of proficiency.
Supervisor of entry-level residence life professionals is defined by the researcher
as an individual who has responsibility for the direct supervision of at least one, full-time
entry-level residence life professional, as defined above.
27
CHAPTER II
Review of the Literature
There are a substantial number of students studying and living on American
college and university campuses. On-campus living is a part of many students‟
experiences at some point during their college career, especially at four-year institutions
(Brandel, 1995). For example, in the fall of 2009, approximately 80% of first-year
students at four-year institutions reported that they lived on campus (Chronicle of Higher
Education, 2010a). Additionally, the Association of College and University Housing
Officers – International (ACUHO-I) estimates that more than two million students live in
college or university residence halls each year (ACUHO-I, 2009). Indeed, many students
have an experience with residence life during their collegiate studies. Several scholars
have argued that residence life has a significant influence on the intellectual development
and success of students (Blimling, 1993; Blimling & Miltenberger, 1981; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005; Pascarella, Terenzini, & Blimling, 1994; Schuh, 1996; St. Onge, et al.,
2008). Entry-level residence life staff in particular play a critical role as they often have
responsibilities for providing direct services to residential students (St. Onge, et al.,
2008). Given the number of students housed on college campuses, and the impact
residence life has on college students, the need for comprehensive professional
preparation, training, and development of the professional staff responsible for
overseeing housing facilities and programs is compelling (Belch & Mueller, 2003).
Residence life also has a significant influence on the student affairs field.
Because so many student affairs professionals find their first entry-level position within
residence life (Belch & Mueller, 2003; Dunkel & Schreiber, 1992), the success of staff in
28
entry-level residence life positions has the potential to effect the broader student affairs
field (Collins & Hirt, 2006). Frederiksen (1993) notes that residence life often serves as a
training ground for work in other student affairs functional areas. With this in mind,
employment issues within residence life can potentially affect functional areas outside of
it.
A thorough review of literature pertaining to residence life employment issues
reveals that there has been a growing concern amongst residence life practitioners about
the challenges associated with recruiting and retaining competent entry-level residence
life staff (ACUHO-I, 2008b; Kazlauskas & Ellett, 2003; Krajnak, 2001; Kretovics &
Nobles, 2005). Research conducted by ACUHO-I (2008b) suggests one way to
potentially reduce attrition and improve performance, and consequently retain competent
entry-level staff, is to identify training competencies critical for success in these
positions.
in entry-level residence life positions. Specifically, this study examined and compared
the competencies identified by three groups: entry-level residence life professionals,
those who supervise entry-level residence life professionals, and a group of residence life
experts. This second chapter is intended to provide an in-depth review of the relevant
literature on residence life employment, professional development, and training
competencies in order to assist the reader in understanding the rationale for the study. A
brief overview of the evolution of residence life work is presented; then, the chapter is
presented in three sections. First, the extant literature exploring residence life
employment issues is reviewed, including challenges associated with recruitment,
29
retention, and attrition of these staff members. Second, literature related to the
professional development of student affairs and residence life professionals is examined.
Finally, an analysis of the scholarly work identifying competencies for varying levels of
professional staff within student affairs and residence life, including empirical studies, is
presented and synthesized.
Residence Life Work
The evolution and progression of residence life work can be followed through the
historical development of the American higher education system (Jones, 2002a). The
roots of modern day residence life work is seen in the foundations of higher education in
Europe (Brandel, 1995). This section will provide a brief introduction to the roles of the
early faculty in the context of residence life at American institutions of higher education.
This will illustrate how campus living has been a part of colleges and universities in the
United States from their beginning. The evolution of residence life work will follow and
conclude the section.
As early as the sixteenth century, European colonists created colleges and
universities throughout the Western Hemisphere. The nine colleges initially founded in
the colonies that would become the United States were formed on models of the
European universities, and British universities in particular (Blimling & Miltenberger,
1981; Cohen, 1998; Cowley & Williams, 1991; Schroeder & Mable, 1994; John H.
Schuh, 1996). Though these early institutions changed significantly as the country
matured, a few prevailing practices pertaining to student life remain today, including
housing students together in college residences. Cowley and Williams (1991) indicate
30
that the purpose of college dormitories in the early colonial colleges was to maintain the
institution‟s emphasis on religion and permit constant surveillance of students for that
purpose. Both Veysey (1965), as well as Cowley and Williams (1991), note that faculty
went so far as to conduct inspections of student rooms to ensure compliance with
religious learning. Veysey (1965) describes the approach as very paternalistic, which is
understandable considering many students were in their early teenage years, and had
traveled a considerable distance from home (Blimling & Miltenberger, 1981; Palmer,
Broido, & Campbell, 2008).
An original intent of dormitories, to make the faculty‟s supervision of students
and care for their well-being more manageable, while also permitting students to engage
in thoughtful debate about their studies and other deep intellectual issues, did not always
come to fruition (Rudolph, 1990). Schuh (1996) reported many behavioral problems in
the dormitories of the colonial era, including riots, gambling, drunkenness and
considerable damage to facilities. The paternalistic approach to student conduct
management outside the classroom, and especially within the dormitories, eventually
began to wear thin, especially on the faculty who were to enforce this method of strict
oversight (Veysey, 1965).
Managing student residences had grown to be cumbersome and difficult for those
who also functioned as their instructors (Brandel, 1995). Toward the end of the
nineteenth century many faculty began to argue that the oversight of students was
unnecessary, citing a preference for a more Germanic model of higher education
(Blimling & Miltenberger, 1981; Frederiksen, 1993; Schuh, 1996). In this vein, students‟
intellect was to be developed, but the oversight of students outside the classroom or
31
laboratory was not the institution‟s concern (Blimling & Miltenberger, 1981; Frederiksen,
1993; Schuh, 1996).
While there were many critics opposed to having dormitories on college
campuses, their eventual placement on college campuses became commonplace by the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Rudolph, 1990), due in large part to the
enrollment of women and the notion of needing to provide adequate supervision of them
(Schuh, 1996). Additionally there was a desire amongst students to experience college in
what Rudolph (1990) refers to as the “collegiate way” (Cohen, 1998), whereby the
residential component was central to the college experience. This emphasis on the
residential experience, stemming from the residential college, began to take root.
The residential college was a holdover from the British undergraduate model that
included tutoring and extracurricular activities in addition to housing (Cohen, 1998;
Rudolph, 1990). There were however differences between the British residential college
model and the model that was forming in the United State at the time, most notably with
regard to who oversaw student residences. Schroeder and Mable (1994) note that at
Oxford and Cambridge, faculty were free from the student behavioral responsibilities
those in America often faced, due in large part to individuals such as deans, proctors, and
beadles. These individuals were able to handle the day to day conduct issues of students
in the British residential college, permitting faculty to engage intellectually and
sometimes even socially with students, without having to play the role of disciplinarian.
This first tangible separation of duties in the United States first occurred at
Harvard, when its president appointed a “dean of the college” (Brandel, 1995). This
individual spent a significant amount of time meeting with students regarding a number
32
of issues, freeing the president and faculty to focus on instruction. Similar positions were
also created at other institutions, like the University of Illinois and the University of
Chicago (Rhatigan, 2000). Sandeen (1991) (as cited in Brandel, 1995) notes that this
further highlighted the separation of student life and classroom work. It is here that we
begin to see roles that bear a resemblance to some of the responsibilities we now
associate with traditional student affairs work.
Without a clear agenda or specified responsibilities, these professional deans took
on the efforts typical of student personnel workers, which served as a foundation for
student affairs work (Rhatigan, 2000). Specifically, many of the early personnel workers
had vocational counseling and guidance as a primary responsibility. As enrollments
began to grow, estimated to have increased thirtyfold from the 1880s to 1930s, many
presidents identified a need for someone, often a dean, to oversee students‟ non-curricular
concerns and affairs (Rentz, 2009). It was at this time, that Schroeder and Mable (1994)
site a change in focus for American faculty. Faculty became more focused on their
academic disciplines, and less so on the day-to-day concerns or management of students.
With the advent of deans, the responsibilities of residence hall oversight were beginning
to shift from the faculty, spurring the development of professional staff who dealt
principally with non-curricular concerns like student life and residential life (Palmer, et
al., 2008).
The next significant changes in the staffing of residence life were seen during the
time of GI Bill in the 1950s (Schroeder & Mable, 1994). In a fast-paced period of
residential construction, the oversight of residence halls had become a primary function
of the college or university‟s business and finance staff (Frederiksen, 1993); the
33
foreseeable result was a lack of focus on the educational and personal needs of students,
and simply a focus on food and shelter. Meanwhile, a focus on student development,
which outlined a philosophical base of educating and developing the whole student, had
emerged. As a result of this new emphasis on student development, and dormitories
lacking any developmental focus, residence life and student affairs began to evolve as a
distinct area of higher education, separate from the faculty (Schroeder & Mable, 1994).
Following this, the 1960s brought changes in student activism, and residence life in
particular saw even more changes, including the introduction of co-ed residence halls and
more liberal curfews and dress codes. In terms of residence hall staff, it was during that
time that housemothers were replaced with professional residence life staff, who held
advanced degrees (Frederiksen, 1993; Schroeder & Mable, 1994).
With the introduction of professional residence life staff, the variety of housing
options available to students increased. The growth in student enrollment through the
1960s and 1970s lead to the on campus population becoming more diverse as well.
Schroeder and Mable (1994) describe a more highly specialized professional staff within
student affairs and residence life that offered a range of new residence life programs.
These programs included greater weight put on student development and connections
between academic and student affairs. Frederiksen (1993) notes that following this
period, into the 1990s, there came a renewed commitment to the residential experience as
a critical piece in the student‟s college education. Frederiksen states that individual
student development is now the central premise in residence life programs at colleges and
university in the United States, and that the residential experience makes the living
environment critical to students‟ development. The responsibility for these programmatic
34
pieces within residence life falls to the residence life professionals, who function not just
as dorm managers, but as educators within the residential life setting.
Since the replacement of housemothers as the primary staff in residence halls,
student housing has evolved into a specialized profession, with a focus on residential
education, in an environment where living and learning take place (Frederiksen, 1993).
This student affairs functional area has developed over time, to encompass a variety of
functional specializations within it, including residential life, food service, and
maintenance to name a few (Frederiksen, 1993). An examination of the range of diverse
professional development workshops and conferences offered each year by ACUHO-I
highlights the diversity of professional foci and interests amongst residence life
professionals.
The development of ethical and professional standards have also helped to
highlight the evolution of the profession (Frederiksen, 1993). The work of ACPA and
ACUHO-I in the development of the CAS standards has helped to develop a more clear
understanding of standards for professional student affairs practice, including work
within residence life (Miller & Eyster, 1993). A cursory review of the ethical statements
for student housing professionals published by ACUHO-I and by CAS quickly illustrates
the breadth of responsibilities born by those within the residence life field. In light of the
scope of responsibilities associated with residence life positions, the appropriate skill set
for work in these roles is considerable. Residence life professionals are required to
handle numerous responsibilities and tasks. The sheer extent of those responsibilities
reasonably presupposes that a comprehensive set of skills is required to handle these
duties successfully.
35
This review of the history and evolution of professional work within residence life
demonstrates that the residence life profession has changed over time. A position in
residence life today is different than it was 20 or 30 years ago, and so too are the skills
important for success in these positions. With an understanding of the history of
residence life, we can begin to explore the distinctive nature of residence life work, and
start to consider the professional competencies that may be required of individuals who
take on these roles. The next three sections will underscore some of the issues related to
residence life employment. Specifically, the next section will review issues related to
recruiting and retaining residence life professionals. Next, professional development
issues within residence life is explored, and then finally, a synthesis of the previous
scholarship pertaining to student affairs and residence life competencies.
Recruitment, Retention and Attrition in Residence Life
Employment issues for entry-level residence life positions, like recruitment,
retention, attrition, and satisfaction, have received considerable attention over the past
decade, both in scholarly journals, and by professional associations (ACPA, et al., 2002;
Belch & Mueller, 2003; Collins & Hirt, 2006; Englin, 2001; Jones, 2002b; Kazlauskas &
Ellett, 2003; Krajnak, 2001; Kretovics & Nobles, 2005). Jones (2002a) reports that in
2000, approximately forty percent of institutions were unable to hire [qualified]
candidates for full-time residence life positions. Similar reports have been provided by
Belch and Mueller (2003) who tell us that one-third of the senior housing officers they
surveyed reported hiring less qualified candidates than desired for entry-level residence
life positions. In 2002, the issue of recruiting and retaining entry-level residence life staff
36
was described as a “crisis” in a paper presented by the ACUHO-I Leadership Assembly
(St. Onge, et al., 2008). Scholars exploring the topic have since confirmed what appear
to be widely-held concerns amongst residence life practitioners that there has been a
decline in interest in entry-level residence life positions (ACUHO-I, 2008b; Belch &
Mueller, 2003; Kazlauskas & Ellett, 2003), and that employers have been struggling to
find qualified candidates (Belch & Mueller, 2003; Scheuermann & Ellett, 2007).
Belch and Mueller (2003) reported findings from two studies they conducted to
examine, (a) the perceptions of senior housing officers on the declining pool of
candidates for entry-level residence life positions, and (b) interest in entry-level residence
life positions, specifically amongst graduate students. Results suggest that senior housing
officers described the pool of qualified new professionals interested in working in entrylevel residence life positions as having declined during the previous five years. The
results of their second study indicate that less than thirty percent of respondents from the
student affairs graduate preparation programs they surveyed intended to pursue residence
life positions. Their findings substantiate sentiments expressed by ACUHO-I and others
about a potential crisis in recruiting interested and qualified entry-level residence life
staff.
In 2004, in response to concerns about a lack of qualified, interested applicants
for entry-level residence life positions, ACUHO-I commissioned a team of researchers to
examine a set of fundamental issues related to the recruitment and retention of entry-level
residence life staff (ACUHO-I, 2008b). Though one study conducted by St. Onge, Ellett,
and Nestor (2008) found that chief housing officers felt that recruitment and retention
was less of a problem on their own campuses than on others, perhaps indicating that there
37
is a misperception about how grave the situation is, it appears that there is still a growing
concern with the recruitment and retention of entry-level staff (St. Onge, et al., 2008).
This section will provide a review of literature relative to residence life employment
issues, and specifically the recruitment and retention of entry-level residence life staff.
The distinctive differences between residence life and other student affairs
functional areas is a central issue in the recruitment of entry-level residence life staff.
Residence life work is different (Englin, 2001), and entry-level residence life positions
being predominately live-in positions, make them especially different. Besides living and
working in the same facility, residence life staff at the entry-level are often responsible
for programming, facilities management, staff supervision, emergency response, behavior
management, and advising, among other responsibilities. Student affairs staff in other
functional areas may have some of these responsibilities, but their positions often do not
include all of them as primary functions or require them to live in the same facility or on
the same campus where they work. Some scholars have explored the unique nature of
professional residence life positions in the literature (Collins & Hirt, 2006; Palmer, 1995;
Palmer, et al., 2001). In an article discussing the graduate preparation of residence hall
directors, Palmer (1995) describes countless skills needed for the resident director
position, including counseling, conflict mediation, time/stress management, and staff
supervision. She also offers several scenarios hall directors are called upon to respond to,
be they emergencies, working with parents, or overseeing facilities issues. In brief,
Palmer writes that “resident directors have been called upon to do everything” (p. 7).
Additionally, due to the fact that entry-level residence life staff work in the same
38
environment where they live, there is the potential to interact with students at all hours of
the day, every day of the week.
Noting the unique nature of entry-level residence life positions, Collins and Hirt
(2006) describe the nature of professional life for residence life professionals as different
from other student affairs professionals. The study they conducted to examine
professional life compared the nature of work, relationships, and rewards, for student
affairs and residence life professionals as separate populations. Their results note that
residence life professionals worked with graduate students and paraprofessionals to a
greater extent than other student affairs professionals, and that residence life
professionals have evening and weekend professional commitments that are significantly
greater in number than non-residence life professionals. Their findings also denote
residence life staff spent less time in direct contact with students, and more time
performing administrative tasks than their student affairs counterparts (Collins & Hirt,
2006). These findings in particular seem inconsistent with assumptions about entry-level
residence life staff having such frequent contact with students in residential settings.
Other findings point to residence life staff having less contact with other student affairs
colleagues and faculty, and that they are more likely to have turnover in their positions
(Collins & Hirt, 2006). Under what these researchers identified as rewards, residence life
staff reported a high number of rewards, mostly associated with professional
development. Specifically, residence life staff, more than others in student affairs, found
a greater amount of support for taking classes and attending professional conferences and
training programs (Collins & Hirt, 2006). Staff members in residence life also reported
that they were less likely than non-residence life staff to be appreciated or rewarded for
39
their work by others on the campus (Collins & Hirt, 2006). In essence, Collins and Hirt
demonstrate that residence life work differs considerably than the work of other student
affairs professionals. Additionally, the skills and support for professional development
activities of these two populations also differ. In summary, the findings of the study
conducted by Collins and Hirt illustrate that residence life staff often feel isolated in their
experience on the campus, yet engaged within the residence life profession as a field.
They suggest that attention should be paid to factors that contribute to burnout as a way
to alleviate attrition in these positions.
Acknowledging that high turnover in entry-level student affairs positions has been
attributed, at least in part, to burnout, Palmer, et al. (2001) set out to conduct a study of
burnout among residence hall directors. These researchers note that live-in residence life
staff are at risk of experiencing burnout due to their responsibility for the welfare of
students, in addition to recurrent and common interpersonal contacts and stimulation.
They indicate that unique duties associated with the resident director position such as
irregular schedules, disrupted sleep, and the potential for longer work weeks, are all
elements that potentially result in burnout. This is supported by Jennings (2005) who
reports that employees who live at their employment location are more inclined to
experience burnout. Palmer, et al. administered a survey to over 500 staff members from
88 ACUHO-I affiliated institutions in five different countries including the United States.
Findings tell us that the average work-week for full-time RDs was over 50 hours, not
including on-call/on-duty hours. The results were similar to those of Collins and Hirt
(2006) in that a significant portion of time is spent performing administrative duties. In
fact, respondents of the survey conducted by Palmer, et al. indicate that the single most
40
time consuming activity involves completing administrative paperwork. The researchers
suggest that staff development efforts, particularly those that assist staff in prioritizing
tasks, is one way to reduce burnout. The findings from the Collins and Hirt study, as well
as the Palmer, et al. study, create a picture of entry-level residence life work that involves
doing things others within the field are not asked to do, and doing it when others are not
asked to do them. This data may help to explain why entry-level residence life positions
are sometimes unpopular.
Residence life as a field struggles against perceptions that staff work all day, all
night, every day, every night, and are never allowed to leave their residence hall. In fact,
a study conducted by Kimble, Timson and Oltersdord (2004) surveyed over 2,000
residence life student staff members (i.e. resident assistants) at over 300 ACUHO-I
member institutions about their perceptions of a career in residence life. More than half
of those surveyed indicated that one of the principle drawbacks of a career in
housing/residence life is the length of the work week. In some respects residence life has
an image issue, and the inherent nature of residence life positions, and entry-level
positions in particular, may have the potential to impact recruitment, retention and
attrition of individuals in these positions. Jones (2002a) notes that recruitment into the
residence life field is done in two major ways, first through mentorship from a current
residence life professional, and second from experience as an undergraduate student
leader in residence life. Additionally, Hunter (1992) (as cited in Belch & Mueller, 2003)
notes that a student‟s experience as an undergraduate residence life staff member was the
single most common introduction to residence life as a professional career. Image issues
41
are especially important considering student staff within residence life comprise the
largest group of potential candidates for future entry-level residence life positions.
For new professionals, Jones (2002a) notes that there are struggles in promoting
residence life as a career option in the recruitment process, and that many candidates only
consider residence life positions as a contingency if they cannot secure another student
affairs positions. One reason individuals take positions within residence life could be
attributed to the fact that employment is more readily available (Kretovics & Nobles,
2005); for instance, Kuh, Greenlee, and Lardy (1978) (as cited in Hancock, 1988) noted
that the number of positions available in residence life surpassed the number of
individuals who were interested in residence life as a first choice employment option.
This is supported by more recent indications that that the number of residence life
positions available at student affairs placement conferences exceeds the number of other
positions within student affairs that are available (Kretovics, 2002). An examination of
interest in residence life as a long-term career path, as opposed to a “stepping stone” to
other positions within student affairs, may lend itself to a better understanding of why
entry-level residence life staff leave their positions. Attrition in these positions may not
be indicative of a poor experience but rather a planned career move; some would even
argue that attrition isn‟t necessarily problematic beyond the costs associated with
recruiting and training staff to fill these vacancies (Jennings, 2005). Regardless, attrition
for this level of staff has become a considerable concern for the residence life field
(Collins & Hirt, 2006; Dunkel & Schreiber, 1992), and some have begun to examine
ways to reduce attrition in order to keep qualified individuals within the residence life
field.
42
Literature pertaining to attrition in entry-level residence life positions has focused
on reasons why people leave these jobs including burnout, unique demands of entry-level
residence life positions, and low rewards (c.f., Collins & Hirt, 2006; Jennings, 2005;
Palmer, et al., 2001). Other research has begun to look beyond the reasons for attrition, to
examine ways to reduce it in entry-level residence life positions, finding that proper
training and supervision, as well as professional development are essential in order to
retain entry-level residence life staff and reduce attrition (ACPA, et al., 2002;
Scheuermann & Ellett, 2007). A study conducted by Jennings (2005) examined the
satisfaction and attrition of residence hall directors. His findings suggest that the
supervision hall directors receive seems to have the biggest impact on whether they leave
their positions. He states that the direct supervisor has the most influence in assisting
entry-level residence life staff in understanding their positions, and that modified
education, training and development of these entry-level professionals will lead to
reduced dissatisfaction with the job and less burnout. Similarly, in 2008 ACUHO-I
suggested that future studies help the residence life field identify professional staff
“training engagements that allow for growth and development of staff” (ACUHO-I,
2008b), as a way of reducing attrition and increasing retention of bright, competent
residence life staff at the entry-level. The next section offers a review of professional
development in the context of student affairs and residence life.
Professional Development in Student Affairs and Residence Life
A joint study conducted by ACPA, ACUHO-I and Syracuse University (2002)
examined the perceptions of over 1,200 residence life professionals on recruitment and
43
retention issues in residence life. Almost 57% of the entry-level staff surveyed indicated
that they intended to remain working in residence life or another student affairs
functional area in the next five years, and an additional 25% were undecided (ACPA, et
al. 2002). The number of individuals who intend to continue in the field, coupled with
those who have the potential to remain, illustrates the underlying need for available and
appropriate professional development for residence life and student affairs practitioners,
both for the current and future success of practitioners themselves, and for the success of
the field. For residence life staff, particularly those at the entry-level, the ability to
develop is an important factor in their remaining in the field of student affairs.
Specifically, the researchers site professional development sessions and the availability of
funding to attend conferences as important (ACPA, et al. 2002). This section will
provide a broad overview of professional development within student affairs along with
an examination of professional development issues for residence life professionals.
Professional development begins with sound professional experiences and
preparation, which for many student affairs professionals includes graduate study in the
field. An earned masters degree from a graduate program in student affairs has been
cited as the preferred method of professional preparation for work in the field (Creamer,
et al., 1992; Janosik, et al., 2006a; Kretovics, 2002; Kuk, et al., 2007; McEwen & Talbot,
1998; Waple, 2006). Several scholars have examined the graduate preparation of student
affairs professionals, and specifically the content and curriculum of these programs (c.f.,
ACPA & NASPA, 1990; Cuyjet, et al., 2009; Ebbers & Kruempel, 1992; Evans & Tobin,
1998; Herdlein, 2004; Hyman, 1988; Keim, 1991; Komives, 1998; McEwen & Talbot,
1998; Sandeen, 1982; Upcraft, 1998; Waple, 2000). The specific competencies that are
44
considered necessary for effective student affairs practice will be reviewed in the next
section, however, the concept of graduate programs teaching competencies for
professional practice is important to note. Waple (2000) has argued that most graduate
programs in the field have a competency-based orientation that prepares future
practitioners for work in various student affairs positions. The competencies addressed
through these programs do not however prepare individuals for specific positions or all
student affairs functional areas, but rather for employment as a generalist within the
student affairs field.
There appears to be a lack of agreement about which competencies should be
taught in these programs. For example, studies conducted by Herdlein (2004) and Kuk, et
al. (2007) examined competencies addressed in graduate preparation programs, and the
results of both studies highlight the debate over which competencies are and should be
taught in these programs. Findings from Herdlein‟s study suggest that chief student
affairs officers identified specific competencies that are important to student affairs
practice (e.g., legal knowledge, assessment and research, and proficient writing skills),
while indicating that those graduating from student affairs graduate preparation programs
do not always possess these competencies. Herdlein advises that further research is
needed to identify the competencies necessary for successful student affairs practice so
they can be integrated into the curriculum of preparation programs. The study conducted
by Kuk, et al. examined the perceptions of three groups about which competencies were
most necessary for effective student affairs practice. The three groups were, (a) midlevel managers, (b) senior student affairs officers, and (c) graduate preparation program
faculty, and the findings of their study suggest that there are differences between what
45
faculty and non-faculty identify as the most important competencies. Both the Herdlein
study and the Kuk, et al. study propose that the identification of competencies necessary
for entry-level student affairs work may assist the field not only in developing curricula
that better prepares individuals for entry-level positions, but could also assist in the
development of curricula for ongoing professional development. Taken further, their
research also suggests separate audiences may identify different competencies, and
perhaps asking multiple groups may assist in developing a broader set of competencies.
Though a masters degree in student affairs is the preferred method of orientation
and entry into the field, a significant number of individuals enter their first student affairs
position without a masters degree, or from having worked in a different field (ACPA,
2008; Creamer, et al., 1992; Komives & Carpenter, 2009). Additionally, there are still
differences in the professional preparation of practitioners who earn a masters degree in
the field (Waple, 2000). Though there is general agreement as to what should be
included in the curriculum of these graduate preparation programs, often guided by the
CAS standards (Komives, 1998), compliance with these standards is still voluntary
(Komives & Carpenter, 2009; Kuk, et al., 2007). Even with the benefit of a masters
degree in the field, no graduate preparation program can prepare a practitioner with all of
the knowledge they need to possess (ACPA, 2008; Komives, 1998; Komives, et al., 2003;
Kruger, 2000). Further, a masters degree is often not required for entry-level residence
life positions. Findings from a survey of over 400 chief housing officers at ACUHO-I
institutions suggest that less than a third of entry-level residence life positions require a
masters degree (St. Onge, et al., 2008). The apparent differences in the preparation
required for some positions, and the dissimilarities in the curriculum standards for
46
graduate preparation programs, may necessitate additional and continuing professional
development activities to improve one‟s practice and provide more consistent and
contemporary standards of good practice.
Scholars have argued that professional development is an ongoing and lifelong
process (Bryan & Schwartz, 1998; Creamer, et al., 1992; Janosik, et al., 2006a; Kruger,
2000; Roberts, 2007; Scott, 2000). Creamer, et al. (1992) provided several reasons for
why professional development should be ongoing, including the fact that practitioners
enter the field with and without formal degrees and with varied work experience. They
argue that professional development is a professional obligation. It is such a large part of
the student affairs professional culture, that it is often considered universally valued
within the field (S. Carpenter & Stimpson, 2007; DeCoster & Brown, 1991). A
commitment to continuous improvement and learning is included in the ethical
statements of ACPA, NASPA and CAS (Komives & Carpenter, 2009), which is
indicative of the importance the student affairs field places on professional development.
Merkle and Artman (1983) (as cited in Coleman & Johnson, 1990) define
professional development as, “a planned experience designed to change behavior and
result in professional and/or personal growth and improved organizational effectiveness”
(p. 4). Adopting Winston and Creamer‟s (1997) description of staff development as an
effort directed by supervisory staff to improve employees, and in turn, improve
organizational effectiveness, professional development, in comparison, can be viewed as
more self-directed than staff development activities. Professional development as a
structured activity can still be influenced by an individual‟s supervisor or organization,
however, the descriptions these scholars provide suggest that the outcomes for
47
professional development are the responsibility of the professionals themselves. Kruger
(2000) argues that lifelong professional development must venture beyond the scope of
staff development activities. If an individual is to be self-directed in their pursuit of
developmental activities beyond those offered through staff development opportunities, a
structured professional development model could make this goal easier to pursue.
In their overview of professional development for student affairs professionals,
Komives and Carpenter (2009) review previous scholarship that helped to shape the
profession‟s philosophical approaches to professional development. Though some
professional development models are referenced in the first chapter of this dissertation
(e.g., Carpenter, 1991; DeCoster & Brown, 1991; Dunkel & Schreiber, 1992), Komives
and Carpenter suggest that modern professional development should have certain
characteristics, whether the professional development activities are geared towards
individuals or groups. The characteristics can be understood with the acronym
PREPARE, where professional development activities should be: (a) purposeful,
intentional, and goal related, (b) research, theory and data based, (c) experience based, (d)
peer reviewed, (e) assessed, (f) reflected upon and reflected in practice, and (g) evaluated.
The crux of their reasoning is that individual professionals must prepare for professional
work over the course of a career, and not just at the beginning, and they must also prepare
in that professional development must be intentional.
While professional development within student affairs is accepted and expected as
a professional duty, the actual practice by residence life staff has been discussed in the
literature by only a few scholars. As mentioned in the previous chapter, a joint study
conducted by ACPA, et al. (2002) examining the recruitment and retention of residence
48
life professionals suggests that professional development is an important factor in
retaining residence life staff, especially entry-level staff. More recently, a study
conducted by ACUHO-I (2008) examined the role of professional development and
involvement for mid-level residence life professionals, and its implications on retention.
A survey was distributed to a stratified random sample of 240 mid-level professionals at
ACUHO-I institutions in all of ACUHO-I‟s regions in the U.S, prompting a response rate
of 69.5%. Findings indicate that 86.5% were encouraged to participate in professional
development activities by supervisory staff, but that only 29.3% actually had a written
professional development plan. Further, 92% of respondents report that involvement in
professional development activities has improved their competence on the job (ACUHOI, 2008b). The researchers suggest that institutions should create a plan for professional
development for residence life staff. In addition to the potential benefits of increased
competence through professional development suggested by the ACUHO-I (2008b)
study, Dunkel and Schreiber (1992) also state that a “well-defined professional
development plan” is one method residence life departments can use to reduce burnout in
residence life positions. It appears that an intentional professional development plan for
residence life staff, based on a set of competencies for effective practice, could offer
several benefits.
Janosik, Carpenter and Creamer (2006b) state that little progress has been made to
identify intentional professional development methods within the student affairs field,
despite the fact this had been identified as a need by Creamer, et al. (1992) more than a
decade earlier. The purpose of the Janosik, et al. study was to gauge the level of support
for an intentional professional development program among student affairs practitioners.
49
Their survey was sent to the entire ACPA membership, consisting of more than 6,000
student affairs professionals, which produced 2,346 useable surveys. Results suggest that
there was support from 93% of respondents for a professional development curriculum
that utilized core competencies to make decisions about their professional development
(Janosik, et al., 2006b). Though support was strong across many demographic groups
within the association, those at the entry- and mid-level responded with even stronger
support (95%), compared than those at the senior-level (88%). This competency-based
professional development format is similar to what Schreiber, et al. (1994) proposed in
their discussion of systematic professional development, where competencies are used to
plan and devise individual professional development plans. In fact, Schreiber, et al. cites
ACUHO-I‟s National Housing Training Institute (NHTI) as an example of competencybased professional development within residence life, and suggests each functional area
within student affairs explore the identification of competencies for success within those
areas, as well as to guide competency-based professional development for those
practitioners.
NHTI has been in existence for almost 20 years and, as a competency-based
professional development activity, is cited as an exemplary practice in professional
development by Komives and Carpenter (2009). The 50 competencies originally used in
the institute were developed through a study conducted by Dunkel and Schreiber (1992),
and later updated through a study conducted by Porter (2005) to include 57 competencies.
The institute brings “younger professionals”, interested in advancing in their residence
life career, together for a week-long living-learning experience in a residential life
setting. ACUHO-I recommends participants have between three and five years of full-
50
time experience. The most similar program available to entry-level residence life
professionals is the Regional Entry-Level Institute (RELI). Functioning in many of the
same ways NHTI does, RELI uses a competency-based approach to working with entrylevel residence life professionals in a living-learning setting to develop a professional
development plan (Northeast Association of College and University Housing Officers,
2008). Two graduates from the first NHTI class developed the initial RELI and the list of
competencies used. The competencies are updated periodically by a group of senior
practitioners working at institutions within the same geographic region of the country (J.
Goldwater, personal communication, March 6, 2006). The specific competencies
addressed through RELI will be reviewed in the following section, though it is important
to acknowledge that the competencies used at RELI were not developed through
empirical means. Despite the lack of research identifying the competencies used at
RELI, ACUHO-I has modeled two of their primary professional development programs
on a set of competencies for some time. The two broad student affairs professional
associations, NASPA and ACPA, have begun to devote more attention in the past few
years to competency-based professional development.
NASPA has adopted a professional development curriculum based on content
areas and ACPA recently identified a list of competencies to help guide professional
development efforts (ACPA, 2008; Janosik, et al., 2006b; Komives & Carpenter, 2009),
which was later updated by ACPA and NASPA (ACPA & NASPA, 2010). By focusing
on areas where one is deficient or lacks skills, professional development may assist
student affairs professionals in staying current, more efficient, and successful. A
thorough examination of the competencies that have already been identified for
51
successful student affairs and residence life practice will be presented in the next section
of this chapter. However, the importance of self-assessment in planning professional
development activities, as it relates to one‟s level of competence will be presented first.
A staff development model proposed by DeCoster and Brown (1991) suggests
that self-assessment is a critical piece in cultivating a systematic approach to developing
professionals; a similar argument could be made for professional development. They
suggest that practitioners should, on an ongoing basis, assess the knowledge, skills and
personal qualities needed for their current positions as well as the positions they would
eventually like to seek in the future. They suggest that these assessments will help to
identify development activities based on the competencies and qualities needing
additional improvement. Carpenter (1991) also asserts that professional development
requires stringent self-assessment. An assessment of the specific competencies possessed
by individual professionals could be used as a means of identifying professional
development goals and outcomes (ACPA, 2008). Additionally, ACUHO-I (2008b)
suggests that professional development activities that identify training and orientation for
entry-level residence life staff focused on clarifying job tasks and skill building is a
means of reducing role ambiguity. ACPA, et al. (2002) also outlines the benefits to
identifying training competencies for entry-level residence life staff, including reducing
role ambiguity and reducing attrition in these positions. The identification of
competencies to guide professional development may assist entry-level professionals in
being more successful, while also assisting the field in reducing retention and attrition
issues in these positions. The next section provides a review of the existing scholarship
identifying student affairs and residence life competencies.
52
Student Affairs and Residence Life Competencies
The topic of competencies for effective student affairs practice has been explored
in the student affairs literature over the course of several decades (c.f., Barr & Associates,
1993; Creamer, et al., 1992; Komives, et al., 2003; Lovell & Kosten, 2000; McClellan, et
al., 2009; Newton & Richardson, 1976; Rybalkina, 2005). Numerous scholars have
conducted empirical examinations resulting in the identification of specific competencies
or competence areas for professionals in the field (e.g., ACPA, 2008; Burkard, et al.,
2005; fFey & Carpenter, 1996; Gordon, et al., 1993; Janosik, et al., 2006a; Pope &
Reynolds, 1997; Schoper, Stimpson, & Segar, 2006; Tyrell & Farmer, 2006). The
identification of competencies, particularly for use in developing plans for professional
development activities, appears to be of interest to many in the field; a previously
mentioned study that surveyed members of ACPA suggests considerable support for a
competency-based professional development curriculum (Janosik, et al., 2006b). In the
last five years, the two national student affairs professional associations, ACPA and
NASPA, have developed templates to guide professional development activities based on
competency areas (Komives & Carpenter, 2009), and both are now used in some manner
in the design of programs and workshops at their national conferences.
While there appears to be a large amount of support for competency-based
professional development opportunities within student affairs, until recently there had
been no agreed upon set of competencies for use in determining continued development
or success in the field (ACPA & NASPA, 2010; Cuyjet, et al., 2009; Kretovics, 2002;
Kuk, et al., 2007; Pope, et al., 2004; Waple, 2006). NASPA‟s professional development
53
curriculum and ACPA‟s competencies were arguably different. NASPA‟s curriculum
offered a six-cell matrix with broad knowledge areas to guide professional development
activities, particularly program attendance at their annual conference. ACPA‟s
competency model offered competency areas with skill sets and learning outcomes
identified. ACPA‟s model was intended for use in determining personal professional
plans, and later was used to guide program selection, and participant attendance for
annual conventions. To some degree, the NASPA curriculum and ACPA competencies
offered similar content, but in many ways they were categorized differently, making the
parallels between them harder to distinguish, creating two separate models for the field to
choose from. Just last year, a set of competencies was adopted by ACPA and NASPA for
the general student affairs practitioner (ACPA & NASPA, 2010).
There have also been attempts to identify the competencies that are required of
individuals at specific career levels within student affairs (c.f., Herdlein, 2004; Schmitt
Whitaker, 2005; Tyrell & Farmer, 2006; Waple, 2006). Competencies for specific
functional areas like residence life have yet to be identified for all staffing levels. This
section will offer a review and synthesis of the literature examining student affairs and
residence life competencies; similarities and differences in the competencies identified
will also be presented.
Student Affairs Competencies
Colleges and universities exist in an evolving environment, where student affairs
staff must be equipped with the necessary competencies to face the challenges of
changing campus cultures and student populations (Barr, et al., 2000). Kuk, et al., (2007)
54
also suggests that the competencies required of student affairs practitioners is changing
due to the shifting nature of higher education and diverse student needs. Earlier work
that proposed competencies for student affairs work has evolved over time from a list of
suggested traits and characteristics that student affairs staff should possess, to a list of
specific skills and proficiencies staff should attain through professional preparation and
continued professional development (ACPA, 2008; ACPA & NASPA, 2010; Barr, et al.,
2000; Burkard, et al., 2005; CAS, 2003b; Creamer, et al., 1992; Komives, et al., 2003;
Lovell & Kosten, 2000; Pope & Reynolds, 1997; Rybalkina, 2005; Schoper, et al., 2006;
Winston & Creamer, 1997). For decades the student affairs field has considered a basic
question: what expertise is needed to be a successful student affairs professional? This
review will illustrate that while many skills are still considered important for student
affairs work, taken as a whole, the composite skill sets appear to have changed somewhat
over time.
One of the earliest sets of competencies for student affairs staff came out of a
booked titled The Future of Student Affairs: A Guide to Student Development for
Tomorrow’s Higher Education by Miller and Prince (1976). This seminal piece was the
culmination of several efforts, specifically the Commission on Professional Development
of the Council of Student Personnel Associations (COSPA) in Higher Education and the
evolution of the Tomorrow‟s Higher Education (T.H.E.) project over the course of almost
a decade (Miller & Prince, 1976). Miller and Prince propose an intentional student
affairs approach in their book. Their model has six components or skill areas that were
intended to assist professionals in developing an intentional approach to their design of
student affairs programs and services. Mastery of these skills was considered necessary
55
to the effective delivery of these programs and services (Miller & Prince, 1976). Hyman
(1988) later made minor modifications to Miller and Prince‟s model and proposed five
competency categories, which are: (a) goal setting, (b) consultation, (c) communication,
(d) assessment and evaluation, and (e) environmental and organizational management.
From Miller and Prince‟s model, Hyman combined assessment and evaluation into one
category, eliminated instruction, and added communication. Under these new
competency categories Hyman went on to study specific competencies and their relative
importance to entry-level student affairs work. The use of competencies to design
effective service delivery for students, as Miller and Prince suggest, provided a
foundation for the subsequent identification of competencies for student affairs programs,
as well as professional preparation and development.
Following the work of the COSPA group, and the T.H.E. project, the field began
to see the introduction of competency lists, for the general student affairs practitioner.
Two such lists are presented in this review because both include broad competency areas,
and they were proposed by their authors as critical and essential to successful student
affairs practice. The first list, originally proposed by Delworth, Hanson and Associates
(1980), was updated over the course of three decades by Delworth, Hanson and
Associates (1989), again by Komives, Woodard and Associates (1996), once again by
Komives, Woodard and Associates (2003), and finally just this year by Schuh, Jones,
Harper and Associates (2011). The more recent lists produced by this group of scholars
proposes 11 competency areas, including competencies that were not present in earlier
lists. In the second to last revision a separate competency area for leadership, and a
competency area for mediation/conflict resolution emerged, while the most recent list did
56
not include a competency area for assessment that had been included in the set of
competencies immediately prior to this current one.
A second list of competencies included in this review, originally proposed by Barr
and Associates (1993), has also evolved over time. The original list was updated by Barr,
et al. (2000), and recently updated by McClellan, et al. (2009). The most notable change
in comparison to earlier versions of this list is the introduction of two competency areas,
specifically technology, and facilities planning and development, and the elimination of
another area, student development.
With regards to both lists, the introduction of new competency areas suggests that
the skill sets required of the professionals that do student affairs work have also evolved.
The lists of competencies these scholars proposed, though widely-referenced in the
literature, are not the products of empirical work intended to identify competencies for
the field. A thorough examination of research that sought to identify a common set of
competencies for use by student affairs practitioners provides additional insight into the
evolution of competency research in student affairs, as well as the lack of accord about
which competencies are necessary for student affairs work.
Pope and Reynolds (1997) and Pope, Reynolds, and Mueller (2004), identified
seven competence areas for student affairs staff, which were developed out of a broad
literature review. Pope, et al. describe their competence areas as dynamic and
interdependent between themselves, meaning the competence areas are not mutually
exclusive. For example, multicultural competencies should be integrated into each of the
other student affairs core competency areas. These researchers state that practitioners
and scholars in the field had previously identified the need to include multicultural
57
awareness, knowledge, and skills as a core competency for student affairs practice, and
that the competencies they propose respond to that need. Widely accepted lists were
proposed both prior to and after Pope and Reynolds‟ original model (Barr, et al., 2000;
Delworth, et al., 1980, 1989), incorporating various competencies necessary for effective
practice, but did not include multicultural competencies. The research conducted by
Pope, et al. is another illustration of how competency research has identified changes in
the perceptions about what is needed for student affairs work. Multicultural awareness,
knowledge and skills were not always identified as necessary for work in the student
affairs field. Another example in recent years includes an increased value placed on
assessment skills (ACPA, 2006a). This is not to suggest that select other skills are no
longer necessary; though it does suggests that additional skills may eventually be
required for effective practice.
Over time, different scholars have identified slightly different competencies as
“necessary” for effective practice. In an attempt to determine which skills had been
identified most consistently in the literature, Lovell and Kosten (2000) conducted a metaanalysis of three decades of research examining the skills, personal traits, and knowledge
bases associated with successful student affairs practice. Though their initial examination
identified over 100 publications, their study was narrowed to include only empirically
based studies, resulting in 23 total studies that were analyzed. Their findings identified
which of these competencies were examined most frequently, but more importantly for
this current proposed study, their findings also indicated which of these competencies
were considered most important for successful student affairs practice. Well-developed
administration, management, and human facilitation skills (e.g. counseling skills and
58
supervisions skills) were recognized as most important. With regard to knowledge bases,
student development theory was deemed most necessary. Finally, from their analysis of
these studies, the personal traits considered as most important for success in student
affairs practice were those that permit individuals to work cooperatively and display
integrity. Their analysis also identified a lack of studies identifying skills and
competencies in technology assessment. Lovell and Kosten‟s findings suggest that
empirical studies identifying competency areas highlight the importance of student
development theory; in contrast, the most recent competencies identified by McClellan,
et al. (2009) do not include student development theory as a competency area. The
differences suggest a contemporary examination of student affairs competencies may
result in the identification of at least some skills for successful practice being different
than previously identified. Lovell and Kosten‟s findings are however consistent with
those competence areas proposed by Pope, et al. (2004), particularly Lovell and Kosten‟s
human facilitation skills, although Pope, et al. described these skills under different
names.
The research identifying competencies illustrates that the identified competencies
are both similar and different, when the findings from different studies are compared (see
Table 1). Whether they be the findings of research studies, or the work of professional
associations, consensus about which competencies are critical for successful practice has
not been reached (Cuyjet, et al., 2009; Kretovics, 2002; Kuk, et al., 2007; Pope, et al.,
2004; Waple, 2006). The most comprehensive and ongoing effort to develop shared
expectations regarding the standards of practice, and skills and competencies necessary
for professionals working in higher education has come in the form of the CAS Standards
59
(Creamer, et al., 1992; Waple, 2006). Through the collaborative input of representatives
from more than 30 higher education institutions and professional associations (CAS,
2008), CAS has continued to develop and update standards to be used in designing,
implementing and evaluating student affairs programs and services. For decades, CAS
has taken the lead in establishing and publishing standards of practice for professional
student affairs practitioners and standards for student affairs programs and services,
including standards for masters-level graduate preparation of student affairs professionals
(CAS, 2003b; CAS, 2008). Additionally, CAS has identified “ideal performance
characteristics” for higher education professionals, and categorized them into three
Table 1
Scholarly Work Identifying Student Affairs Competencies
Scholar(s)
Competence Areas
Miller and Prince
(1976)
Goal setting
Consultation
Instruction
Assessment
Evaluation
Environmental and organizational management
1st Edition
Assessment and Evaluation
Instruction
Counseling
Consultation
Program Development
Environmental Redesign
Allied Paraprofessional Assistance
2nd Edition
Teaching and Training
Counseling and Advising
Consultation
Program Development
3rd Edition
Leadership
Delworth & Hanson
(1980)
Student Services: A
Handbook for the
Profession
Delworth & Hanson
(1989)
Student Services: A
Handbook for the
Profession
– 2nd Edition
Komives, Woodard &
Associates (1996)
60
Student Services: A
Handbook for the
Profession
– 3rd Edition
Komives, Woodard &
Associates (2003)
Student Services: A
Handbook for the
Profession
– 4th Edition
Schuh, Jones, Harper
& Associates (2011)
Student Services: A
Handbook for the
Profession
– 5th Edition
Barr & Associates
(1993)
The Handbook for
Student Affairs
Administration
Barr, Desler &
Associates (2000)
The Handbook for
Student Affairs
Administration
– 2nd Edition
Counseling and Advising
Consultation and Mediation
Multiculturalism
Program Development and Group Advising
Assessment, Evaluation, and Research
4th Edition
Multiculturalism
Leadership
Teaching
Counseling and Helping Skills
Advising and Consultation
Conflict Resolution
Community Building and Programming
Professionalism
5th Edition
Multicultural Competence
Leadership
Staffing and Supervision
Teaching in the Co-Curriculum
Counseling and Helping Skills
Advising and Consultation
Conflict Resolution
Community Development
Professionalism
Academic and Student Affairs Partnerships
1st Edition
Program Planning
A Political Model for Program Evaluation
Outcomes Assessment
Budgeting and Fiscal Management
Translating Theory into Practice
Understanding Legal Constraints on Practice
Developing Effective Campus and Community Relationships
Conflict Management Skills
Maintaining High Ethical Standards
Dealing with Campus Crisis
nd
2 Edition
An Overview of Relevant Theories and Models for Students
Affairs Practice
Assessment in Student Affairs
Measuring Student Satisfaction and Needs
Translating Theory and Assessment Results to Practice
Program Planning and Implementation
Budgeting and Fiscal Management
Understanding the Legal Implications of Student Affairs Practice
Developing Effective Campus and Community Relationships
Managing Conflict Constructively
Maintaining High Ethical Standards
61
McClellan, Stringer &
Associates (2009)
The Handbook for
Student Affairs
Administration
– 3rd Edition
Pope, Reynolds &
Mueller (2004)
Based on list originally
developed by Pope and
Reynolds (1997)
CAS Ideal
Performance
Characteristics (2006)
ACPA (2008)
ACPA & NASPA
(2010)
Developing Partnerships with Academic Affairs to Enhance
Student Learning
Dealing with Campus Crisis
rd
3 Edition
Budgeting and Fiscal Management for Student Affairs
Legal Issues in Student Affairs
Implementing Assessment to Improve Student Learning and
Development
Program Planning and Implementation
Facilities Planning and Development
Technology: Innovations and Implications
Responding to Campus Crisis
Administration and Management
Theory and Translation
Ethics and Professional Standards
Assessment and Research
Helping and Advising
Multicultural Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills
3 Characteristics Categories – 50 Individual Characteristics
General Knowledge and Skills
Interactive Competencies
Self Mastery
Advising and Helping
Ethics
Legal Foundations
Leadership and Administration/Management
Pluralism and Inclusion
Student Learning and Development
Teaching
Advising and Helping
Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
Ethical Professional Practice
History, Philosophy, and Values
Human and Organizational Resources
Law, Policy, and Governance
Leadership
Personal Foundations
Student Learning and Development
groups (a) general knowledge and skills, to include knowledge such as understanding
relevant legal issues, and general skills like working collaboratively; (b) interactive
competencies, such as leading groups; and (c) self mastery characteristics, such as having
62
a commitment to excellence in work and maintaining personal wellness (CAS, 2006).
While these performance characteristics constitute broad competency categories each
professional in higher education should have, its existence again highlights the scope of
skills that are expected of these staff members, especially student affairs staff members.
It also emphasizes the differences between this and other proposed competency
categories. Though the outlined CAS standards and performance characteristics are
meant for the all-encompassing higher education profession, it is perhaps most applicable
to student affairs staff, given their role in developing students. However, the application
of these standards is not compulsory by any college or university staff (Herdlein, 2004).
CAS has proposed a set of 50 performance characteristics for all higher education
professionals – student affairs staff and others who provide and facilitate programs and
services to students (CAS, 2006). Other professional associations have attempted to
identify the competencies necessary for the success of student affairs professional
specifically. In 2005, ACPA‟s appointed Task Force on Certification met to examine the
practicality of a voluntary national certification program for student affairs professionals
(ACPA, 2006b). The task force administered a survey, the results of which report that
over ninety percent of survey participants support a professional development curriculum
based on professional core competencies. The task force made several recommendations
for further action. First, a literature review of student affairs professional competencies
was commissioned, resulting in the identification of nine competency areas, or
curriculum items (Schoper, et al., 2006). A second recommendation of the task force was
the formation of a Steering Committee on Professional Competencies which, using
Schoper, Stimpson and Segar‟s (2006) literature review as a basis, worked to develop a
63
broad and comprehensive list of professional competencies. The final report, adopted by
ACPA in 2008, outlined eight competency areas (ACPA, 2008). ACPA and NASPA‟s
(2010) recent publication allows for the examination of a modern collection of
competencies for the student affairs staff member, and comparison to those competencies
introduced earlier. Highlighting similarities between these competencies and those
presented by Schuh, et al. (2010) and McClellan, et al. (2009), ACPA and NASPA‟s
competencies include a competency area focused on student learning and development,
and a competency area that emphasizes law, policy, and governance. Excluded from the
competency areas presented by ACPA and NASPA are foundational skills, such as
technology skills, which the authors suggest all student affairs professionals should have
upon entering the field (ACPA, 2008). Still, none of the competency groupings offered
by the scholars mentioned above offer the specificity necessary to be able to use the
competencies as a checklist for professional preparation or professional development.
They do however provide a much needed framework to assist practitioners in exploring
competency areas in order to identify opportunities for continued growth and
development (ACPA, 2008).
In reviewing the existing scholarship that has proposed competencies for the
broader student affairs profession, there appear to be some variations between the
different sets of competencies proposed. Lovell and Kosten (2000) contend more
research is needed to examine the differences in competencies for student affairs staff at
different position levels. A review of competency research for different staffing levels
within student affairs reveals more consistency about what competencies are required.
Next, the work that has been done to examine competencies at different levels within
64
student affairs, particularly at the entry- and mid-level will be presented. There is
however, a lack of research examining competencies for senior-level student affairs
professionals.
Mid-level student affairs competencies
Several scholars have identified competencies specifically associated with midlevel student affairs work (Fey & Carpenter, 1996; Gordon, et al., 1993; Kane, 1982;
Saunders & Cooper, 1999; Schmitt Whitaker, 2005; Sermersheim, 2002; Tyrell &
Farmer, 2006). In 1996, Fey and Carpenter conducted a study examining the perceptions
of mid-level student affairs professionals regarding the necessary management skills and
professional development needs of mid-level staff. The researchers administered a
survey, based on a tool developed by Kane (1982), to mid-level managers holding
membership in a state-wide student affairs professional association. Fey and Carpenter‟s
findings identified personnel management and leadership skills as the most important
mid-level management skills for survey respondents. Their findings were consistent with
earlier studies conducted by Gordon, Strode and Mann (1993) who, using an adaptation
of Kane‟s tool as well, identified competencies that chief student affairs officers
(CSAOs) felt were necessary for mid-level student affairs professionals to posses. In the
Gordon, et al. study, CSAOs also ranked leadership to be the most important skill for
mid-level professionals.
Kane‟s (1982) instrument was again utilized by Saunders and Cooper (1999), who
conducted a survey of chief student affairs officers to identify the necessary competencies
for those aspiring to mid-level student affairs positions after receiving the doctorate.
Specifically, the study‟s findings suggest that personnel management, leadership,
65
communication and student contact are among the most essential competencies expected
of those with earned doctorates seeking mid-level student affairs positions. In 2002,
Sermersheim also utilized Kane‟s (1982) instrument to examine members of ACPA at the
mid-manager level and their perceptions of mid-level student affairs competencies. Her
findings affirm that leadership is considered to be the most important skill category for
mid-level student affairs professionals. The findings of this study are consistent with the
findings of both Gordon, et al. (1993) and Fey and Carpenter (1996) in that leadership
was considered to be a top rated competency for mid-level student affairs professionals.
Schmitt Whitaker (2005) conducted another study examining the characteristics
for mid-level student affairs administrators in the future. Her study utilized the Delphi
technique to determine the characteristics of mid-level staff at medium to large public
institutions of higher education in the year 2015. Using a group of experts, 84
characteristics were identified, 14 of which were considered by participants to be very
important for future success as a mid-level student affairs administrator. Though the
focus of the study dealt primarily with the personal characteristics possessed by
successful professionals, several characteristics can be understood as competencies, some
of which had not been identified in previous research as important. For example, broadbased technical endeavors and fiscal management were among those skills identified as
crucial. The Schmitt Whitaker study suggested a shift in thinking, different from that
identified in earlier studies, such that greater weight was being given to the importance of
fiscal management competencies for mid-level student affairs staff (Tyrell & Farmer,
2006).
66
More recent work on student affairs mid-level management competencies has
been produced by Tyrell and Farmer (2006). ACPA‟s Commission for Administrative
Leadership formed a Mid-Level Research Team which, through Tyrell and Farmer‟s
project, built on earlier works to examine current mid-level student affairs competencies
(Applebee, 1980; Fey & Carpenter, 1996; Gordon, et al., 1993; Saunders & Cooper,
1999; Sermersheim, 2002; Tillotson, 1995). Tyrell and Farmer conducted an
investigation which surveyed the entire ACPA membership regarding mid-level student
affairs competencies. Over 3,000 responses were received, representing over 47% of the
ACPA membership. The number of responses permitted the researchers to analyze
results between three groups of participants, those in pre-mid-level staff positions, those
in mid-level positions, and senior student affairs officers. All three levels of staff
surveyed placed an emphasis on leadership competencies as important for the mid-level
student affairs professional. Tyrell and Farmer suggested additional research to examine
differences by student affairs functional area, and by position level within student affairs
functional areas.
In summary, studies examining competencies necessary for success in mid-level student
affairs professional positions have produced similar results (See Table 2). Though the
findings of each of the individual studies are not identical, it seems apparent that
leadership competencies are seen as important for mid-level student affairs professionals
to do their jobs. While examinations of general student affairs competencies have
produced a variety of lists, studies examining competencies for mid-level student affairs
staff have produced greater consistency in their findings. Next, an examination of entrylevel student affairs competencies is presented.
67
Table 2
Scholarly Work Identifying Mid-Level Student Affairs Competencies
Scholar(s)
Competence Areas
Fey & Carpenter
(1996)
7 Skill Categories – 63 skill items
(Identified by Mid-level Student Affairs Staff)
1. Personnel Management Skills
2. Leadership Skills
3. Communication Skills
4. Student Contact Skills
5. Fiscal Management Skills
6. Professional Development Skills
7. Research and Evaluation Skills
7 Skill Categories – 63 Skill Items
(Identified by CSAOs)
84 Characteristics
(Identified by Student Affairs Experts)
1. Work with a diverse population
2. Character/integrity
3. Ethical behavior
4. Listen and integrate ideas
5. Commitment to multiculturalism
6. Honesty
7. Dependability
8. Interpersonal communication skills
9. Trustworthy
10. Adaptability
Based on original
instrument by Kane
(1982)
Gordon, Strode &
Mann (1993)
Based on original
instrument by Kane
(1982)
Saunders and Cooper
(1990)
Based on original
instrument by Kane
(1982)
Sermersheim (2002)
Schmitt Whitaker
(2005)
68
Entry-level student affairs competencies
Kuk et al. (2007) argues that establishing a shared set of competencies for entrylevel student affairs professionals could benefit both graduate preparation program
faculty as well as supervisors in helping entry-level professionals meet the demands and
expectations of their positions. Up until the past ten years, there had been relatively few
research studies conducted that examined entry-level student affairs competencies.
Lovell and Kosten‟s (2000) meta-analysis identified only two studies conducted prior to
then that specifically examined entry-level competencies. This section will provide an
overview of empirical studies examining entry-level student affairs competencies.
Newton and Richardson (1976) conducted one of the first examinations of
competencies necessary for entry-level student affairs work. They conducted a threeround Delphi study of practitioners working in the state of Georgia to develop a list of
competencies essential for the training of entry-level staff. After a list of proposed
competencies was developed by participants, the list was distributed for ranking using a
Likert-type scale, producing a final list of 28 competencies. The competencies were
categorized, based on participant rankings, into five priority categories. The single most
important competency listed in the first priority category was to develop skills in
interpersonal relationships. Though this study was limited in that there was a low
response rate, and it was restricted to a small geographic area, it is significant in that it
serves as one of the first attempts to study the skills and competencies necessary for
entry-level student affairs professionals. An initial comparison of the findings from
Newton and Richardson‟s study, to those of the studies that sought to identify mid-level
69
competencies, suggests that leadership, which was consistently identified as a necessary
competency for mid-level staff, was not viewed as necessary for entry-level staff.
A broader investigation of entry-level competencies took place a few years later
with Ostroth‟s (1981a) study that examined competencies sought in entry-level student
affairs professionals through a survey of employers listed at national student affairs
placement conferences. The survey instrument, adapted from a list of competencies
developed by Hanson (1976) and Minetti (1977), asked employers to rate the importance
of each competency as it related to selecting the best candidate(s) for the position that
was listed. The survey produced results consistent with those of the Newton and
Richardson (1976) study, that is, participants from the Ostroth (1981a) study identified
the ability to work cooperatively with others and interpersonal and communication skills
as most important. After examining entry-level positions posted at each of these
conferences, these researchers indicated that there were significantly more residence life
positions. The researchers separated the results from the respondents hiring for residence
life positions, and those hiring for non-residence life positions. The same six
competencies were found to be important for entry-level student affairs staff as well as
entry-level residence life staff, however the two groups rank-ordered the six
competencies differently. The competencies considered to be most important for nonresidence life entry-level student affairs professionals were, in order of importance, (a)
manifest well-developed interpersonal relations and communications skills, (b) work
cooperatively with others, (c) display leadership skills, (d) work effectively with a wide
range of individuals, (e) engage in effective decision making, and (f) assess student needs
and interests. Competencies for entry-level residence life professionals were considered
70
to be, in order of importance, (a) work cooperatively with others, (b) work effectively
with a wide range of individuals, (c) manifest well-developed interpersonal relations and
communications skills, (d) display leadership skills, (e) assess student needs and interests,
and (f) engage in effective decision making. The findings illustrate that while there are
similarities in the necessary competencies for entry-level student affairs professionals
across student affairs functional areas, further inquiry may assist practitioners in
understanding possible competency differences between functional areas.
The next broad examination of entry-level competencies was conducted by
Hyman (1988) who investigated the differences between chief student affairs officers,
senior housing officers and faculty from student affairs graduate preparation programs
and their perceptions of entry-level student affairs competencies. Specifically, Hyman
explored whether entry-level student affairs professionals possessed specific
competencies and whether these competencies were considered to be important for entrylevel student affairs work based on the three groups‟ responses to a Likert-type scale
survey. The survey instrument, and the 33 competencies it included, were developed
from the Tomorrow’s Higher Education (T.H.E.) Model proposed by Miller and Prince
(1976) and subsequent works by Minetti (1977) and Domeier (1977). Over 450 surveys
were returned, resulting in each of the 33 competencies being deemed important by the
three groups. There was agreement across the three groups that consultation was the
most important of the competency categories. Beyond that, the groups differed on which
competency groups were most important. The findings do suggest some disagreement as
to the relative importance of communication as a competency category; chief student
71
affairs officers rated is as the third most important, whereas faculty and senior housing
officers rated is fourth out of five.
Saidla (1990) went on to conduct a smaller study examining entry-level student
affairs competencies at a large public institution through a survey of 75 professionals
within its student affairs division, across different functional areas and at varying position
levels. Although the findings are limited given the small population used in the study,
two things are noteworthy. First, the importance of communication competencies are
emphasized again in these findings, ranked number one, making them consistent with
earlier studies on entry-level student affairs competencies. Second, while professionals
in the different functional areas identified the same top four competencies as most
important, there were differences between functional areas regarding the additional
competencies. For example, staff in housing/residence life deemed competencies in staff
supervision and development as “essential” whereas those within career
planning/placement did not consider this competency to be even “important”. Moreover,
only those working in financial aid and registration/records deemed computer skill
competencies to be important or essential. Saidla‟s study supports the need for further
exploration of the differences between student affairs functional areas regarding the
relative importance of specific competencies in entry-level positions.
A more recent examination conducted by Kretovics (2002) that surveyed 168
individuals with responsibilities for screening candidates for entry-level student affairs
positions at national student affairs placement conferences provides results that are
dissimilar to earlier studies examining entry-level competencies. A Likert-type scale
assessment was used, and of the 17 questions asked, five competencies or experiences
72
were deemed most important in determining whether a candidate was offered an
interview. Communication skills were not included. The findings of this study suggest
that communication competencies may be less important than findings from previous
studies suggest.
Herdlein (2004) conducted a study of chief student affairs officers‟ perceptions of
student affairs graduate preparation programs. A survey was developed through a
literature review, graduate preparation program descriptions and the CAS standards.
Eighty-one senior student affairs officers were chosen from institutions with programs
listed in ACPA‟s directory of student affairs graduate preparation programs, and 50
responded. Those surveyed responded to both Likert-type scaled questions, as well as
open-ended questions about the specific skill development, knowledge and personal traits
that are critical for successful student affairs practice. Among the human relation skills
identified by the researcher as most important, working with diverse populations,
effective communication, and interpersonal/people skills were among the top three.
These findings, though not consistent with the study conducted by Kretovics (2002), does
support findings from earlier studies identifying communication as an essential
competency for entry-level staff. The study also suggests that there may be some accord,
at least among senior student affairs officers, with regard to what competencies should be
taught in graduate preparation programs at the master level to prepare individuals for
entry-level work. Herdlein asserts that there are currently no formal requirements that
programs must adhere to, and further research may be needed to identify the
competencies necessary for successful practice, and that these competencies should be
integrated into the curriculum of these programs.
73
Burkard, Cole, Ott and Stoflet (2005) also utilized senior-level student affairs
practitioners, and mid-level staff, to identify entry-level student affairs competencies.
Three hundred professionals at or above the mid-level were randomly selected from the
NASPA membership to participate in their Delphi study, and one hundred forty-four
participants completed all three iterations of the Delphi study. Findings identified 32
essential competencies for entry-level student affairs staff, with two competency areas
identified as especially important: (a) personal qualities, and (b) human relations skills.
Personal qualities included personal characteristics such as time management and
oral/written communication skills. Human relation skills included collaboration,
multicultural competency, and supervision. The three other competency areas identified
by the researchers include: (c) administrative/management, (d) research, and (e)
technology. While these findings are consistent with many of the previous studies of
entry-level student affairs competencies, in that personal qualities like oral and written
communication skills are seen as critical, Burkard, et al. note that these findings also
differ from previous studies. Participants from this study had a higher expectation that
entry-level student affairs professionals have advanced counseling and human relations
skills than was evident in previous studies (Burkard, et al., 2005). Specifically the
findings of this study are inconsistent with the findings of Kretovics (2002) who found
that counseling skills gained in graduate school were not seen as particularly important
when deciding to interview candidates for entry-level student affairs positions; in fact it
was ranked 13th in Kretovics‟ study.
A study conducted by Waple (2006) also identified communication skills as the
most necessary competency in the success of entry-level student affairs staff. That study
74
also identified the use of computers, budget/fiscal management, strategic planning and
supervision of staff as competencies that are used to a high degree in entry-level work,
but are not attained in graduate preparation programs. Waple‟s national study examined
skills and competencies for entry-level student affairs by surveying student affairs
professionals from both ACPA and NASPA. Over 400 respondents who had received
their masters degree within the five years prior to the study, and were employed in entrylevel student affairs positions, responded to a Likert-type scaled instrument that examined
whether 28 individual competencies were attained in the respondent‟s masters degree
program and whether the competencies were used in their entry-level position. In
addition to this study being one of the more current examinations of entry-level student
affairs competencies, its findings may strengthen earlier findings that communication
skills are particularly important to the work of entry-level student affairs professionals.
Most recently, Kuk, et al. (2007) conducted a study examining the differences in
perceptions of entry-level student affairs competencies between three groups: mid-level
managers, senior student affairs officers, and graduate preparation program faculty. The
researchers developed a survey of 50 competencies from a review of established
standards for graduate programs in student affairs and actual masters level preparation
programs themselves. Sixty individuals for each group were randomly selected from
ACPA and NASPA membership lists which resulted in their receiving between a 51%
and 73% response rate from the groups to their Likert-type scale survey. The researchers
developed a factor structure from an analysis of the responses which resulted in the
development of four competency factors under which the 50 competencies were
categorized. The competency factors are: (a) individual practice and administration, (b)
75
professional knowledge and content, (c) goal setting and ability to deal with change, and
(d) managing organizations and groups. The findings suggest that the individual
competencies identified in this study are consistent with earlier studies on entry-level
student affairs competencies, however the findings also identify differences between the
three groups as to which competencies are important. Mid-level managers and seniorstudent affairs officers rated three of the four competency factors as more important than
did faculty members. Faculty ranked only one competency factor, professional
knowledge and content, as more important than the two administrator groups. In
comparison, the Hyman (1988) study also identified differences in perceived importance
between student affairs administrators and student affairs preparation program faculty.
These studies suggest that the differences in the perceived importance with regards to the
competencies are necessary for entry-level student affairs work should be explored
further.
The studies included in this review denote parallels in their findings, particularly
with the theme of communication and its consistent emphasis as an important
competency for success in entry-level positions, though other competencies are also
identified as important (See Table 3). Additionally, the competencies identified
sometimes differed depending on the participants (i.e., graduate preparation program
faculty, senior student affairs officers) who participated in the study. Further
examination may be necessary, not only to identify potential similarities or differences by
position level, but also between student affairs functional areas. Scholars have noted that
work within student affairs functional areas requires specialized knowledge and
competencies (ACPA, 2008; Komives, 1992; Winston & Creamer, 1998). The following
76
Table 3
Scholarly Work Identifying Entry-level Student Affairs Competencies
Scholar(s)
Competence Areas
Newton & Richardson
(1976)
28 Individual Competencies
(Identified by Student Affairs Staff)
1. Develop skills in interpersonal relationships
2. Experiencing practicums and internships throughout training
3. Awareness of the scope of student personnel
4. Skills in organization and administration
5. Ability to work well with others
6. Increasing self-awareness, including dealing with one‟s own
emotions
7. Increasing graduate‟s ability to deadline with reality over theory
8. Competency in individual and group counseling
36 Competencies Identified
(Identified by non-Residence Life Student Affairs Employers)
1. Manifest well-developed interpersonal relations and
communication skills
2. Work cooperatively with others
3. Display leadership skills
4. Work effectively with a wide range of individuals
5. Engage in effective decision making
6. Assess student needs and interests
5 Skill Areas – 33 Individual Competencies Identified – Competency
Categories Listed Below
(Identified by Faculty)
1. Consultation
2. Goal setting
3. Environmental and organizational management
4. Communication
5. Assessment and evaluation
(Identified by CHOs)
1. Consultation
2. Goal setting
4. Communication
1. Consultation
3. Communication
4. Goal setting
(Identified by Student Affairs Staff)
1. Personnel Communication Skills (oral or written)
2. Understanding of Individual Differences
3. Ability to Demonstrate Caring
4. Professional Ethics & Legal Responsibilities
Ostroth (1981a)
Hyman (1988)
Updated Miller & Prince
(1976) model.
Saidla (1990)
77
Kretovics (2002)
Herdlein (2004)
Burkard, Cole, Ott &
Stoflet (2005)
Waple (2006)
Kuk, Cobb & Forrest
(2007)
17 Criteria for Entry-Level Employment
(Identified by Student Affairs Employers)
1. Relevant assistantship experience while in graduate program
2. Masters in Student Personnel/Student Affairs
3. Demonstrated helping skills – listening, responding and referral
4. Personal commitment to diversity
5. Practicum experience while in graduate school
3 Categories of Traits – 34 Individual Traits Identified
(Identified by SSAOs)
Human Relations Skills
1. Work with Diverse Populations
2. Effective Communication
3. Interpersonal/People Skills
Management Skills
1. Budgeting
2. Knowledge of Politics
3. Collaboration Skills
Personal Attributes
1. Flexibility
2. Critical Thinking
3. Work Ethic
5 Competency Areas – 32 Competencies Identified
(Identified by SSAOs and Mid-level Student Affairs Staff)
1. Personal qualities
2. Human relation skills
3. Administrative/Management
4. Research
5. Technology
(Identified by Entry-level Student Affairs Staff)
1. Oral and Written Communications Skills
2. Problem Solving
3. Advising Students and Student Organizations
4. Crisis and Conflict Management
5. Effective Program Planning and Implementation
4 Competency Constructs – 49 Individual Competencies
1. Individual Practice and Administration
2. Managing Organizations and Groups
3. Professional Knowledge and Content
4. Goal Setting and Ability to Deal with Change
(Identified by Faculty)
(Identified by Mid-level Student Affairs Staff)
78
section reviews literature regarding competencies for the residence life functional area.
Residence Life Competencies
Dungy (2003) notes that work within the residence life field may include areas of
responsibility such as staff selection and training, room assignments, facilities
management and educational programming. The nature of residence life positions is
different from that of other positions within student affairs. Residence life professionals
work during the evenings and weekends, while also being required to live in the facilities
they oversee, to a greater extent than professionals in many other student affairs
functional areas. Additionally, most begin their career in residence life in a live-in
position (Kearney, 1993). Given the proximity of entry-level residence life professionals
to the resident students they live and work with, it may seem surprising to learn that
residence life professionals spend more time performing administrative duties than
serving students directly (Collins & Hirt, 2006).
Despite the traditionally high number of individuals employed in entry-level
residence life positions, a decrease in interest in these positions has been identified in the
field (Belch & Mueller, 2003). The unique requirements of live-in staff (e.g., living
where you work, non-traditional work hours, lack of privacy) can contribute to burnout in
entry-level residence life positions (Palmer, et al., 2001), and is one possibility for a
decline in interest. A lack of competent new professionals interested in residence life
will have a significant impact on student development, community development, and the
viability of residence life programs (Belch & Mueller, 2003).
79
Brandel (1995) states that “the competencies required to manage
housing/residence life programs are diverse, complex and dynamic” (p. 2). CAS has
established Standards and Guidelines for housing and residential life programs in order
to provide guidance in professional practice and accountability in residence life (CAS,
2003a). CAS recommends that the components of a residence life program include
learning outcomes for students such as intellectual growth, leadership development and
enhanced self-esteem (CAS, 2003a). One could argue that individuals responsible for the
administration of residence life programs should have the skills and competencies to
implement such a program. CAS indicates that individual staff members at varying
levels within a residence life department should possess personal skills and competencies,
among other things like formal education and relevant work experiences (CAS, 2003a).
Specific to the areas of a residence life program that an individual staff member is
responsible for, individuals are expected to be able to: (a) articulate a vision for their
organization, (b) set goals and objectives based on the needs and capabilities of the
population served, (c) promote student learning and development, (d) prescribe and
practice ethical behavior, (e) recruit, select, supervise and develop others in the
organization, (f) manage financial resources, (g) coordinate human resources, (h) plan,
budget for, and evaluate personnel and programs, (i) communicate effectively, and (j)
initiate collaborative interaction between individuals and agencies that possess legitimate
concerns and interests in the functional area. The range of responsibilities implies a welldeveloped set of competencies for work in this area, the importance of which is
illustrated when one considers the effect of residence life in a student‟s educational
experience. For residence life, the preparation of its staff at all levels, and particularly at
80
the entry-level due to the high contact these individuals have with students, seems
especially important.
This review has revealed few empirical studies on both residence life
competencies in general and competencies for staff at different position levels. The most
prominent research on competencies for the residence life field was conducted by Dunkel
and Schreiber (1992). With a response rate of over thirty percent, almost 250 senior
housing officers at ACUHO-I member institutions participated in their survey, aimed at
developing a list of competencies necessary for effective practice as a housing
professional. An initial list of 49 competencies was developed from a literature review
and the input of 17 residence life professionals from the researchers‟ home institution.
The competencies were organized into three categories. The first category is called
“administrative” and pertains to those used in the day to day operations of a housing
program. It includes skills such as personnel management and research skills. The
second category entitled “developmental”, deals with ongoing learning for students and
staff as individuals and as groups. It includes skills such as diversity awareness and
communication skills. The third category, called “foundational knowledge”, involves
knowledge acquired through educational activities and includes knowledge about
students and knowledge of current trends. Using a Likert-type survey, participants rated
the relative importance of each competency for becoming an effective housing
professional, using definitions provided by the researchers. Interpersonal communication
skills were found to be most important, while statistical analysis was found to be least
important from the list of competencies provided. Of the top 15 competencies found to
be important, the majority were categorized in the administrative and developmental
81
categories (Dunkel & Schreiber, 1992). The findings from this study suggest that
interpersonal skills are the most important competency for residence life professional to
posses, which has been identified by other researchers as one of the most important
competencies for entry-level student affairs staff to possess.
The list initially developed for Dunkel & Schreiber‟s (1992) study was eventually
increased to include 50 competencies, and provided the basis for NHTI, which is funded
through ACUHO-I, and has been the primary competency-based training program for
residence life professionals. As previously discussed, the 50 competencies used at NHTI
served as a foundation for the founding of RELI, as well as studies conducted by Brandel
(1995) and Porter (2005). Porter‟s study updated the list of competencies used by NHTI,
bringing the list to 57 competencies for professionals working in residence life
(University of Maryland College Park, 2008). While NHTI and CAS provide the only
two published competency lists for residence life professionals, these lists are widely
accepted in the field (See Table 4). The lists are meant to be applicable to residence life
professionals at all levels. In the following sections, research examining the
competencies for residence life professionals at different levels will be presented.
Senior-level residence life competencies
The senior-level or chief housing officer is responsible for the overall leadership
and direction of a housing and residence life department. CAS (2003a) outlines skills
and competencies SHOs should possess. Specifically, CAS indicates that the SHO
should possess a graduate degree in higher education, business administration, behavioral
science, or some combination of education and experience. Additionally, an SHO should
have knowledge and experience in human behavior areas and business management.
82
Table 4
Scholarly Work Identifying Residence Life Competencies
Scholar(s)
Competence Areas
Dunkel & Schreiber
(1992)
(Identified by SHOs)
2. Work cooperatively and effectively with a wide range of
individuals
3. Supervise staff
4. Engage in effective decision making
5. Train staff
6. Crisis management
7. Select staff
8. Short-range goal setting
9. Mediating conflict
10. Formulate and interpret policy
Expectations of Residence Life Staff Members
Articulate a vision for their organization
Set goals and objectives based on the needs and capabilities of
the population served
Promote student learning and development
Prescribe and practice ethical behavior
Recruit, select, supervise and develop others in the organization
Manage financial resources
Coordinate human resources
Plan, budget for, and evaluate personnel and programs
Communicate effectively
Initiate collaborative interaction between individuals and
agencies that possess legitimate concerns and interests in the
functional area
CAS (2003a)
Specific concentrations are outlined for preparation, which include: (a) human behavior
(e.g., philosophical foundations, social psychology, and multicultural studies), and (b)
business management (e.g., accounting, marketing, and planning). Outside of CAS‟s
publication, the development of a competency list for SHOs has evolved through two
studies, one conducted by Brandel (1995), and the other by Porter (2005) (See Table 5).
Brandel (1995) utilized the then 50 NHTI competencies in a study of over 500
senior housing officers to assess their perceptions about the importance of the
83
Table 5
Scholarly Work Identifying Senior-level Residence Life Competencies
Scholar(s)
Competence Areas
Brandel (1995)
1. Work cooperatively and effectively with a wide range of
individuals
3. Engage in effective decision-making
5. Develop and supervise a budget
6. Supervise staff
7. Recognize legal implications of higher education administration
8. Articulate characteristics of college students
9. Interpret and recognize special needs of ethnic, racial, religious
and cultural minorities, gays, bisexuals, lesbians, women, and
persons with disabilities
10. Occupancy management
(Identified by SHOs)
1. Decision making
2. Interpersonal communication
3. Budget development and resource allocation
5. Cooperation and collaboration
6. Personal characteristics
7. Staff supervision
8. Ethics
9. Staff selection
10. Strategic thinking and planning
Based on original list
identified by Dunkel &
Schreiber (1992)
Porter (2005)
Based on original list
identified by Dunkel &
Schreiber (1992)
competencies for effective job performance as a senior housing officer. Specifically,
respondents were asked to rate the level of expertise needed to effectively apply the
competencies, and to also rate their own level of expertise with regard to the
competencies. The results indicate that 17 of the 50 competencies necessitate a higher
level of expertise, of which the top three competencies are: (a) work cooperatively and
effectively with a wide range of individuals, (b) interpersonal communication skills, and
(c) engage in effective decision-making (Brandel, 1995). In comparison to the findings
of the study conducted by Dunkel and Schreiber (1992), communication skills as a
84
competency were ranked second in Brandel‟s study, whereas they were ranked first in
Dunkel and Schreiber‟s.. Brandel‟s use of the NHTI competencies allows a direct
comparison to the findings of Dunkel and Schreiber, permitting an analysis of the
potential differences between competencies identified for the larger residence life field,
and those with specific value to senior housing officers. It appears that communication
skills are very important to both populations.
Porter (2005) sought to build upon the previous research examining residence life
and senior housing officer competencies through her research. Her study produced a
competency model for senior housing officers through a Delphi study she conducted
using an expert panel to update the NHTI competencies. This produced a list of 57
competencies. The experts she identified were the participants and faculty selected for
NHTI in January 2004. She then conducted an online survey of 230 senior housing
officers to gauge the importance they placed on the 57 competencies for their current
position, at their current institution. Porter used Sandwith‟s five-factor competency
domain model for management training to cluster the competencies. The five factors are:
(a) technical (e.g., budget development and resource allocation and occupancy
management), (b) administrative (e.g., staff supervision and staff selection), (c)
interpersonal (e.g., decision making and interpersonal communication), (d) leadership
(e.g., personal characteristics and ethics), and (e) conceptual (e.g., assessment of student
needs and interests and enrollment management). The top five competencies were: (a)
decision making, (b) interpersonal communication, (c) budget development and resource
allocation, (d) crisis management, and (e) cooperation and collaboration. The
interpersonal factor contains most of the top 15 competencies for senior-level residence
85
life professionals. The interpersonal communication competency was again ranked
second in importance, as it was in Brandel‟s (1995) study, though the competency
identified as most important in the Porter study differed; decision making was the most
important competency.
Entry-level residence life competencies
Ostroth (1981b) suggests that because residence life work is so complex, the
ability to predict who will be successful in residence life positions is challenging. In
Ostroth‟s (1981b) study, the researcher uses the same data collected from the Ostroth
(1981a) study, where employers hiring entry-level student affairs staff at national student
affairs conferences were surveyed to determine which competencies were sought in
entry-level staff, and conducted additional analyses on the data collected for the entrylevel residence life population. Broader, more general abilities, such as competencies in
interpersonal communication, leadership and decision-making, were rated more
important than specific skills and knowledge like mediation and statistical and research
expertise. For entry-level residence life positions, six competencies received ratings of
“absolutely essential” or “very important” from over 90% of the participants. These
were, in order of increasing importance: (a) mediate conflicts between individuals and
groups, (b) display leadership skills, (c) manifest well-developed interpersonal relations
and communication skills, (d) work cooperatively with others, (e) work effectively with a
wide range of individuals, and, the most important competency, (f) assess student needs
and interests. Competencies receiving a low rating of importance included statistical and
research expertise and financial/budgeting skills. This study was one of the first to
examine competencies for entry-level residence life staff. Comparing the results of this
86
study to the findings from studies examining general student affairs competencies, it
appears that communication skills are considered important, though not as the most
important competency.
Few empirical examinations have been completed to identify entry-level
residence life competencies on a national level since the Ostroth (1981a, 1981b) studies.
In completing research for his doctoral dissertation, Englin (2001) conducted a study to
examine the performance competencies and appraisal practices for professional hall
directors in large residence hall systems. Though the focus of the research was primarily
on performance appraisal practices, the researcher developed an instrument that was
distributed to schools housing more than 4,000 students at ACUHO-I member
institutions; resulting in a list of competencies found in effective hall directors. The
competencies presented to the survey respondents were developed through the use of a
Delphi study. Englin requested that a former ACUHO-I President, and their colleagues,
identify a list of 15 universities that held membership in ACUHO-I and were considered
to have commendable residence life programs. Thirty individuals with responsibilities
for supervising hall directors at these institutions were asked, via e-mail, to identify
competencies required of an effective hall director. After one iteration, a list of 49
competencies was developed for the survey instrument. The survey tool they developed
from the 49 competencies yielded responses from over 350 hall directors and just over
100 supervisors of hall directors. The top four competencies considered to be most
important for effective hall directors were (a) ability to supervise, (b) knowledge of crisis
intervention practice, (c) ability to effectively communicate verbally, and (d) ability to
manage time. The four competencies considered to be least important were (a)
87
understanding assessment practices, (b) understanding learning theory, (c) understanding
facilities management, and (d) ability to budget. Hall directors rated competencies like
the ability to take initiative, be flexible and manage time as more important than
supervisors of hall directors; and supervisors of hall directors rated competencies such as
using verbal and written communication and consulting with others in diverse contexts as
more important than hall directors. Overall, the findings suggest that there is some
agreement between hall directors and supervisors of hall directors about the competencies
that are found in effective hall directors, though the two groups did emphasize different
competencies as more important than others.
The few studies that have been conducted to identify competencies for entry-level
residence life staff have produced similar results, and affirm the importance of many of
the competencies that have been identified for entry-level student affairs staff (See Table
6). However, an examination of the competencies used at the previously described RELI
suggest that ` research to identify competencies for this population could be useful. The
current list of competencies for entry-level residence life staff used by RELI was not
developed through empirical means, and is updated only periodically by one of the cofounders, through the input of colleagues who are current senior-level residence life
practitioners (J. Goldwater, personal communication, March 6, 2006). An examination of
a RELI competency list established for the Northeast Association of College and
University Housing Officers (NEACUHO) region‟s RELI identifies the following seven
competencies: (a) professional development, (b) managing multiple priorities, (c)
working with diverse students, (d) managing change, (e) staff supervision, (f) crisis
88
management, (g) campus politics, and (h) accountability, (Northeast Association of
College and University Housing Officers [NEACUHO], 2011).
Table 6
Scholarly Work Identifying Entry-level Residence Life Competencies
Scholar(s)
Competence Areas
Ostroth (1981b)
(Identified by Residence Life Student Affairs Employers)
1. Assess student needs and interests
2. Work effectively with a wide range of individuals
3. Work cooperatively with others
4. Manifest well-developed interpersonal relations and
communication skills
5. Display leadership skills
6. Mediate conflicts between individuals and groups
(Identified by Supervisors of Entry-level Residence Life Staff)
1. Knowledge of crisis intervention practice
2. Ability to supervise
3. Ability to effectively refer for counseling
4. Knowledge of community development
5. Ability to effectively communicate verbally
6. Ability to problem solve
7. Ability to manage time
8. Ability to multi-task
9. Ability to build trust
10. Ability to take initiative
(Identified by Entry-Level Residence Life Staff)
8. Ability to be flexible
Englin (2001)
Though the resulting RELI competency list was not produced through observed empirical
research methods, the list is indicative, at least anecdotally, of what one current gauge on
89
entry-level residence life competencies are. Three of the four top competencies identified
by Englin (2001) are included in the list of competencies addressed through RELI,
though communication as a competency area is not. As the primary competency-based
activity for entry-level residence life staff, the identification of competencies for this
group may be helpful to those coordinating RELI, as well as others with responsibilities
for entry-level residence life professional development.
An examination of studies researching competencies for success in entry-level
residence life professional positions has identified similarities in their results. However,
no broad agreement regarding the competencies that are necessary has been reached.
Further inquiry has also identified differences in which competencies are identified as
important for success depending on which group is asked to identify the competencies.
Finally, there has been no current, broad examination of entry-level residence life
competencies, and the findings of earlier studies suggest that the competencies of entrylevel student affairs staff differ by functional area (Kretovics & Nobles, 2005; Saidla,
1990).
This review of the literature pertaining to student affairs and residence life
competencies suggests that certain competencies may be more crucial to the success of
entry-level student affairs staff than they are for individuals at other career levels.
Additionally, this review also suggests that asking different populations to identify
competencies may result in some of those competencies being categorized as more or less
critical than others.
90
Chapter Summary
Kretovics and Nobles (2005) argue that there is a need for additional research
examining the competencies required of functional areas, specifically residence life.
Furthermore, Lovell and Kosten (2000) indicate that there are skills, knowledge bases
and personal traits, in addition to specific functional area skills, that may differ depending
upon the career level of the position being examined.
The empirical research on general student affairs competencies, as well as those
for staff at different levels, suggests that the relative importance of specific competencies
can change over time. The research also suggests that utilizing different groups to
identify the competencies for a specific subset of the student affairs population may be an
effective way to examine the issue empirically. Further, while competencies have been
identified for the larger student affairs field, and for different levels of staff within
student affairs, some scholars suggest that each student affairs functional area requires
specific knowledge and skills (ACPA, 2008; ACPA & NASPA, 1990; Komives, 1992;
Lovell & Kosten, 2000; Winston & Creamer, 1998). For residence life, specific
competencies have been identified, though competencies have not been identified
through empirical means for all of the different levels of residence life staff.
The purpose of this chapter was to present a thorough review of the literature in
order to provide the fundamental concepts upon which this research project was built. A
synthesis of the current issues in residence life employment, an overview professional
development in student affairs and residence life, and a review of the preceding studies
examining student affairs and residence life competencies have all been presented as a
91
means of supporting the need for this study. This review highlights the lack of empirical
research identifying competencies for entry-level residence life professionals.
This research study explored the identification of competencies for an entry-level
student affairs population. Determining a specific set of competencies that are important
for success in entry-level residence life positions contributes to the existing scholarship
that has examined student affairs and residence life competencies. A contemporary set of
competencies, produced through empirical means, will assist the field in developing
professional development opportunities based on these competencies; a potential
outcome being the reduced attrition and increased retention of staff in these entry-level
residence life positions.
The third chapter presents the methodology that was used to carry out this study.
Specifically, the methods for selecting participants, research design and procedures, and
data analysis methods are presented.
92
CHAPTER III
Introduction
This study sought to identify the competencies that are important for success in
entry-level residence life professional positions. This research addressed the following
research questions: (a) what competencies do entry-level residence life professionals
identify as important for success in entry-level residence life positions; (b) What
competencies do those who supervise entry-level residence life professionals
(“supervisors”) identify as important for success in entry-level residence life positions;
(c) what competencies do a panel of experts (“experts”) identify as important for success
in entry-level residence life positions; and (d) are there differences in the perceived
importance of competencies that are identified by all three groups? The purpose of this
chapter is to outline the methodology used in completing this study, specifically outlining
the selection of participants, the research design, the data collection methods and finally,
how the data was analyzed. The demographic variables of participants, such as gender,
years in the field, and level of education, were also collected and are reported later in this
chapter.
Description of the Participants
A three-round modified Delphi study was conducted to identify three sets of
competencies important for success in entry-level residence life positions. Three
different groups of participants were used for this study, (a) those in entry-level residence
life positions, (b) those who currently supervise entry-level residence life professionals,
and (c) residence life experts.
93
The researcher sought and received the support of ACUHO-I in the solicitation of
participants (See Appendix A). ACUHO-I serves as the primary professional association
for individuals working in the functional area of residence life, and boasts more than
6,400 professionals from 22 countries as members (ACUHO-I, 2008a). It was
anticipated that support from ACUHO-I might encourage participation in the study,
therefore all requests for the recommendation of experts and invitations to participants
referenced the endorsement.
The population for this study included all individuals at Northeast Association of
College and University Housing Officers (NEACUHO) institutions in the United States.
According to NEACUHO‟s membership brochure, more than 160 institutions of higher
education hold membership in the NEACUHO region (NEACUHO, 2010). In
consultation with the Chair of the ACUHO-I Commissioned Research Committee, the
NEACUHO region was chosen due to its broad geographic span and large membership
(D. Hallenbeck, personal communication, January 15, 2009). Additionally, the
NEACUHO region was chosen due to its proximity to the researcher. Furthermore, as a
member of NEACUHO, the researcher was eligible to gain access to the membership list.
In identifying participant groups within the NEACUHO population for this
modified Delphi study, the researcher noted that groups in a Delphi study are not meant
to be a representative sample of the population (Webler, Levine, Rakel, & Renn, 1991);
an early intent was merely to be inclusive of a range of experts‟ perspectives within a
discipline. Scholars reviewing various Delphi studies have noted that participant group
sizes vary. Trudea (2004) suggests that studies include between 10 and 20 participants in
a group. Ziglio (1996) also discussed appropriate group size for a Delphi study, and
94
indicated that for a homogeneous group, between 10 and 15 individuals is appropriate. In
terms of group size, the goal for this modified Delphi study was to secure approximately
15 participants each for the entry-level and supervisor groups, and 10 individuals for the
expert group. Participants for this modified Delphi study were sought in a variety of
ways. This will be discussed in the following sections.
Expert Participants
An original characteristic of early Delphi studies was to involve participant
experts responding to the different rounds of a study, with the goal of generating a broad
spectrum of ideas, and even consensus, around a particular topic or problem. Many
studies still involve “experts‟, though how one defines expert seems to differ from study
to study. Allen (1978) defines the term expert as someone who is familiar with a stated
problem. He notes that, “the main point in picking the panel of experts is that they have
information to share, are motivated to work on the problem, and have the time to
complete the tasks involved with the procedure.” Webler, Levine, Rakel and Renn
(1991) discuss the assembly of the expert panel, and note that it is not necessary to have a
representative sample, but that the selection of participants needs to be systematic. The
use of recommendations for the expert group in this modified Delphi study was done with
the intent to assemble a group of individual participants who have achieved a level of
knowledge and positive renown within the residence life field such that the findings of
the study may be more practical.
For the expert group in this modified Delphi study, each of the 26 members of the
NEACUHO executive board was asked to recommend three to four individuals from the
95
NEACUHO region (See Appendix B), whom they considered to be residence life experts.
These recommendations were submitted through a website (See Appendix C). After
receiving responses from a small number of executive board members, a second email
message was developed which generated a few more responses. In all, 10 executive
board members recommended 25 individuals to be invited as experts. Following receipt
of the recommendations by the researcher, all recommended individuals were contacted
directly via email to request their participation in the study (See Appendix D). Clayton
(1997) advises that the nominations of well-known individuals within a target group
(field) is valuable in a Delphi study. The actual nomination can be motivating to
potential participants.
The first message inviting experts to participate in Round One was sent to 25
recommended experts; and 14 of these individuals participated fully in Round One, and
Round Two. The number of expert participants who completed all three rounds of the
study was 11. Table 7 below is presented to show the demographic makeup of the 11
individuals in this participant group who completed all three rounds. The expert
participant group includes individuals working at both 4-year public institutions (n = 7)
and 4-year private institutions (n = 4), with varying enrollments and on-campus housing
occupancy. Of the 11 participants who completed all three rounds, the majority (n = 10)
reported to have at least 10 years or more of full-time professional experience in student
affairs. The gender makeup of the group was almost an even split, with slightly more
males (n=6) than females (n=5). All of the participants identified as White/Caucasian,
and all but one participant (n = 10) has an earned masters degree. There was one
participant with an earned doctorate.
96
Table 7
Description of Expert Participants
Variable
What is your age?
What is your gender?
What is your race/ethnicity? (Please read all
answers before responding)
Please indicate the highest degree you have earned.
How many years have you worked as a full-time
professional in student affairs?
professional in residence life?
How many years have you worked in your current
position?
What type of institution are you employed at?
What is the total enrollment of your current
institution?
What is the total number of residents who live
on-campus at your current institution?
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
Male
Female
Caucasian/White
Masters
Doctorate
6-9 years
10-14 years
15-19 years
20 years or more
6-9 years
10-14 years
15-19 years
20 years or more
0-1 year
2-5 years
6-9 years
10-14 years
15-19 years
4-year private
4-year public
1,000-1,999 students
10,000-14,999 students
15,000-19,999 students
1-999 students
Frequency
N
1
5
1
2
2
6
5
11
Percent (%)
of Sample
9.1
45.5
9.1
18.2
18.2
54.5
45.5
100
10
1
1
4
1
5
1
4
2
4
1
4
2
2
2
4
7
1
2
5
2
1
1
1
6
3
90.9
9.1
9.1
36.4
9.1
45.5
9.1
36.4
18.2
36.4
9.1
36.4
18.2
18.2
18.2
36.4
63.6
9.1
18.2
45.5
18.2
9.1
9.1
9.1
54.5
27.3
Entry-level and Supervisor Participants
For the other two participant groups, an email communication was sent to
NEACUHO members at American institutions with 2,000 or more students living on
97
campus (See Appendix E), describing the study and requesting their participation as a
self-identified (a) entry-level residence life professional, or (b) supervisor of entry-level
residence life professionals. Participants were asked to identify as an entry-level
participant if they minimally possessed a bachelors degree, were working in a full-time
position in residence life at a domestic institution housing 2,000 or more students, and
had worked in the field of student affairs for five years or less. Supervisor participants
needed to have responsibility for the direct supervision of at least one full-time entrylevel residence life professional, as defined above. Individuals who received an
invitation to participate as an expert did not receive an invitation to participate in the
entry-level or supervisor group. Additionally, no individuals employed at the
researcher‟s home institution or who participated in the technology pilot test were
solicited for participation in this study.
When the first membership list was requested from NEACUHO in February 2010,
more than 1,500 individuals were listed as members. Criteria like the number of students
living on campus were used to narrow the population as a means of identifying a more
homogeneous group of participants. After applying these criteria as a filter, there were
approximately 950 individuals who would potentially be eligible to participate as entrylevels or supervisors if the survey were to have been distributed in February 2010.
Institutional Review Board approval was not issued to the researcher until the end of the
spring 2010 semester. Due to the proximity of the end of the academic semester, and in
light of the fact that many entry-level residence life professionals are not employed
during the summer months, the researcher chose to begin data collection in the fall
semester.
98
The NEACUHO membership year begins October 1. In consultation with the
NEACUHO President and NEACUHO Membership Chair, the researcher was to receive
a membership list shortly after the membership year began. The first round of invites
was scheduled to be sent approximately two weeks later to the membership for
participation in the first round as entry-level residence life professionals or supervisors of
entry-level residence life professionals. The researcher also had pre-scheduled
appointments to speak via telephone with the NEACUHO Membership Chair to discuss
any pending membership registrations that could be included in a second set of
invitations for Round One. Upon receipt of the first membership list in early October
2010, the researcher noted a significant decline in the number of members since February
2010. The earlier list had 1,536 individuals, and the more recent list had 701. After
removing those who were nominated as experts, and those who were technology pilot test
participants and/or at the researcher‟s home institution, there were 417 individuals
eligible for a first round invitation as either an entry-level or supervisor. After the
invitation to participate in Round One was distributed, the researcher confirmed the
renewed membership of four out of five additional schools that met the eligibility criteria,
yielding an additional 108 individuals after experts and others were removed. These
individuals were sent the same invite the earlier group was sent, with the same requested
deadline. In total, 525 individuals meeting the eligibility criteria, and not removed due to
their institutional affiliation with the researcher or their participation as an expert or
technology pilot test participant, were invited to participate as entry-levels or supervisors.
Of the 525 individuals who were sent invitations, 53 individuals identified as
entry-level residence life professionals and fully completed the Round One survey. All
99
53 individuals were invited to participate in the second round and 43 individuals
completed the second survey. At the completion of Round Three, 28 individuals had
completed all three rounds. Table 8 below illustrates the demographic information for
the 28 individuals in the entry-level participant group who completed all three rounds.
Table 8
Description of Entry-level Participants
Variable
What is your age?
What is your race/ethnicity?
(Please read all answers before responding)
Please indicate the highest degree you have
earned.
position?
institution?
on- campus at your current institution?
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
Male
Female
African American/Black
Caucasian/White
Latino(a)/Chicano(a)/Hispanic
Multiracial
Other
Bachelors
Masters
0-1 year
2-5 years
6-9 years
0-1 year
2-5 years
6-9 years
0-1 year
2-5 years
4-year private
4-year public
Other (please specify)
10,000-14,999 students
15,000-19,999 students
20,000 or more students
10,000-14,999 students
Frequency
n
5
20
2
1
10
18
2
19
3
3
1
8
20
8
18
2
10
16
2
11
17
15
12
1
8
12
3
4
1
1
19
6
2
Percent (%)
of Sample
18
71
7.1
3.6
36
64
7.1
68
11
11
3.6
29
71
29
64
7.1
36
57
7.1
39
61
54
43
3.6
29
43
11
14
3.6
3.6
68
21
7.1
100
The demographics listed in the table above describe the 28 person entry-level
participant group as a predominately White/Caucasian group (n = 19), where most
individuals identify as female (n = 18) and report their age as being between 25-29 years
(n = 20). The majority of the participants in this group hold a masters degree (n = 20)
and work at a school with 2,000 – 4,000 students living on campus (n = 19). Though the
invitation to participate in the study and the definition provided on the survey instrument
used in all rounds defined entry-level residence life professional as someone with less
than five years of full-time experience, two participants indicated they had more
experience, yet still identified as entry-level professionals. Additionally, the definition
also defined entry-level residence life professionals as those who work at institutions with
2,000 or more students living on campus. The invitation was sent only to those
individuals who work at institutions reporting to house 2,000 or more students; however,
one participant indicated that they worked at a school with 1,000 – 1,999 students living
on campus. Despite the inclusion of this definition in all survey rounds, two individuals
with more experience, and the one individual who indicated that they worked at a school
with a smaller residential enrollment, all identified themselves as an entry-level residence
life professionals, and completed all three rounds of the study.
For the supervisor group, there were 28 individuals from the initial 525 invitations
who self-identified as supervisors and completed the survey for Round One. Each of
these individuals was invited to participate in the next round, yielding 19 individuals who
fully participated. Of these 19 individuals, 17 supervisor participants completed all three
rounds of the study. The demographic information for the 17 individuals who completed
all three rounds is presented in Table 9 below.
101
Table 9
Description of Supervisor Participants
Variable
What is your age?
What is your race/ethnicity?
(Please read all answers before responding)
Please indicate the highest degree you have
earned.
position?
institution?
institution?
on- campus at your current institution?
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
60-64
Male
Female
African American/Black
Caucasian/White
Multiracial
Masters
Doctorate
2-5 years
6-9 years
10-14 years
15-19 years
20 years or more
2-5 years
6-9 years
10-14 years
15-19 years
20 years or more
0-1 year
2-5 years
6-9 years
10-14 years
4-year private
4-year public
10,000-14,999 students
15,000-19,999 students
20,000 or more students
10,000-14,999 students
15,000-19,999 students
Frequency
n
1
3
6
2
2
1
1
1
8
9
1
15
1
14
3
5
6
2
3
1
5
6
2
3
1
4
9
3
1
10
7
4
5
2
3
3
11
3
2
1
Percent (%)
of Sample
5.9
18
35
12
12
5.9
5.9
5.9
47
53
5.9
88
5.9
82
18
29
35
12
18
5.9
29
35
12
18
5.9
24
53
18
5.9
59
41
24
29
12
18
18
65
18
12
5.9
The supervisor participants worked at both public (n = 7) and private institutions (n
= 10), with varying enrollments. The majority of participants (n = 11) in this participant
102
group worked at institutions housing 2,000 – 4,999 students. The group ranged in age
and years of experience in the student affairs field and specifically in residence life.
There were more female participants (n=9) than male participants (n=8) who completed
all rounds. The group was predominately Caucasian/White (n = 15) with most
participants holding a Masters degree (n = 14) and some with earned doctorates (n = 3).
Research Design
The research design of this study involved conducting a three-round modified
Delphi study to identify competencies important for success in an entry-level residence
life position. The use of three separate peer-participant groups permitted the examination
of differences between those groups based on their perceptions about which
competencies are more important than others for success in entry-level residence life
positions.
The Delphi Method
Originally a technique employed in U.S. Department of Defense research, the
Delphi method‟s first well-known application was highlighted in a report published by
the RAND Corporation in 1964 (Linstone & Turoff, 1977). The original use of the
technique was as a futures forecasting activity, utilizing a group of experts around a
selected topic (Weatherman & Swenson, 1974). It was developed in response to a
number of conflicts within groups while trying to make technological forecasts. An often
cited description of the Delphi method is offered by Linstone and Turoff who wrote,
103
“Delphi may be characterized as a method for structuring a group communication process
so that the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal with
a complex problem (1977, p.3).” Early uses of the Delphi method produced quantitative
or factual judgments. As the RAND Corporation gained confidence in the method‟s
ability, it began to experiment with the method to produce value judgments, through the
use of experts (Allen, 1978). The original Delphi method attempted to utilize a group to
generate possible outcomes for the future, without having to manage face-to-face
committee discussions. Though the original intent of the Delphi method was not
necessarily to arrive at consensus, but rather to facilitate a group communication process
in allowing a group of individuals to consider a problem (Turoff & Hiltz, 1996), and
consensus is still not a goal for all Delphi studies (Allen, 1978), consensus among a
group of panelists is now often the goal of many Delphi studies (Rotondi & Gustafson,
1996; Turoff & Hiltz, 1996).
Delphi studies have several characteristics that make them unique as a research
method. First and foremost, anonymity is critical (N. C. Dalkey, 1972; Rowe & Wright,
1999; Turoff & Hiltz, 1996; Weatherman & Swenson, 1974). Anonymity permits a free
expression of ideas, and reduces undue influence that may be experienced by in-person
groups. Because a Delphi study usually involves the anonymous participation of
respondents, it is important to alert participants that they are participating with peers.
Turoff and Hiltz state that it is important to indicate that individuals are participating with
“peers” so, “an individual participant [feels] that the other members of the group will be
able to contribute valuable insight about the problem being examined. This is a primary
factor in motivating participation” (1996, p. 61).
104
Another feature of the method is the iterations, or rounds, that help in facilitating
input from participants (Murry & Hammons, 1995; Rowe & Wright, 1999). The first
round usually begins with an open-ended question (Weatherman & Swenson, 1974).
During subsequent rounds, participants are often asked to rank-order or use a Likert-type
scale to indicate their preference for a particular item or items (Murry & Hammons,
1995). Turoff and Hiltz (1996) describe the use of scaling in a Delphi method when they
write,
Scaling is the method of determining measuring instruments for
human judgment. Clearly, one needs to make use of appropriate
scaling methods to aid in improving the accuracy of subjective
estimation and voting procedures. While most of these methods
were originally developed to measure human judgment, they are
easily adaptable, in many cases, to providing feedback to a Delphi
group on the consequences of the judgments being made by the
group members. (p. 70)
Another attribute of this method is that when participants use scales to rate their level of
agreement with the group‟s ratings, they are offered statistical representations, usually
descriptive statistics such as group means, or sometimes modes, for the responses from
the previous round (Murry & Hammons, 1995; Rowe & Wright, 1999). This permits
participants to have a sense of how their responses correlate to the group‟s responses.
A final characteristic of the Delphi method is the technique‟s intended goal.
Delphi studies are traditionally undertaken with the goal of reaching group consensus for
a particular topic or issue. Scholars who have examined Delphi as a research method
105
suggest three to four iterations are appropriate for a study. These reviews have found few
changes in participant responses beyond the second round, and most groups reaching
consensus by the third round (Rowe & Wright, 1999; Weatherman & Swenson, 1974).
Additionally, there has been a higher rate of participant drop-out after the third round
(Nelson, 2005).
Strengths and Weakness of the Delphi Method
Since the introduction of the Delphi method as a research technique, critiques
have emerged evaluating the method‟s strengths and weaknesses and its application as a
research method in different disciplines (Allen, 1978; Murry & Hammons, 1995; Rowe &
Wright, 1999; Rowe, Wright, & Bolger, 1991). Allen (1978) outlines the following
advantages to use of the Delphi method in futures forecasting:
It can reduce the tendency to follow the leader and lessens the
bandwagon effect so common in group settings, (b) it focuses the
attention on the issue and can reduce the tendency of members
getting the group sidetracked, (c) it allows 'experts' who have no
history of communicating to be able to communicate due to the
lack of face-to-face interaction, (d) it allows panel members to
communicate without actually having to get together physically,
(e) it reduces or eliminates entirely the possibility of a dominant
personality controlling the outcome of the group, (f) it produces a
threat-free environment for an individual to state his opinion, (g) it
provides a communication structure in which everyone has a
106
chance to be heard equally, (h) it provides controlled feedback to
the respondents, (i) it is economically productive because experts
do not have to be brought together and housed in order to interact,
(j) it generates a wide range of responses, thereby assisting in
trying to describe future events, (k) it is a technique that is usually
enjoyed by the participants because of the responses that are fed
back to them, and (l) it does not require elaborate procedures to
conduct (pp. 125-126).
The advantages outlined above are applicable to this current modified Delphi study as
well. The Delphi method permits participants to be drawn from a broad geographic
region that would otherwise not gather in the same location or have the time to be able to
consider the initial question and successive rounds that would follow. The added benefits
of avoiding the typical barriers present in face-to-face group settings were also
advantageous.
While there are several advantages to the use of the Delphi technique as a
research methodology, some disadvantages do exist. In designing this modified Delphi
study, a review of previous Delphi studies revealed that each study involved different
Delphi characteristics. This included variations in group size, the number of rounds used,
whether surveys were distributed in paper form or electronically, and which controlled
feedback and descriptive statistics were shared with participants, to name a few. In short,
there is no one typical Delphi study. Common modifications to the Delphi method are
outlined in a later section of this chapter.
107
Those who have examined the Delphi method as a research technique, as well as
those who have conducted Delphi studies, note some additional disadvantages that must
be acknowledged as well. For example, the researcher/facilitator also has the potential to
unduly influence the direction of the research in the construction and presentation of the
question(s) posed to the participant groups (Murry & Hammons, 1995; Webler, et al.,
1991). Additional disadvantages include the potential loss of utilizing a group of
participants who could indeed produce “better” results by interacting face-to-face, as well
as the potential for participants to lose their motivation to participate, especially after
several rounds (Murry & Hammons, 1995). This modified Delphi study sought to
minimize most of the disadvantages outlined by posing the same single open-ended
question to each group, offering the same instructions to each group, and offering the
same type of descriptive statistics to each group. Additionally, to minimize participant
drop-out, this study was limited to three rounds.
Finally, disadvantages related to the Delphi method are evident in concerns that
have been raised about accuracy and reliability. Woudenberg (1991) discusses the
difficulty in evaluating accuracy and reliability, contending that due to the technique‟s
reliance on determining group members‟ opinions, findings are very person- and
situation-specific. Additionally, a number of scholars examining Delphi as a
methodology have noted the difficulties in evaluating this technique as an appropriate
research methodology due to the inconsistencies in the various ways it has been applied
in research studies (Rowe, et al., 1991; Woudenberg, 1991).
108
Variations of the Delphi Method
Scholars contend that all Delphi studies are inclusive of these characteristics: (a)
anonymous group interaction and responses, (b) iterations or rounds of surveys or
questionnaires, and (c) controlled statistical feedback (Allen, 1978; N.C. Dalkey, 1967
{as cited in Yusouf, 2007}; Martino, 1993; Murry & Hammons, 1995; Rowe & Wright,
1999; Rowe, et al., 1991). Scholars have noted that variations of the method do exist
(Weatherman & Swenson, 1974; Webler, et al., 1991; Woudenberg, 1991). Linstone and
Turoff (1977) who offer one of the earlier and often cited explanations of the Delphi
method note that “there are many different views on what are the „proper,‟ „appropriate,‟
„best,‟ and/or „useful‟ procedures for accomplishing the various aspects of Delphi” (p. 3).
Weatherman and Swenson (1974) describe a number of “modifications” to the
basic procedures often used in a Delphi study. For example, “instead of open-ended
questions, the format of the initial questionnaire may use specific items to be evaluated.
The number of iterations may be adjusted. Additional questions may be inserted.”
Additionally, they note that the study may be used for purposes other than strict futures
forecasting, and that the makeup of the panel members may differ from study to study (p.
33). Of the many variations evident in descriptions by methodologists familiar with the
Delphi method, there are some more common adaptations.
The “policy Delphi” method is one variation of the method described in the
literature. Turoff (1977) states that the original intent of the policy Delphi, “seeks to
generate the strongest possible opposing views on the potential resolutions of a major
policy issue” (p. 84). According to Turoff, a major feature of the policy Delphi method is
that the decision maker using the anticipated results is not looking for a decision to be
109
made, but rather to be presented with all potential solutions for consideration. Consensus
is not a goal of this variation of the method. Sometimes suggested as a way to avoid or
replace committees, the intent of the policy Delphi is to provide resources to a committee
or individual that can consider a comprehensive set of options as a result of the work of
the Delphi group. Turoff suggests that a “policy Delphi should be able to serve any one
or any combination of the following objectives: (a) to ensure that all possible options
have been put on the table for consideration, (b) to estimate the impact and consequences
of any particular option, and (c) to examine and estimate the acceptability of any
particular option” (p. 87).
The policy Delphi is described as rigorous for participants and for the moderator
(Turoff, 1977). This method follows a similar format to the traditional Delphi method,
with a few exceptions. First, the initial round is often not open-ended, but rather, it
begins with an established set of issues or items, developed by the researcher, for
participants to consider in their first-round response. Second, the researcher eliminates
those items where there is strong agreement, and presents remaining items for
participants to evaluate. Participants offer ratings, evaluating the merits of different
aspects of the proposed items, such as its desirability, feasibility, importance, and
validity/confidence. A third, major distinction from the traditional Delphi method is the
ability of participants to propose additional items to the existing set of items for
evaluation by the group. (Turoff, 1977; Turoff & Hiltz, 1996). The policy Delphi is
intended to develop an exhaustive set of options, along with as many opposing opinions
and perspectives on each, to produce a comprehensive array of items for consideration.
The various scales used to measure participants‟ opinions (i.e. desirability, feasibility,
110
etc.) is also meant to provide a more thorough understanding of the implications for each
of the final items.
While the policy Delphi appears to be one of the more common “modified
Delphi” approaches, another adaptation of the method is the “group Delphi” method or
“Expert Workshop”, described by Webler, et al. (1991). The major distinction between
the group Delphi and the traditional Delphi method lies in the loss of anonymity.
Participants often must gather in the same location, and are broken into groups, where
they respond to the first questionnaire. Each group attempts to reach consensus, and after
the first round, the moderator reviews results, and asks groups to substantiate their points
when they deviate from that of other groups. The following rounds involve a
reassignment of groups to consider the same or an updated questionnaire. Again,
consensus is the goal, and often consensus has been reached on many points in the earlier
round, making the succeeding round quicker.
Another variation, referred to as the “trend model”, is a Delphi method described
by Turoff and Hiltz (1996). In this modification, the Delphi process is focused on where
participants forecast a particular trend or trends will be, at a particular point in the future.
Participants offer possible “assumptions” about the trend, as well as “uncertainties”
(described by Turoff and Hiltz as something participants do not anticipate occurring, but
if they did would change estimates about the trend). All items are included in a
“potential assumptions” list, and “every individual is asked to vote on each possible
assumption according to validity” (p. 67) using a fixed scale. Items identified as valid or
invalid, based on participant responses, are then removed, and the resultant commentary
111
and quantitative responses provided by participants around the remaining items helps to
highlight the group‟s projection(s) and how the trend can be influenced.
The above mentioned adaptations offer more common examples of modifications
to the Delphi method. Many studies have taken advantage of the method‟s flexibility
which has resulted in a variety of adapted Delphi studies. This current study utilized
elements of the traditional Delphi method, as well many aspects of the policy Delphi
method. The specific modifications made are outlined below.
Modifications and Considerations for This Study
This modified Delphi study utilized three main adaptations from the traditional
Delphi method. First, the goal of this study was not to reach consensus among
participants. Second, the data reduction efforts undertaken by the researcher did not
produce a set of competencies that can be used practically. Third, following the
identification of competencies in the first round, participants were able to add to the
existing set of competencies in the next round. Each modification will be addressed
below.
Though consensus is often a goal of many Delphi studies (Rotondi & Gustafson,
1996; Turoff & Hiltz, 1996), it is not a goal for all Delphi studies (Allen, 1978). This
modified Delphi study did not have consensus as a goal, though some indications of
consensus can be found in the results of the quantitative analysis of this study. The
aggregate ratings computed for each of the groups indicates a level of agreement about
the relative importance of each individual competency. The standard deviations
calculated for each competency does provide one indication of consensus around how
112
important, or unimportant, a participant group felt about a specific competency, though it
is important to avoid making generalization about potential consensus based on that one
measure.
For this modified Delphi study, the second major modification to the traditional
method was in the data reduction efforts following the first round. Murry & Hammons
(1995) explain the manipulation of data from open-ended questions received in the first
round by simply indicating that the data is used to generate the questionnaire or survey
for round two, suggesting all responses are merely compiled and presented. Others who
do describe data reduction efforts suggest that the data collected is summarized or coded
(Martino, 1993; Ziglio, 1996), but are not specific in offering parameters regarding how
much data reduction is expected. Though the data in this modified Delphi study was
reduced to a certain extent, in general, there is an expectation of greater data reduction in
a Delphi study. For this modified Delphi study, the objective was to produce an
exhaustive inventory of competencies for participants to consider, using the policy Delphi
as a basis for this decision. Policy Delphi studies have as a goal, the identification of any
and all potential outcomes to be considered (Turoff, 1977), though even in policy Delphi
studies, the number of items participants are presented with in the second round is usually
minimized to some extent because items having received wide participant agreement are
removed for the second round (Turoff, 1977). For this modified Delphi study, the
decision to reduce data to the extent that it was likely resulted in a limitation for this
study. This will be discussed in the next chapter.
The intent to identify all potential competencies through this modified Delphi
study influenced the third major modification, namely, allowing participants to propose
113
additional competencies (Turoff, 1977). A primary objective of the policy Delphi is to
ensure all alternatives and choices have been presented for consideration. An assumption
on the part of the researcher was that the presentation of competencies in Round Two,
based on the researcher‟s analysis and data reduction efforts with the responses from
Round One, could have omitted important competencies from being considered. Using
the policy Delphi as a basis, this modification was made to the current study.
The strengths and weaknesses of the Delphi method were considered by the
researcher in the selection of this modified Delphi method for the design of this study.
Though this methodology does not easily lend itself to replication, as a qualitative
method, the use of a modified Delphi method to explore the opinions of participants
about the competencies they identify as important is appropriate (Gay, 1996). An
adaptation of the traditional Delphi method was used to generate an exhaustive set of
competencies for consideration by each of the participant groups in an attempt to answer
the research questions. Additionally, the competencies that were identified may be used
for further inquiry into the generalizability of the findings for entry-level residence life
professionals. This study was an initial attempt at identifying competencies for this
professional population.
This method, with modifications, was also selected in an attempt to minimize
inconvenience to participants. The Delphi method permits individuals‟ participation
without having to attend multiple in-person meetings. Participants‟ ability to respond
electronically allowed them to complete questionnaires and surveys at their own pace,
within a specified timeline. Turoff and Hiltz (1996) indicate that the use of the world
wide web for collection of data in a Delphi study is appropriate. Additionally, due to the
114
electronic method, it is cost effective to conduct the study because the nomination and
solicitation of participants as well as the distribution of surveys for each round did not
have to be sent via postal mail. Dalkey (1972) describes the Delphi method as a rapid
and efficient way to collect data from knowledgeable people. The use of an electronic
survey instrument permitted the collection of data to be even more rapid, while involving
a geographically broader group of participants because they did not have to be present in
the same location.
Furthermore, the appropriateness of a modified Delphi method for this study,
examining entry-level residence life competencies, is confirmed by the number of studies
that have been conducted to examine similar topics using Delphi as a basis for their
methodology. Burkard, et al., (2005), Newton and Richardson (1976), and Schmitt
Whitaker (2005) all conducted a variation of the Delphi studies to examine student affairs
competencies. Additionally, Brandel (1995), Englin (2001), and Porter (2005) used
versions of the Delphi method to examine residence life competencies.
This was a descriptive study whereby a modified Delphi method was used to
solicit the opinions of participant groups with the use of a questionnaire. Gay (1996)
states that descriptive studies typically deal with the evaluation of attitudes and opinions,
and usually collect data through questionnaire surveys, interviews, or observation.
Because this study was a qualitative study, in addition to involving quantitative analyses,
it involved interpretative research. A potential limitation of this study is the potential
bias of the researcher in interpreting data collected during the first round and then
creating a list of competencies that was presented to participants during the second round
(Schmitt Whitaker, 2005). The use of subsequent rounds that sought the input of
115
participants in evaluating the presented lists may have assisted in reducing potential bias,
and identifying a list that includes agreed upon competencies.
Procedures
The following section outlines the data collection and analyses methods that were
used for this study.
Data Collection
Participant responses for all rounds were requested and collected electronically,
and individual participant‟s responses were not identifiable to other participants.
Questionnaires for each round were presented on a web page hosted through an account
on www.surveymonkey.com. The statement of informed consent was also presented at
the beginning of each round (See Appendix F).
Technology Pilot test
The researcher used three separate groups of individuals to participate as mock
participant groups in a technology pilot test. Gay (1996) suggests the pilot test of a
questionnaire to identify instrument deficiencies and to generate recommendations for
improvement. Ziglio (1996) also suggests the use of a pilot test in Delphi studies. A goal
of this pilot test was to determine if the questions posed were understood by participants,
whether the survey instrument was easy to navigate, and whether the data collection
efforts could produce data that would answer the proposed research questions.
116
The researcher asked eight colleagues to participate as experts, seven colleagues
to participate as supervisors and seven colleagues to participate as entry-levels. These
individuals were selected because they either worked at the researcher‟s home institution
or worked at an institution that was outside of NEACUHO or had fewer than 2,000
students living on campus, and were therefore not going to receive an invitation to
participate in the actual study. Participants in the entry-level and supervisor group were
selected for those groups based on their current professional positions as either entrylevel residence life professionals or supervisors of entry-level residence life
professionals. Those in the expert group of the technology pilot test were chosen because
they were not going to receive an invitation to participate in the actual study, and because
they had a significant amount of experience as a residence life professional.
Feedback from the technology pilot test was very positive, and produced no
suggestions for improvements. Though no feedback was received after the test, the
actual survey instruments used for Round Two and Round Three were changed from the
ones used in the test due to the large number of competencies that were proposed by all
groups during Round One. The test, with so few participants, did not produce as many
competencies as the real study did. The change to the instruments was related to the
format of the listed competencies in the next two rounds, making it easier to navigate
online for participants. Two technology pilot test participants were consulted about the
changes and both agreed that the new format was presented in a much more concise
manner.
117
Round One
Participants received a request to participate in Round One, with an
individualized link permitting access to the site. At the beginning of Round One,
participants were also asked to respond to a series of questions related to demographics
(See Appendices G and H). Specifically, participants were asked to identify the type of
institution they work at, the number of years they have worked in the field, and the
highest degree they have attained. Additionally, participants in the entry-level and
supervisor groups were asked to indicate that they fit the description of entry-level
residence life professional or supervisor of entry-level residence life professional for the
purposes of this study. If they indicated that they did not, the survey was designed to end
after they submitted their answer. Participants in the expert group were informed of their
designation as an expert in the invitation to participate. Because they accepted the
invitation to participate as a residence life expert, they were not asked to identify as either
an entry-level or supervisor on the demographic survey (See Appendix H).
During the first iteration (Round One), each of the three groups of participants
were presented with the same open-ended question, derived from the study‟s research
questions, “what are the top ten (10) competencies you identify as important for success
in an entry-level residence life position?”. Participants were asked to phrase their
responses in brief statements of no more than a few words for each competency. During
each round, participants were also provided the following definition developed by the
researcher, “competency is defined by the researcher as „specific knowledge of‟ and
„skills needed‟ to successfully perform job-related duties of an entry-level residence life
professional”. Participants were also presented with the following definition of success,
118
“success is defined by the researcher as the realization of a desired outcome or result.
Specific to this study, the desired outcome is the achievement of duties, goals and
responsibilities that should be expected of an entry-level residence life professional; and,
accomplishing this achievement outcome at a high level of proficiency.” The
aforementioned definition of entry-level residence life professional was also presented in
each round. These definitions were offered to provide a consistent context for
participants to generate responses (See Appendix I).
After responses were collected, data was then downloaded into a Microsoft Excel
file, permitting the researcher to utilize qualitative analysis techniques to analyze the data
and generate a list of competencies for presentation in Round Two.
Round Two
All participants from Round One were invited to participate in Round Two (See
Appendix J). During this second round, individuals were asked to review an alphabetical
list of competencies (See Appendices K, L and M) and indicate their level of agreement
as to whether each competency is important to the success of entry-level residence life
professional. Their level of agreement was indicated with the use of a 5-point Likert-type
scale. Respondents also had the opportunity to briefly convey their opinions about the
relative strengths and weakness of each proposed competency, by providing written
feedback on as many or as few of the listed competencies as they wished to, in designated
fields on the electronic form. Finally, participants had the opportunity to suggest up to
five additional competencies for consideration by the other participants in the next round
if they felt that there were competencies that were not included on the presented list.
119
Round Three
Only those individuals who participated in the previous round were invited to
participate in Round Three (See Appendix N). These individuals were asked to rate their
level of agreement again using the same 5-point Likert-type scale to indicate how
important they felt each competency was to the success of entry-level residence life staff.
The list of competencies presented was offered in descending order of importance, using
the statistical means that were calculated from the responses of that group during the
previous round. Any written comments from participants in the previous round related to
the strengths and weaknesses of each competency were also presented for respondents to
consider in logging their rating during this round. The written comments were offered
without any reference to the individual who made them. Finally, any competencies that
were proposed by participants during the previous round were offered at the end of the
Round Three survey, and participants were asked to rate them using the same scale used
to rate the other competencies (See Appendices O, P and Q).
Data Analyses
Upon receipt of all participant responses for each round, the researcher
downloaded the data file from surveymonkey.com and stored all responses into a
Microsoft Excel file. Participant email addresses were removed from the raw data set to
establish an invitation list for the next round and kept separately from the working data
set. For each round, the data set was then de-identified, and all personally identifiable
information was removed, including first name, last name, email address, and IP address.
120
Round One
After responses were collected, data was then downloaded into a Microsoft Excel
file, permitting the researcher to utilize coding techniques to analyze the qualitative data,
and to generate a list of competencies from participant responses. The competencies
proposed by each of the individual groups (entry-level, supervisor, expert) were kept
separate by the researcher. The researcher began with a group‟s compiled list of
proposed competencies and read it three times before any categories were identified. The
list was then read again and a list of initial categories was developed.
Creswell (2003) notes that there are flexible rules governing how a researcher
sorts through qualitative data. He writes, “it is clear, however, that one forms categories
of information and attaches codes to these categories” (p. 154). Gay (1996) notes that
coding is a critical piece to most qualitative research studies, and must be done in order to
critically analyze the data and identify themes and topics.
The researcher used coding techniques and reviewed each competency
individually in order to assign each competency from the proposed list to a category, and
recognize duplicates (Creswell, 2003). Through review, additional categories were
identified for any competencies that were not assigned to a category. The finalized
categories resulted in a set of proposed competencies that was presented to each group
during the next iteration (Round Two) to participants in that specific group. For example,
responses from entry-level residence life professionals were collected during Round One,
and presented only to entry-level residence life professionals during Round Two. The
same procedure was used for the other two participant groups.
121
For the expert group, 132 individual competencies were proposed during Round
One. Through qualitative analysis, 66 categories/competencies were identified for
presentation to the expert group during Round Two. The supervisor group produced 254
individual competencies, and 94 categories/competencies were presented to that group in
Round Two. Finally, the entry-level group yielded a total of 514 proposed individual
competencies, which resulted in 107 categories/competencies being identified through
qualitative analysis and listed in Round Two for that group‟s consideration. Data
collected in the first round was reduced to some extent as suggested by Martino (1993)
and Ziglio (1996), though the resultant list was still quite long. The researcher chose to
identify an exhaustive inventory of competencies in the spirit of the policy Delphi
method (Turoff, 1977), though the list of items participants needed to evaluate in
succeeding rounds was then less concise as a result, making it difficult to consider the
relative importance of an individual competency when there were so many others to
evaluate.
Round Two
Following the collection of responses from Round Two, data was downloaded
into a Microsoft Excel file and transferred into the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS). Using SPSS, the mean was calculated for each of the ratings collected
for the competencies in that round. The mean, as a measure of central tendency, can
provide information about the typical ratings assigned by participants to the competencies
listed (Sprinthall, 2003). For the entry-level and supervisor groups, there were
122
competencies that were proposed during Round Two, so there was no opportunity to
collect participant ratings on these competencies until Round Three.
Using the calculated means from the participants‟ responses during Round Two, a
rank-ordered list was developed in descending order for presentation to the participants
during the next round. Because written responses were also solicited from the
participants for each competency listed in Round Two, comments were also synthesized
minimally for presentation in the next round. Nominal editing, such as correcting
misspellings, was completed by the researcher. The qualitative data was not analyzed for
themes because the intent was to present participants‟ commentary on all competencies
proposed by their group as is traditionally done in a policy Delphi study (Turoff, 1977;
Turoff & Hiltz, 1996). A set of competencies in its entirety was sought through this
study for each of the participant groups.
Round Three
After the data was collected at the end of Round Three, data was downloaded into
a Microsoft Excel file and transferred into SPSS. SPSS was used to compute the mean,
median, mode and standard deviation of each of the competencies rated during Round
Three.
Research Questions
This research addressed the following research questions: (a) what competencies
do entry-level residence life professionals identify as important for success in entry-level
residence life positions; (b) What competencies do those who supervise entry-level
123
residence life professionals (“supervisors”) identify as important for success in entrylevel residence life positions; (c) what competencies do a panel of experts (“experts”)
identify as important for success in entry-level residence life positions; and (d) are there
differences in the perceived importance of competencies that are identified by all three
groups? An intent of the study was to produce a set of competencies that was identified
by each of the three participant groups. The decision to collect data in this way, without
presenting the responses from individuals in another participant group for review and
consideration, has helped to answer the first three research questions of this study. In
order to determine if there are differences in the competencies identified by the
participant group, responses from the different groups were kept separate.
In response to the first three research questions, a final inventory of the
competencies for each group can now be considered by examining the set of
competencies produced by each of the participant groups. Participant responses to Round
Three along with the statistical means that have been calculated for each competency will
also indicate not just which competencies are identified by each group, but also how
important each competency is.
For the final research question, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was calculated
for each competency that was identified by all three groups, in order to determine if there
are differences in the perceived importance by those groups for similarly identified
competencies. Sprinthall (2003) describes variance as a measure of how much of all of
the scores in a given distribution varies from the mean of that distribution. A one-way
ANOVA was calculated because there is one independent variable, consisting of different
subject groups (entry-level, supervisors, and experts). The calculation of a one-way
124
ANOVA produced an F ratio which, “determines the ratio between the variability
occurring between the sample groups and variability occurring within each of the sample
groups” (Sprinthall, 2003, p. 344) which tells us if there is a statistically significant
difference between groups on their ratings for individual competencies rated by all three
groups.
The next chapter will present the results of the analyses described above. The
findings of this study will be presented as each research question is answered
individually, and finally, a summary of the findings will be offered.
125
CHAPTER IV
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to identify the competencies that are important for
success in entry-level residence life professional positions. This study utilized three
groups of participants to identify these competencies. Specifically, entry-level residence
life professionals, supervisors of entry-level residence life professionals, and residence
life experts participated as separate groups in separate, three-round modified Delphi
studies. The results of these individual studies answered four research questions.
A thorough examination of the extant literature revealed a lack of empirical
studies examining competencies for entry-level residence life professionals. The research
that has examined this topic and identified competencies for this professional population
has produced both commonalities and differences in the competencies identified,
depending on the group of individuals that was asked to identify the competencies (c.f.,
Herdlein, 2004; Kuk, et al., 2007). The primary purpose of this modified Delphi study
was to determine which competencies a group of entry-level residence life professionals
would identify as important, while also determining which competencies a supervisors
group and an experts group would identify as important. An examination of the findings
from each of these groups answers the first three research questions. Once the
competencies identified by each group have been presented, the fourth research question
will be answered, highlighting like-competencies identified by all three groups and
reporting any differences between the groups. The results of the statistical analyses that
were utilized to produce the results, as described in the previous chapter, will be
discussed below.
126
Analyses
Following Round One, an analysis was completed to produce a set of
categories/competencies that was proposed by the participants who were identified as
either entry-level residence life professionals, supervisors of entry-level residence life
professionals or residence life experts. All individuals who participated in Round One
were invited to participate in Round Two. These participants were asked to rate each
competency using a 5-point Likert-type scale to indicate their level of agreement that
each competency was important to the success of entry-level residence life professionals,
where 1 = Strongly Disagree, and 5 = Strongly Agree. The competencies presented were
those developed by their peer group participants during the previous round. Respondents
were also invited to provide written comments on the strengths and weaknesses of each
competency, though were not required to. Finally, participants were also permitted to
propose up to five competencies that were not included on the presented list, though this
was also not compulsory.
Following Round Two, statistical means were calculated for each competency
that received a rating. Competencies that were introduced by individual participants
during Round Two could not be rated by others until they were presented during Round
Three. A compiled list of competencies, in descending order of statistical means, was
presented in Round Three to all remaining participants in that group. Competencies
introduced during Round Two were included at the bottom of the list. During Round
Three, individuals were asked to consider any written comments presented, and submit a
final rating for each competency using the same Likert-type scale. Finally, statistical
127
means, as well as medians, modes and standard deviations were calculated for each rated
competency in Round Three.
Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “what competencies do entry-level residence
life professionals identify as important for success in entry-level residence life
positions?”. The individuals who participated in the first round of the study, did not
participate in all of the subsequent rounds. Table 10 below shows the number of
individuals who participated as entry-levels in each round.
Table 10
Number of Entry-level Participants by Round
Participant Group
Round One
Round Two
Round Three
53
43
28
Entry-level
The competencies that were rated by the participants in the entry-level residence life
professionals group during Round Two, and the statistical means that were calculated by
the researcher are presented in Table 11 below.
Table 11
Round Two Competencies Identified by Entry-level Participants, Rank Ordered Based on
Group Mean
Competencies
1. Ability to be adaptable/flexible
2. Ability to prioritize
3. Ability to supervise student staff
n
43
43
43
Mean
4.7674
4.7209
4.6744
128
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
Oral/Verbal communication skills
Ability to respond to emergency/crisis situations
Ability to multi-task
Ability to handle work demands/hours
Organizational skills
Ability to give and receive constructive feedback
Open-minded
Ability to act as a role model for both staff and residents
Ability to make quick/sound/ethical decisions
Can respond and act under pressure
Listening skills
Confrontation skills
Conflict mediation and resolution skills
Time management skills
Discretion/privacy
Self-motivated
Consistency and reliability
Enforce policies
Leadership skills
Problem solving
Written communication skills
Understanding of issues facing students today
Interpersonal skills
Bachelors degree
Administrative Ability
Ability to work as part of a team
Integrity
Critical thinking skills
Building staff (professional/paraprofessional) rapport
Approachability
Ability to give/receive direction
Ability to work with difficult students
Value diversity especially to the underrepresented population
Stress management skills
Multicultural competency
Balancing work/personal life
Ability to effectively train and develop a staff to reach specific outcomes
Positive attitude
Commitment to professionalism
Accountability for others (i.e. RA staff, residents)
Ability/willingness to learn new things
Understanding of ethics
Self-management
Passion for helping students develop
Customer service skills
Ability to set aside frustrations while dealing with students
Ability to relate to the student experience
Ability to manage
Quick thinking
Counseling skills
Community development (utilize a model for department/hall with learning outcomes)
Common sense
Being able to look inwards/self-critique
Ability to work independently
42
43
43
43
42
43
42
43
43
43
42
42
43
42
43
42
43
43
42
42
42
42
42
43
43
43
42
43
43
43
43
43
42
42
42
43
43
42
43
43
43
42
42
42
43
43
43
43
42
43
43
43
43
42
4.6429
4.6279
4.6047
4.6047
4.5952
4.5814
4.5714
4.5581
4.5349
4.5349
4.5238
4.5238
4.5116
4.5000
4.4884
4.4762
4.4419
4.4419
4.4286
4.4286
4.4048
4.4048
4.4048
4.3953
4.3953
4.3953
4.3810
4.3721
4.3721
4.3721
4.3721
4.3721
4.3571
4.3571
4.3571
4.3488
4.3488
4.3333
4.3256
4.3256
4.3256
4.3095
4.3095
4.3095
4.3023
4.3023
4.3023
4.3023
4.2857
4.2791
4.2791
4.2791
4.2791
4.2619
129
58. Knowledge of student affairs/residential life
59. Staff-Development skills
60. Intrapersonal skills
61. Ability to collaborate with others outside of residence life
62. Non-clinical (helping) counseling skills
63. Patience with yourself
64. Empathy
65. One-on-one advising of students
66. Knowledge of your institution/students
67. Mentoring skills
68. Ability to identify differences between supervising/advising
69. Goal setting (personal)
70. Assertive
71. Commitment to professional and personal development
72. Patience for transition
73. To know resources
74. Ability to effectively present on topics related to Residence Life
75. Participating in meetings
76. Commitment to social justice
77. Budgeting skills
78. Goal setting (for students)
79. Act as a judicial hearing officer
80. Conceptual thinking
81. Advising skills
82. Ability to be creative
83. Task-oriented
84. Navigating campus/departmental politics
85. Building/Maintenance management
86. Presentation skills
87. Possess strong boundaries
88. Commitment to the institution one is working at
89. Interviewing skills
90. Programming skills
91. Ability to know campus layout well
92. Interest in staying current in the field
93. Event Management
94. Assessment
95. Humility
96. Maintain room change process
97. Desire to be involved with students' lives
98. Knowledge of student development theories
99. Student affairs experience
100. Technological skills
101. Familiarity with legal issues in higher education
102. Knowledge of current research in the field
103. Maintain damage billing
104. Connect with academic units/colleagues
105. High E-IQ
106. Prior RA experience
107. Math Skills (re Billing)
42
42
42
43
42
42
43
42
42
41
43
42
43
42
42
42
43
42
43
43
42
43
43
43
43
42
42
43
42
42
43
42
42
43
42
43
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
41
42
43
42
42
42
4.2381
4.2381
4.2381
4.2326
4.1905
4.1905
4.1860
4.1667
4.1429
4.1220
4.1163
4.0952
4.0930
4.0476
4.0476
4.0238
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
3.9767
3.9762
3.9535
3.9302
3.9302
3.9302
3.9048
3.9048
3.8605
3.8571
3.8571
3.8372
3.8333
3.8095
3.7209
3.7143
3.6977
3.6905
3.6667
3.6429
3.6429
3.6190
3.5952
3.5714
3.5714
3.4146
3.3571
3.3256
3.3095
3.2381
3.0000
130
Based on the means that were calculated for the second round, the top five
competencies that were identified by the entry-level group as most important for entrylevel residence life work were, in descending order, (a) ability to be adaptable/flexible
(M = 4.7674), (b) ability to prioritize (M = 4.7209), (c) ability to supervise student staff
(M = 4.6744), (d) oral/verbal communication skills (M = 4.6429), and (e) ability to
respond to emergency/crisis situations (M = 4.6279). The competencies identified by this
group as least important after Round Two responses were, in order of descending
importance, (a) maintain damage billing (M = 3.3571), (b) connect with academic
units/colleagues (M = 3.3256), (c) high E-IQ (M = 3.3095), (d) prior RA experience
(M = 3.2381), and the least important competency, (e) math Skills (re Billing) (M = 3.0).
The majority of the competencies received ratings above 4.0, indicating that many
individual skills are perceived to be important by this participant group. In fact, no
competency received a rating below 3.0
The table above and the seven competencies that were introduced during Round
Two were used to develop the instrument that was distributed to entry-level participants
during Round Three. Table 12 below offers a final set of competencies, identified by
entry-level residence life professionals in Round Three, for success in entry-level
residence life positions.
Measures of central tendency were computed for all competencies rated by entrylevel participants who completed Round Three. Median scores ranged from 3.0 to 5.0
(Mdn = 3.0 to Mdn = 5.0). Three competencies were given a rating as 3.0 (Mo = 3.0),
91 competencies were given a rating of 4.0 (Mo = 4.0), and 18 competencies were given
a rating of 5.0 (Mo = 5.0). Additionally, multiple modes were computed for some
131
Table 12
Round Three Competencies Identified by Entry-level Participants, Rank Ordered Based
on Group Mean
Competencies
3. Oral/Verbal communication skills
4. Ability to act as a role model for both staff and residents
5. Time management skills
6. Listening skills
7. Leadership skills
8. Ability to handle work demands/hours
9. Bachelors degree
10. Critical thinking skills
11. Confrontation skills
12. Interpersonal skills
13. Administrative Ability
14. Common sense
16. Can respond and act under pressure
17. Discretion/privacy
18. Consistency and reliability
19. Enforce policies
20. Self-management
21. Ability to give/receive direction
22. Ability to respond to emergency/crisis situations
23. Ability to work with difficult students
24. Approachability
25. Stress management skills
26. Ability to set aside frustrations while dealing with students
27. Ability to work independently
29. Organizational skills
30. Ability to make quick/sound/ethical decisions
31. Self-motivated
32. Balancing work/personal life
33. Ability to manage
34. Ability to give and receive constructive feedback
35. Conflict mediation and resolution skills
36. Positive attitude
37. Ability/willingness to learn new things
38. Quick thinking
39. Problem solving
40. Integrity
41. Value diversity especially to the underrepresented
population
42. Ability to relate to the student experience
43. Mentoring skills
44. Written communication skills
45. Ability to work as part of a team
n
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
27
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
Mean
4.6786
4.6071
4.5000
4.5000
4.5000
4.4643
4.4643
4.4286
4.4286
4.4286
4.3929
4.3929
4.3929
4.3929
4.3571
4.3571
4.3571
4.3571
4.3571
4.3571
4.3333
4.3214
4.3214
4.3214
4.3214
4.3214
4.3214
4.2857
4.2857
4.2857
4.2857
4.2857
4.2857
4.2500
4.2500
4.2500
4.2500
4.2500
4.2143
4.2143
4.1786
Median
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
4.5000
5.0000
5.0000
4.5000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.5000
4.5000
4.5000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
Modea
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
4.0000
4.0000
5.0000a
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
5.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
5.0000
4.0000
4.0000
5.0000
5.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
5.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
SD
0.4756
0.4974
0.5774
0.6383
0.5774
0.5762
0.7445
0.6901
0.6341
0.5728
0.5670
0.4974
0.6853
0.7373
0.8698
0.6215
0.6215
0.7310
0.5587
0.4880
0.5547
0.6118
0.6118
0.7724
0.5480
0.7228
0.6696
0.8100
0.6587
0.6587
0.8100
0.8968
0.5998
0.6455
0.7515
0.8444
0.5853
0.5853
0.6862
0.5681
0.9049
28
28
28
28
4.1786
4.1786
4.1429
4.1429
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
0.6696
0.7228
0.6506
0.8483
132
46. Building staff (professional/paraprofessional) rapport
47. Ability to effectively train and develop a staff to reach
specific outcomes
48. Intrapersonal skills
49. Ability to identify differences between
supervising/advising
50. Commitment to professionalism
51. Understanding of ethics
52. Customer service skills
53. Non-clinical (helping) counseling skills
54. Open-minded
55. Multicultural competency
56. Accountability for others (i.e. RA staff, residents)
57. Counseling skills
58. To know resources
59. Knowledge of student affairs/residential life
60. Being able to look inwards/self-critique
61. Staff-Development skills
62. One-on-one advising of students
63. Patience with yourself
64. Knowledge of your institution/students
65. Navigating campus/departmental politics
66. Understanding of issues facing students today
67. Assertive
68. Commitment to professional and personal development
69. Possess strong boundaries
70. Passion for helping students develop
71. Ability to collaborate with others outside of residence life
72. Empathy
73. Patience for transition
74. Advising skills
75. Conceptual thinking
76. Participating in meetings
77. Ability to be creative
78. Goal setting (personal)
80. Task-oriented
82. Student affairs experience
83. Community development (utilize a model for
department/hall with learning outcomes)
84. Goal setting (for students)
85. Act as a judicial hearing officer
87. Commitment to social justice
88. Building/Maintenance management
89. Commitment to the institution one is working at
90. Maintain room change process
91. Ability to effectively present on topics related to Residence
Life
93. Event Management
94. Humility
95. Desire to be involved with students' lives
28
28
4.1429
4.1429
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
0.7052
0.6506
28
28
4.1429
4.1429
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
0.7052
0.7559
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
27
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
4.1071
4.1071
4.1071
4.1071
4.0714
4.0714
4.0714
4.0714
4.0714
4.0370
4.0357
4.0357
4.0357
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
3.9643
3.9643
3.9643
3.9643
3.9286
3.9286
3.9286
3.9286
3.9286
3.8929
3.8571
3.8571
3.8214
3.8214
3.8214
3.8214
3.8214
3.7857
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
0.9165
0.9165
0.7373
0.8317
0.9786
0.9400
0.9400
0.8997
0.6627
0.8540
0.8381
0.6373
0.6373
0.9027
0.8607
0.8607
0.9222
0.9222
0.6373
0.8381
0.9400
0.7164
0.8576
0.8133
0.8133
0.6289
0.7559
0.7559
0.7228
0.6118
0.9049
0.6118
0.7724
0.8759
28
28
27
28
28
28
28
28
3.7857
3.7857
3.7778
3.7500
3.7500
3.7500
3.7500
3.7143
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
0.7868
0.8325
0.8473
0.9671
0.7993
0.9280
0.7515
0.8100
28
28
28
28
3.7143
3.7143
3.7143
3.6786
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
0.8545
0.8100
1.0131
0.8630
133
96. Knowing when to push something and when not to careb
28
3.6786
4.0000
4.0000
0.7724
97. Knowledge of student development theories
98. Ability to know campus layout well
99. Knowing your place in the organizationb
100. Assessment
101. Familiarity with legal issues in higher education
103. Prior RA experience
104. Teaching Competency - ability to explain things clearly to
studentsb
105. 360 conceptualization of how you affect other positionsb
27
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
3.6667
3.6429
3.6429
3.5357
3.5357
3.5000
3.5000
3.5000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
3.5000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
3.0000
1.2089
1.0616
0.9512
0.8381
0.7445
0.7935
1.1386
0.8819
28
3.4643
3.5000
4.0000
0.7927
106. Understanding that your supervisors are under a lot of
stressb
107. Interest in staying current in the field
108. Knowledge of current research in the field
109. Maintain damage billing
110. Connect with academic <units/colleagues>
111. High E-IQ
112. Ability to make sense of numbers and statisticsb
28
3.3571
4.0000
4.0000
1.0959
28
27
28
28
28
28
3.3214
3.2963
3.2857
3.2143
3.1429
3.1429
3.5000
4.0000
4.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
3.0000
3.0000
1.0560
0.9929
0.8545
0.7868
0.8034
0.8034
113. Math Skills (re Billing)
114. Research competencyb
28
28
3.0357
2.8929
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
0.8812
0.8317
a.
b.
Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
Competency Introduced During Round Two
competencies (See Table 12). The lowest standard deviation was computed for the
competency, ability to be adaptable/flexible (SD = 0.4756), and the competency with the
highest standard deviation was knowledge of student development theories (SD =
1.2089). The researcher noted lower standard deviations associated with competencies
that received higher means, though this is not the case for all competencies. Though the
level of consensus amongst participants on a given competencies' rating was not a focus
of this study, a lower standard deviation is one indicator that there may be a higher level
of agreement amongst participants on those competencies. The researcher also noted a
visual correlation between those standard deviations that were calculated to be closer to
1.0 or higher and those competencies receiving lower mean ratings by participants,
suggesting less agreement amongst participants for those competencies.
An examination of the final set of competencies identified by the entry-level
group reveals some similarities to the competencies identified in the previous round, but
134
also reveals some changes between the rounds. The top two competencies identified by
this group from Round Three, based on scaled ratings, remained consistent between
rounds, with the (a) ability to be adaptable/flexible as the most important competency
(M = 4.6786) and, (b) the ability to prioritize as the second most important competency
(M = 4.6071). Though these competencies remained the most important for this
participant group, it should be noted that the group means for both of these competencies
had a slight drop compared to the mean calculated during the previous round. There were
more competencies to consider, so perhaps this drop is unremarkable.
Three competencies rose in participants‟ estimation of importance, based on
ranking, compared to the previous round; their means were calculated to rank them as the
third, fourth and fifth most important competencies according to this group. These
competencies, all receiving the same mean for Round Three (M = 4.5) were (a)
oral/verbal communication, rising from fourth to third, (b) the ability to act as a role
model for both staff and students, which rose from its rank as number 11 to number four,
and (c) time management, which rose from number 17 to number five. The ability to
supervise student staff was identified in Round Two as the third most important
competency, however, during the final round, participant ratings assigned this
competency as 15th in importance (M = 4.3571). The ability to respond to
emergency/crisis situations was also rated as less important by participants in the final
round, moving from its rank as the fifth most important competency to number 22 in
importance (M = 4.3214). There is no clear explanation for the change in rated means for
each of the competencies. Their relative means do however indicate a change in
participants‟ perceived importance. Because participants were asked to consider the
135
means offered in Round Two along with any written comments offered by other
participants, one explanation for the increase or decrease in importance is that
participants were able to consider competencies in order of calculated means, versus in
alphabetical order. A participant may have offered a scaled rating during Round Two
that was independent of other competencies‟ ratings, if it had been presented in
alphabetical order. Round Three responses could indicate a level of agreement both with
the competency‟s importance, and with where the competency falls relative to other
competencies on the list.
Competencies that had been rated with the lowest statistical means during Round
Two were also rated with lower statistical means during Round Three. Three
competencies, (a) connect with academic units/colleagues (M = 3.2143), (b) high E-IQ
(M = 3.1429), and (c) math skills (re billing) (M = 3.0357), remained at the low end of
participant rankings based on mean ratings. Of the seven competencies that were
introduced during Round Two, two of the competencies during Round Three received
very low ratings from participants, (a) ability to make sense of numbers and statistics
(M = 3.1429), and the lowest rated competency, (b) research competency (M = 2.8929).
Some of the competencies with the lowest mean ratings do seem to have a shared focus
on skills with numbers and analysis. Though strictly anecdotal, entry-level participants
are indicating these skills are indicating these skills are less necessary than administrative
or people-oriented relations skills.
Absent from the set of competencies identified by the entry-level participants is a
competency that specifically refers to supervising graduate students (and new
professionals). Supervisor participants had identified a competency that dealt specifically
136
with supervising student staff and a separate competency that dealt with the supervision
of graduate and new professionals. It is possible that entry-level participants consider
graduate students to be student staff, since no additional competency addressing this was
proposed during Round Two; without the ability to inquire about that, there is no way to
know this. Expert participants identified a broad supervision competency with no
distinction made as to the type of staff that is supervised.
Many of the competencies that were identified by the entry-level participant
group, that were not identified by the other two participant groups, received low mean
scores by entry-level participants, including (a) prior RA experience (M = 3.5), (b) high
E-IQ (M = 3.1429), (c) teaching competency – ability to explain things clearly to
students, and (d) math skills (re: Billing) (M = 3.0357).
The analysis performed to produce results addressing this research question did
not result in a synthesis of the resultant competencies toward the formation of
competency themes. However, consistent with the results offered by some researchers
who conducted studies to identify entry-level student affairs competencies (c.f., Burkard,
et al., 2005; Herdlein, 2004; Kuk, et al., 2007), this researcher proposes six competency
themes for the competencies identified by the entry-level participant group. These
competency themes are, (a) administrative/management skills, (b) assessment/research
skills, (c) human relation skills, (d) personal characteristics, (e) resource and contentspecific knowledge, and (f) other. Table 13 below illustrates the individual competencies
identified by the entry-level participant group and the competency themes they are
assigned to by the researcher.
137
Table 13
Competency Themes Identified by Researcher for Round Three Competencies Identified
by Entry-level Participants
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Competencies
Ability to be adaptable/flexible
Ability to prioritize
Ability to act as a role model for both staff and residents
Listening skills
Leadership skills
Ability to handle work demands/hours
Bachelors degree
Administrative Ability
Common sense
Ability to supervise student staff
Can respond and act under pressure
Discretion/privacy
Consistency and reliability
Enforce policies
Self-management
Ability to give/receive direction
Ability to respond to emergency/crisis situations
Ability to work with difficult students
Approachability
Stress management skills
Ability to set aside frustrations while dealing with students
Ability to make quick/sound/ethical decisions
Self-motivated
Balancing work/personal life
Ability to manage
Ability to give and receive constructive feedback
Conflict mediation and resolution skills
Positive attitude
Ability/willingness to learn new things
Quick thinking
Problem solving
Integrity
Value diversity especially to the underrepresented population
Ability to relate to the student experience
Mentoring skills
Building staff (professional/paraprofessional) rapport
Competency Theme
Personal Characteristics
Administrative/Management Skills
Human Relation Skills
Other
138
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Ability to effectively train and develop a staff to reach specific
outcomes
Intrapersonal skills
Ability to identify differences between supervising/advising
Commitment to professionalism
Understanding of ethics
Non-clinical (helping) counseling skills
Open-minded
Multicultural competency
Accountability for others (i.e. RA staff, residents)
Counseling skills
To know resources
59
Knowledge of student affairs/residential life
60
61
62
63
64
Being able to look inwards/self-critique
Staff-Development skills
One-on-one advising of students
Patience with yourself
Knowledge of your institution/students
65
Navigating campus/departmental politics
66
Understanding of issues facing students today
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
Assertive
Commitment to professional and personal development
Possess strong boundaries
Passion for helping students develop
Ability to collaborate with others outside of residence life
Empathy
Patience for transition
Advising skills
Conceptual thinking
Participating in meetings
Ability to be creative
Goal setting (personal)
Budgeting skills
Task-oriented
Presentation skills
Student affairs experience
83
Community development (utilize a model for department/hall
with learning outcomes)
Goal setting (for students)
Act as a judicial hearing officer
Interviewing skills
Commitment to social justice
Building/Maintenance management
Commitment to the institution one is working at
Maintain room change process
Ability to effectively present on topics related to Residence Life
Programming skills
Event Management
Humility
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
Resource and Content-Specific
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Assessment/Research Skills
139
95
96
Desire to be involved with students' lives
Knowing when to push something and when not to care
97
Knowledge of student development theories
98
Ability to know campus layout well
99
Knowing your place in the organization
100
101
Assessment
Familiarity with legal issues in higher education
102
Technological skills
103
104
105
106
Prior RA experience
Teaching Competency - ability to explain things clearly to
students
360 conceptualization of how you affect other positions
Understanding that your supervisors are under a lot of stress
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
Interest in staying current in the field
Knowledge of current research in the field
Maintain damage billing
Connect with academic <units/colleagues>
High E-IQ
Ability to make sense of numbers and statistics
Math Skills (re Billing)
Research competency
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Other
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Though most of the competencies identified were assigned to the personal characteristics
theme, the top ten most important competencies, based on mean, include a mix of
personal characteristics, administrative/management skills, and human relation skills. If
the competency themes identified by the researcher are accurate, it does indicate the vast
range of skills that are required of successful individuals in entry-level residence life
positions.
Research Question 2
The second research question asked, “what competencies do those who supervise
entry-level residence life professionals (“supervisors”) identify as important for success
in entry-level residence life positions?”. There were some individuals who completed the
140
first round of the study, but do not complete other rounds. Table 14 shows the number of
individuals who participated as supervisors.
Table 14
Number of Supervisor Participants by Round
Participant Group
Supervisor
Round One
Round Two
Round Three
28
19
17
The competencies that were rated by participants in the supervisors group, as well
as the statistical means that were calculated from their responses during Round Two are
presented in Table 15 below.
Table 15
Round Two Competencies Identified by Supervisor Participants, Rank Ordered Based on
Group Mean
Competencies
1. Ability to follow directions
2. Dependability
3. Ability to manage multiple priorities
4. Willingness to learn
5. Common sense
6. Ability to relate/connect/establish a rapport with students
7. Follow-through
8. Emergency response/crisis management skills
9. Decision making skills
10. Dealing with difficult people
11. Adaptability/Flexibility
14. Ability to stay calm and think through various situations
15. Ability to reason and rationalize
17. Initiative/Motivated
19. Administrative skills
n
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Mean
4.8947
4.7895
4.7895
4.7368
4.7368
4.6842
4.6842
4.6842
4.6842
4.6842
4.6842
4.6842
4.6316
4.6316
4.6316
4.6316
4.5789
4.5789
4.5789
141
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
Ability to think on their feet
Time management
Problem solving skills
Listening effectively
Ability to take feedback
Professionalism
Positive attitude
Leadership skills
Conflict mediation/resolution skills
Multicultural awareness, knowledge, and skills
Approachable
Hard working
Administration of hall address facilities needs; maintain occupancy records
Self-awareness
Managing stress/frustration
Ability to work in a diverse working environment
Visibility within community
Ability to work in a team/group
Goal execution
Competence
Building positive relationships with other departments
Perseverance
Goal setting
Educated
Community development advise hall council; mediate conflicts
Understanding advising v. supervising
Establishing a relationships with administrative staff and other offices
Student conduct understanding and experience
Positivity
Ability to manage budget
Seeing the big picture
Referral skills
Empathy
Committee work and institutional liaison serve on departmental committees & represent
RL on college committees
Presentation skills
Mindfulness
Knowledge of basic counseling skills and techniques
Intelligence
Facilities management
Balance between work and personal life
Ability to work with various stakeholders
Knowledge of current issues in higher education
Programming skills
Facilitation skills
Professional dress and manner
Creativity
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
18
19
19
19
18
19
19
19
18
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
4.5789
4.5789
4.5789
4.5789
4.5789
4.5789
4.5789
4.5789
4.5263
4.5000
4.4737
4.4737
4.4737
4.4444
4.4211
4.4211
4.4211
4.3889
4.3684
4.3684
4.3684
4.3684
4.3684
4.3684
4.3158
4.3158
4.3158
4.2632
4.2632
4.2632
4.2632
4.2105
4.2105
4.2105
4.2105
4.1579
4.1053
4.1053
4.1053
4.1053
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
4.0526
4.0526
4.0526
4.0526
4.0526
4.0526
4.0526
4.0000
4.0000
3.9474
3.9474
3.8947
3.8947
142
73. Knowledge of university administration
74. Knowledge of student learning/development theory
75. Implementation of residential education create learning outcomes for hall suited to hall's
demographics
76. Event planning
77. Kindness
78. Passionate
79. Advising skills
80. Mission driven
81. Ability to maneuver politically
82. Basic understanding of student affairs models and how they relate to the experience
83. Revise and respond
85. Capacity to take on more when full
86. Talented
87. Know research in the field
88. Ability to develop training modules
89. Assessment skills
90. Strategic planning
91. Basic researching skills
92. Ability to supervise new professionals and graduate students
93. Recruiting entry and pro staff
94. Knowing the Jesuit Values
19
19
19
3.8947
3.8421
3.8421
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
3.8421
3.8421
3.7895
3.7895
3.7368
3.7368
3.6842
3.6316
3.5789
3.5789
3.4211
3.4211
3.4211
3.3684
3.2105
3.2105
3.2105
3.0000
2.3158
The five competencies identified as most important at the conclusion of this round
were (a) ability to follow directions (M = 4.8947), (b) dependability (M = 4.7895), (c)
ability to manage multiple priorities (M = 4.7895), (d) willingness to learn (M = 4.7368),
and (e) common sense (M = 4.7368). The five competencies that received the lowest
mean scores from this group of participants during Round Two were, (a) strategic
planning (M = 3.2105), (b) basic researching skills (M = 3.2105), (c) ability to
supervisors new professionals and graduate students (M = 3.2105), (d) recruiting entry
and pro staff (M = 3.0), and (e) knowing the Jesuit values (M = 2.3158). Many of the
skills rated by supervisor participants received ratings above 4.0, indicating a stronger
level of agreement that many of the skills are important to entry-level residence life work.
Of the lower rated competencies, only one competency‟s mean score, knowing the Jesuit
143
values, was rated by the group to be below 3.0, indicating that participants generally
agreed that this was an unimportant competency.
The Round Two ratings were used to present the competencies in descending
order of importance, along with the five competencies that were introduced during that
round, to participants in Round Three. Table 16 below offers a final set of competencies,
identified by supervisors of entry-level residence life professionals during Round Three.
Table 16
Round Three Competencies Identified by Supervisor Participants, Rank Ordered Based
on Group Mean
Competencies
2. Problem solving skills
3. Follow-through
5. Approachable
7. Dependability
9. Ability to relate/connect/establish a rapport with students
17. Listening effectively
19. Common sense
21. Emergency response/crisis management skills
25. Hard working
26. Ability to think on their feet
27. Initiative/Motivated
28. Professionalism
29. Ability to work in a team/group
n
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
Mean
4.8235
4.7647
4.7059
4.7059
4.7059
4.6471
4.6471
4.6471
4.6471
4.6471
4.6471
4.6471
4.6471
4.6471
4.5882
4.5882
4.5882
4.5882
4.5294
4.5294
4.5294
4.5294
4.5294
4.5294
4.5294
4.4706
4.4706
4.4706
4.4706
Median
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
Modea
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
SD
0.3930
0.4372
0.4697
0.4697
0.5879
0.4926
0.4926
0.4926
0.4926
0.6063
0.6063
0.4926
0.4926
0.6063
0.5073
0.6184
0.5073
0.5073
0.5145
0.6243
0.6243
0.7998
0.5145
0.5145
0.5145
0.5145
0.5145
0.5145
0.5145
144
30. Willingness to respond on site to student crises in order to
obtain most accurate informationb
32. Time management
17
4.4706
4.0000
4.0000
0.5145
17
17
4.4118
4.4118
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
5.0000a
0.5073
0.6184
33. Multicultural awareness, knowledge, and skills
34. Establishing relationships with administrative staff and
other offices
35. Conflict mediation/resolution skills
36. Competence
39. Visibility within community
40. Perseverance
41. Ability to work in a diverse working environment
42. Customer service skills
43. Managing stress/frustration
44. Positivity
45. Ability to take feedback
46. Self-awareness
47. Knowledge of basic counseling skills and techniques
48. Facilitation skills
49. Administrative skills
50. Goal execution
51. Intelligence
52. Administration of hall address facilities needs; maintain
occupancy records
53. Building positive relationships with other departments
54. Community development advise hall council; mediate
conflicts
55. Educated
56. Professional dress and manner
57. Referral skills
59. Goal setting
60. Student conduct understanding and experience
61. Balance between work and personal life
62. Empathy
63. Seeing the big picture
64. Knowledge of current issues in higher education
65. Ability to understand time, place, and manner (for jokes,
meetings, compliments, criticisms, etc.) b
66. Knowledge of university administration
67. Understanding advising v. supervising
69. Patience with university bureaucracyb
71. Ability to work with various stakeholders
72. Advising skills
73. Ability to manage budget
74. Ability to develop training modules
75. Facilities management
76. Mindfulness
77. Kindness
78. Knowledge of student learning/development theory
79. Creativity
17
17
4.4118
4.4118
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
0.5073
0.5073
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
16
16
16
17
4.3529
4.3529
4.2941
4.2941
4.2941
4.2941
4.2353
4.2353
4.2353
4.2353
4.1765
4.1765
4.1765
4.1765
4.0625
4.0625
4.0625
4.0588
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
5.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
0.7019
0.4926
0.4697
0.5879
0.5879
0.6860
0.5623
0.5623
0.6642
0.4372
0.3930
0.5286
0.6359
0.6359
0.6801
0.5737
0.4425
0.4288
17
17
4.0588
4.0588
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
0.5557
0.7476
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
4.0588
4.0588
4.0000
4.0000
3.9412
3.9412
3.9412
3.8824
3.8824
3.8824
3.8824
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
0.5557
0.6587
0.7071
0.7906
0.7476
0.8994
0.8994
0.8575
0.8575
0.3321
0.7812
16
17
17
17
17
17
17
16
16
17
17
17
16
17
3.8750
3.8235
3.8235
3.8235
3.7647
3.7647
3.7647
3.7500
3.7500
3.7059
3.7059
3.7059
3.6875
3.6471
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
0.8062
0.8828
0.7276
0.7276
0.6642
0.6642
0.8314
0.7746
0.9310
0.8489
0.8489
0.9852
0.7932
0.9963
145
80. Implementation of residential education create learning
outcomes for hall suited to hall's demographics
81. Passionate
82. Committee work and institutional liaison serve on
departmental committees & represent RL on college
committees
83. Event planning
84. Ability to maneuver politically
85. Basic understanding of student affairs models and how
they relate to the experience
87. Assessment skills
88. Sense of humorb
89. Know research in the field
90. Capacity to take on more when full
17
3.6471
4.0000
4.0000
0.8618
17
16
3.6471
3.6250
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
0.7859
0.6191
17
17
17
3.5294
3.5294
3.5294
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
0.6243
0.7998
0.7174
16
17
17
17
17
3.5000
3.4706
3.4706
3.4118
3.3529
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
3.0000
3.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
3.0000
4.0000a
0.8944
0.7998
1.0073
0.7123
1.0572
91. Ability to supervise new professionals and graduate
students
92. Basic researching skills
93. Revise and respond
94. Talented
95. Mission driven
17
3.3529
4.0000
4.0000
0.9315
17
17
17
17
3.3529
3.2353
3.2353
3.1765
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
4.0000a
0.6063
0.9701
0.8314
0.8828
96.
97.
98.
99.
a.
b.
17
17
17
16
3.0588
3.0000
2.7059
2.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
2.0000
3.0000
3.0000
2.0000
1.0000
0.7476
0.7071
0.9852
0.9661
Recruiting entry and pro staff
Strategic planning
Playfullnessb
Knowing the Jesuit Values
Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
Competency Introduced During Round Two
Measures of central tendency were computed for all competencies rated by
supervisor participants who completed Round Three (n = 17). Median scores ranged
from 2.0 to 5.0 (Mdn = 2.0 to Mdn = 5.0). One competency was given a rating of 1.0
(Mo = 1.0), one competency was given a rating of 2.0 (Mo = 2.0), six competencies were
given a rating of 3.0 (Mo = 3.0), 64 competencies were given a rating of 4.0 (Mo = 4.0),
and 27 competencies were given a rating of 5.0 (Mo = 5.0). Additionally, multiple
modes were computed for some competencies (See Table 16). The lowest standard
deviation was computed for the competency, knowledge of current issues in higher
education (SD = 0.3321) and the competency with the highest standard deviation was
capacity to take on more when full (SD = 1.0572). Similar to the trends noted with the
entry-level group‟s scores, the researcher noted a visual correlation whereby those
146
competencies with higher means were more likely to have lower standard deviations, and
vice versa. While no efforts were made on behalf of the researcher to have the group
reach consensus, as a potential indicator of consensus, the standard deviations suggest
that there is a greater level of agreement amongst participants about those competencies
rated as more important than there is for those competencies rated as less important.
A review of the final competencies developed by the supervisor group indicates
that while the most important competencies from the last round are still rated as
important, the participant group as a whole rated some competencies higher during
Round Three than during Round Two. The ability to manage multiple priorities, which
had been ranked as the third most important competency during Round Two (M =
4.7895), was ranked as the most important competency by this group in Round Three
(M = 4.8235). Other competencies that increased in the level of importance assigned to
them include (a) problem solving skills which moved from a rank of 23 (M = 4.5789) in
Round Two to second most important (M = 4.7647) in Round Three, (b) follow-through
which was seventh in importance (M = 4.6842) in Round Two to third most important
(M = 4.7059), (c) ability to prioritize which went from 13th (M = 4.6316) in Round Two
to fourth most important (M = 4.7059) in Round Three, and finally, (d) approachable
which went from 35th (M = 4.4211) in Round Two to number five in rank (M = 4.7059)
in Round Three. It is difficult to ascertain what it is that caused the change in ratings
amongst participants. Though the methodology invites participants to offer a rating after
reflecting upon the feedback from the previous round (group‟s mean any written
comments offered for a competency), exactly why the group‟s perceived importance
about a specific competency would change is unknown.
147
Three competencies that were in the top five most important competencies during
Round Two, were still in the top ten most important. These competencies are (a) the
ability to follow directions (M = 4.6471), (b) dependability (M = 4.6471), and (c)
willingness to learn (M = 4.6471). Additionally, common sense, which had been ranked
as the fifth most important competency during the previous round (M = 4.7368), was
now ranked as 19th most important (M = 4.5294). The competencies identified by this
group as least important also remained very consistent between rounds. Knowing the
Jesuit values was identified as the least important competency during Round Two (M =
2.315), and ratings during Round Three confirmed that the group continued to find this
competency to be the least important (M = 2.0). There were five competencies
introduced during Round Two which were rated during Round Three, though the
supervisors‟ ratings assigned indicate these competencies are not considered to be
important. One of those competencies, playfulness (M = 2.7059), was rated as the
second to last competency in terms of importance. Another competency, mission driven,
that had been rated as somewhat less important during the previous round (M = 3.7368),
is now in the bottom five competencies, receiving a lower mean rating during Round
Three (M = 3.1765). The final set of competencies identified by supervisors included
two competencies that received ratings below 3.0. Participants indicated that they agreed
that playfulness, and knowing the Jesuit values, were unimportant competencies for
success in entry-level residence life positions.
Supervisors did not identify two competencies identified by other participant
groups. There was no proposed competency related to knowledge of legal issues, nor
was there a proposed competency related to confrontation skills. One the other hand,
148
there were two competencies identified by this participant group that were not identified
by either of the other two participant groups. Supervisors identified (a) professional dress
as important (M = 4.0588), and (b) knowing the Jesuit values as the least important
competency (M = 2.0). Specific to the last competency, multiple participants submitted
comments during Round Two stating that the competency was institution-specific. No
analysis was performed on the qualitative data submitted during that round, however,
because the competency had been proposed during Round One, it was included for
review and rating during Round Two, and any comments were included and presented
again with this competency in Round Three for participants to consider again.
In answering this second research question, a final set of competencies
determined to be important by supervisors, for entry-level residence life work, was
identified. These findings may serve as a basis for future research that forms broader
competency themes for use in evaluating what is needed for entry-level residence life
work. In response to this, a preliminary attempt was made by this researcher to
acknowledge potential themes, and assign each individual competency to those themes.
Consistent with the themes proposed for the competencies identified by the entry-level
participant group, the same themes are suggested. These competency themes are, (a)
administrative/management skills, (b) assessment/research skills, (c) human relation
skills, (d) personal characteristics, and (e) resource and content-specific knowledge. The
researcher was able to assign each individual competency to one of the five competency
themes. There were no competencies that needed to be assigned to the “other” theme.
Table 17 below illustrates the competency themes associated with each of the individual
competencies identified by the supervisor participant group.
149
Table 17
by Supervisor Participants
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Competencies
Ability to manage multiple priorities
Problem solving skills
Follow-through
Ability to prioritize
Approachable
Ability to follow directions
Dependability
Willingness to learn
Ability to relate/connect/establish a rapport with students
Ability to supervise student staff
Decision making skills
Ability to reason and rationalize
Adaptability/Flexibility
Ability to stay calm and think through various situations
Listening effectively
Positive attitude
Common sense
Dealing with difficult people
Emergency response/crisis management skills
Hard working
Ability to think on their feet
Initiative/Motivated
Professionalism
35
36
Ability to work in a team/group
Willingness to respond on site to student crises in order to obtain
most accurate information
Time management
Multicultural awareness, knowledge, and skills
Establishing relationships with administrative staff and other
offices
Conflict mediation/resolution skills
Competence
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Leadership skills
Visibility within community
Perseverance
Ability to work in a diverse working environment
Managing stress/frustration
31
32
33
34
Competency Theme
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
150
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Positivity
Ability to take feedback
Self-awareness
Knowledge of basic counseling skills and techniques
Facilitation skills
Administrative skills
Goal execution
Intelligence
52
53
54
55
Administration of hall address facilities needs; maintain
occupancy records
Building positive relationships with other departments
Community development advise hall council; mediate conflicts
Educated
56
Professional dress and manner
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
Referral skills
Programming skills
Goal setting
Student conduct understanding and experience
Balance between work and personal life
Empathy
Seeing the big picture
64
Knowledge of current issues in higher education
65
66
Ability to understand time, place, and manner (for jokes,
meetings, compliments, criticisms, etc.) b
Knowledge of university administration
67
68
69
70
Understanding advising v. supervising
Presentation skills
Patience with university bureaucracy
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
Ability to work with various stakeholders
Advising skills
Ability to manage budget
Ability to develop training modules
Facilities management
Mindfulness
Kindness
Knowledge of student learning/development theory
79
80
Creativity
Implementation of residential education create learning outcomes
for hall suited to hall's demographics
Passionate
Committee work and institutional liaison serve on departmental
committees & represent RL on college committees
Event planning
Ability to maneuver politically
81
82
83
84
85
86
Basic understanding of student affairs models and how they relate
to the experience
Interviewing skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
151
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
Assessment skills
Sense of humor
Know research in the field
Capacity to take on more when full
Ability to supervise new professionals and graduate students
Basic researching skills
Revise and respond
Talented
Mission driven
Recruiting entry and pro staff
Strategic planning
Playfullness
Knowing the Jesuit Values
Knowledge Skills
The majority of the competencies identified by the supervisors group were assigned to
three categories with the same approximate frequency, (a) administrative/management
skills, (b) human relation skills, and (c) personal characteristics. Of the 10 competencies
with the highest mean ratings, more than half were in the administrative/management
skills competency theme. Again, the competency themes are offered as a nominal
observation, and were not vetted by participants to gauge agreement.
Research Question 3
The next research question asked, “what competencies do a panel of experts
(“experts”) identify as important for success in entry-level residence life positions?”. Not
all participants who completed the first round participated in the second and third rounds.
Table 18 below provides a list of the competencies rated and the statistical means that the
researcher calculated from expert participant responses during Round Two.
152
Table 18
Number of Supervisor Participants by Round
Participant Group
Expert
Round One
Round Two
Round Three
14
14
11
The expert participant group proposed a series of competencies during Round
One, and from their responses a set of competencies was developed for their
consideration and rating in Round Two. Table 19 below offers the statistical means that
were calculated from the responses of expert participants during Round Two.
Expert participant ratings for competencies in Round Two are presented in the
table above. The five competencies identified as most important at the conclusion of this
round were (a) ability to identify and manage multiple competing priorities (M = 5.0), (b)
common sense (M = 4.9286), (c) being trustworthy (M = 4.7857), (d) adaptability (M =
4.7857), and (e) time management (M = 4.7143). The five competencies that received
the lowest mean scores from this group of participants during Round Two were, (a) legal
issues related to residential life (M = 3.5714), (b) no need to be trained twice (M =
3.4286), (c) budgeting skills (M = 3.3571), (d) legal issues in higher education (M =
3.2857), and (e) knowledge and application of student development theory (M =3.2857).
There was one competency that received a rating of 5.0 from all participants. Not
surprisingly, this competency, ability to identify and manage multiple and competing
priorities, wound up being rated the most important competency due to its mean rating at
the end of Round Two. This participant group was the only one to identify a competency
as the most important, and have every participant submit the same rating at the end of
153
Table 19
Round Two Competencies Identified by Expert Participants, Rank Ordered Based on
Group Mean
Competencies
1. Ability to identify and manage multiple competing priorities
2. Common sense
3. Being trustworthy
4. Adaptability
5. Time Management
6. Sense of professionalism
7. Getting to know students
8. Open to feedback
11. Professional ethics
12. Critical/Logical thinking
16. Problem solving
17. Crisis response and management skills
18. Student centeredness
19. Keeping an open mind
20. Accountability
21. Supervision skills
22. Know your role
23. Works well under pressure
24. Working with diverse students
25. Staff development
27. Listening skills
28. Conflict Management
29. Big Picture
30. Ability to balance personal and professional life
31. Self-disciplined
32. Residence hall administration skills
35. Informed judgment
36. Building collegial relationships
37. Ability to motivate others
38. Recognition of chain of command
39. Understanding issues of diversity
40. Staff training
42. Counseling skills
43. Works well in a fluid environment
44. Sense of humor
45. Group dynamic skills
46. Creative/Lateral thinking
n
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Mean
5.0000
4.9286
4.7857
4.7857
4.7143
4.7143
4.7143
4.7143
4.7143
4.6429
4.5714
4.5714
4.5714
4.5714
4.5714
4.5714
4.5000
4.5000
4.5000
4.5000
4.5000
4.5000
4.4615
4.3571
4.3571
4.3571
4.3571
4.3571
4.3571
4.3571
4.2857
4.2857
4.2857
4.2143
4.2143
4.2143
4.2143
4.2143
4.1429
4.1429
4.1429
4.1429
4.1429
4.0714
4.0714
4.0714
154
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
Political savvy
Understanding of customer service
Assessment and evaluation skills
Program planning and evaluation skills
Helping skills
Empathy
Advising skills
Desire to "do more"
Knowledge of and ability to use technology
Excellent sense of self
Liability and risk management concerns
Knowledge of current issues/trends in higher education
Cognitive awareness
Networking
Ambition
Legal issues related to residential life
No need to be trained twice
Budgeting skills
Legal issues in higher education
Knowledge and application of student development theory
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
4.0000
4.0000
3.9286
3.9286
3.9286
3.9286
3.9286
3.8571
3.8571
3.8571
3.7857
3.7857
3.7857
3.6429
3.5714
3.5714
3.4286
3.3571
3.2857
3.2857
Round Two, indicating a significant level of agreement amongst experts around this
competency.
The Round Two ratings were used to present the competencies in descending
order of importance to participants in Round Three. No additional competencies had
been introduced by the expert group during Round Two. Table 20 below offers a final
set of competencies, identified by residence life experts during Round Three.
Median scores ranged from 3.0 to 5.0 (Mdn = 3.0 to Mdn = 5.0). Six
competencies were given a rating of 3.0 (Mo = 3.0), 42 competencies were given a rating
of 4.0 (Mo = 4.0), and 18 competencies were given a rating of 5.0 (Mo = 5.0).
Additionally, multiple modes were computed for some competencies (See Table 18).
The lowest standard deviation was computed for the competency, common knowledge
(SD = 0.0) and the competency with the highest standard deviation was knowledge and
application of student development theory (SD = 1.1678). A visual analysis of the
standard deviations finds competencies with lower means are more often associated with
155
Table 20
Round Three Competencies Identified by Expert Participants, Rank Ordered Based on
Group Mean
Competencies
1. Common sense
2. Adaptability
3. Problem solving
5. Open to feedback
6. Time Management
8. Ability to identify and manage multiple competing
priorities
11. Accountability
16. Know your role
22. Crisis response and management skills
23. Big Picture
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
Conflict Management
Working with diverse students
Works well under pressure
Residence hall administration skills
Self-disciplined
Understanding issues of diversity
Creative/Lateral thinking
Keeping an open mind
Informed Judgment
Leadership Skills
Student centeredness
Staff development
Building collegial relationships
Sense of humor
Empathy
Ability to motivate others
Works well in a fluid environment
Political savvy
N
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Mean
5.0000
4.8182
4.8182
4.7273
4.7273
4.7273
4.7273
4.6364
Median
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
Modea
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
SD
0.0000
0.4045
0.4045
0.4671
0.4671
0.4671
0.4671
0.5045
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
4.6364
4.6364
4.6364
4.5455
4.5455
4.5455
4.5455
4.4545
4.4545
4.4545
4.4545
4.3636
4.3636
4.3636
4.3636
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
5.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
5.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
5.0000a
0.5045
0.5045
0.5045
0.5222
0.6876
0.5222
0.5222
0.5222
0.5222
0.5222
0.6876
0.5045
0.5045
0.5045
0.6742
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
4.3636
4.3636
4.3636
4.2727
4.2727
4.2727
4.2727
4.2727
4.2727
4.1818
4.1818
4.1818
4.1818
4.1000
4.0909
4.0909
4.0909
4.0909
4.0909
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
0.5045
0.5045
0.5045
0.4671
0.4671
0.4671
0.4671
0.6467
0.6467
0.4045
0.4045
0.4045
0.4045
0.5677
0.7007
0.5394
0.5394
0.8312
0.5394
0.4472
0.4472
0.7746
156
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
Counseling skills
Desire to "do more"
Presentation skills
Group dynamic skills
Helping skills
Staff training
Advising skills
Networking
59. Cognitive awareness
60. Knowledge of current issues/trends in higher education
61. Ambition
62. Legal issues related to residential life
63. No need to be trained twice
65. Legal issues in higher education
66. Knowledge and application of student development theory
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
3.9091
3.9091
3.9091
3.9091
3.9091
3.8182
3.8182
3.8182
3.8182
3.7273
3.7273
3.6364
3.6364
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
5.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
3.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000a
0.5394
0.5394
0.7007
1.0445
0.5394
0.7508
0.7508
0.6030
0.9817
0.7863
0.6467
0.8090
0.6742
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
3.5455
3.5455
3.5455
3.4545
3.4545
3.3636
3.3636
3.1818
4.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
4.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
4.0000a
4.0000
0.6876
0.9342
0.6876
1.0357
0.9342
0.6742
0.9244
1.1678
higher standard deviations, whereas the competencies receiving higher group means have
lower standard deviations. There is some indication from this observation that there may
be more agreement among participants about the relative importance to entry-level
residence life work for those competencies with higher means, and less agreement for the
lower rated means. This observation is consistent with the visual correlations of the
standard deviations that were noted for the entry-level and supervisor participant groups.
Specific to those standard deviations calculated for the competencies rated by the expert
group, more than half of the competencies rated by this group had standard deviations
under 0.6. The smaller size of the expert group may explain why there seems to be less
variation in the ratings submitted.
The competencies identified by the expert group during the final round illustrate a
few changes from the previous round. Three competencies included in the top five
competencies for Round Two remained in the top five. Common sense was second in
157
importance during the previous round, but was rated as the most important competency
during Round Three (M = 5.0). Adaptability was ranked as fourth most important, based
on group mean, during the previous round and then ranked second after Round Three
(M = 4.8182). Finally, being trustworthy remained in the top five most important
competencies for this group, though it was third in importance and after Round Three is
fourth (M = 4.7273). Two other competencies that had not been included in the top five
mean rankings from the previous round were (a) open to feedback which had been ranked
eighth and moved to fifth (M = 4.7273), and (b) problem solving which moved to third
most important in Round Three (M = 4.8182) from its rank as 16th during the previous
round. At the conclusion of the last round, there was one competency that had received a
rating of 5.0 from all participants. That competency, ability to identify and manage
multiple and competing priorities, did not receive a rating of 5.0 from all participants
during Round Three, and is now rated 8th based on the ratings submitted. The highest
rated mean at the conclusion of this round is common sense, which also received a rating
of 5.0 from all participants. The revised ratings between rounds indicates a shift in
perceived importance, presumably after reflecting on means and feedback offered during
Round Two, and also highlights stronger agreement amongst participants around the
common sense competency.
The five competencies identified as least important during Round Two were the
same competencies identified as least important during Round Three. Though the
rankings, based on mean scores in each of the two rounds remained the same, the
calculated mean scores for those competencies during Round Three went up slightly for
three of the competencies, (a) no need to be trained twice (M = 3.4545), (b) budgeting
158
skills (M = 3.3636), and (c) legal issues in higher education (M = 3.3636). No
competencies received ratings below 3.0, suggesting the participants feel all
competencies have at least some level of importance to the success of entry-level
As the participant group with the least number of identified competencies, there
were competencies that were not identified by experts that were by one or both of the
other participant groups. Namely, there were no competencies proposed that address (a)
an ability to manage facilities or building maintenance issues, (b) the ability to set goals,
and (c) decision making skills. An explanation for the smaller number of initial
competencies proposed and later evaluated is likely due to the smaller size of this
participant group.
To answer this research question, expert participant responses were used to
establish a set of competencies for entry-level residence life professionals. To offer
additional observations about the data identified, broader competency themes,
comparable to those suggested by other scholars (c.f., Burkard, et al., 2005; Herdlein,
2004; Kuk, et al., 2007), are recommended by the researcher. The five competency
themes previously suggested for the competencies identified by the entry-level and
supervisor groups are applicable to the competencies identified by the expert group.
These competencies, (a) administrative/management skills, (b) assessment/research skills,
(c) human relation skills, (d) personal characteristics, and (e) resource and contentspecific knowledge, encompass all of the individual competencies identified by the expert
group. The individual competencies and their affiliated competency themes are
represented in Table 21 below.
159
Table 21
by Expert Participants
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Competencies
Common sense
Adaptability
Problem solving
Being trustworthy
Open to feedback
Time Management
Professional ethics
8
9
Ability to identify and manage multiple competing priorities
Sense of professionalism
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Critical/Logical thinking
Accountability
Getting to know students
Listening skills
Know your role
17
18
19
Supervision skills
Ability to balance personal and professional life
Recognition of chain of command
20
21
22
23
Crisis response and management skills
Big Picture
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Conflict Management
Working with diverse students
Works well under pressure
Residence hall administration skills
Self-disciplined
Understanding issues of diversity
Creative/Lateral thinking
Keeping an open mind
Informed Judgment
Leadership Skills
Student centeredness
Staff development
Building collegial relationships
Sense of humor
Empathy
Competency Theme
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
160
43
44
45
Ability to motivate others
Works well in a fluid environment
Political savvy
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Counseling skills
Desire to "do more"
Presentation skills
Group dynamic skills
Helping skills
Staff training
57
58
59
60
Advising skills
Networking
Cognitive awareness
Knowledge of current issues/trends in higher education
61
62
Ambition
Legal issues related to residential life
63
64
65
No need to be trained twice
Budgeting skills
Legal issues in higher education
66
Knowledge and application of student development theory
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
Knowledge Skills
There are competencies assigned to all five of the competency themes, thought only two
individual competencies are associated with the assessment/research skills competency
theme. While half of the top 10 individual competencies are included in the personal
characteristics competency theme, there does not appear to be a visual correlation to the
group‟s perceived importance of a particular competency, and the theme it is assigned to.
Research Question 4
The final research question was, “are there differences in the perceived
importance of competencies that are identified by all three groups?”. Each of the
participant groups participated in a three-round modified Delphi study to identify
161
competencies for success in entry-level residence life positions. Participants had the
opportunity to propose competencies during Round One, and again in Round Two after
seeing the initial list of competencies that was proposed. The competencies presented to
participants in each round reflected only those competencies that had been proposed by
their peer participants; individuals in one group did not see or rate competencies
proposed by individuals in other groups. After the final round, the researcher identified
similar competencies identified by all three groups in an effort to determine if there were
any differences in the perceived importance of those competencies based on the ratings
participants submitted during the final round.
There were 25 like-competencies identified by all three participant groups. These
competencies were analyzed using SPSS to determine frequencies such as mean and
standard deviation. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 22 below.
Table 22
Frequencies for Competencies Proposed by All Three Participant Groups
Combined Competency
Ability to be adaptable
Ability to work as part of a
team
Advising skills
Assessment
Group
Entry
Supervisor
Expert
Total
Entry
Original Competencies
[Ability to be adaptable/flexible]
[Adaptability/Flexibility]
[Adaptability]
Supervisor
Expert
Total
Entry
Supervisor
Expert
Total
Entry
Supervisor
Expert
Total
Entry
[Ability to work in a team/group]
[Ability to work as part of a team]
[Ability to work as part of a team]
[Ability to work independently]
[Advising skills]
[Advising skills]
[Advising skills]
[Assessment]
n
28
17
11
56
28
Mean
4.6786
4.5882
4.8182
4.6786
4.1429
SD
0.4756
0.5073
0.4045
0.4713
0.8483
17
11
56
28
17
11
56
28
17
11
56
28
4.4706
4.3636
4.2857
4.3214
4.2941
4.1818
4.2857
3.9286
3.7647
3.6364
3.8214
3.5357
0.5145
0.5045
0.7062
0.6696
0.4697
0.4045
0.5629
0.8133
0.8314
0.8090
0.8114
0.8381
162
Balance work/personal life
Budget skills
Common sense
Conflict resolution skills
Counseling skills
Customer service
Supervisor
Expert
Total
Entry
Supervisor
Expert
Total
Entry
Supervisor
Expert
Total
Entry
Supervisor
Expert
Total
Entry
Supervisor
Expert
Total
Entry
Supervisor
Expert
Total
Entry
Supervisor
Expert
Total
Entry
Supervisor
Expert
Total
Entry
Emergency/Crisis response
Supervisor
Empathy
Leadership skills
Listening skills
Expert
Total
Entry
Supervisor
Expert
Total
Entry
Supervisor
Expert
Total
Entry
Supervisor
Expert
Total
Entry
Supervisor
Expert
[Assessment skills]
[Assessment and evaluation skills]
[Balancing work/personal life]
[Balance between work and personal life]
[Ability to balance personal and professional
life]
[Budgeting skills]
[Ability to manage budget]
[Budgeting skills]
[Common sense]
[Common sense]
[Common sense]
[Conflict mediation and resolution skills]
[Conflict mediation/resolution skills]
[Conflict management]
[Counseling skills]
[Knowledge of basic counseling skills and
techniques]
[Counseling skills]
[Critical thinking skills]
[Critical thinking skills]
[Critical/logical thinking]
[Customer service skills]
[Customer service skills]
[Understanding of customer service]
[Ability to respond to emergency/crisis
situations]
[Emergency response/crisis management
skills]
[Crisis response and management skills]
[Empathy]
[Empathy]
[Empathy]
[Interpersonal skills]
[Leadership skills]
[Leadership skills]
[Leadership skills]
[Listening skills]
[Listening effectively]
[Listening skills]
17
11
56
28
17
11
3.4706
3.9091
3.5893
4.2857
3.9412
4.4545
0.7998
0.5394
0.7811
0.8968
0.8994
0.5222
56
28
16
11
55
28
17
11
56
28
17
11
56
28
17
4.2143
3.8214
3.7500
3.3636
3.7091
4.3929
4.5294
5.0000
4.5536
4.2500
4.3529
4.3636
4.3036
4.0714
4.1765
0.8467
0.6118
0.7746
0.6742
0.6851
0.7373
0.5145
0.0000
0.6301
0.7515
0.7019
0.5045
0.6854
0.8997
0.6359
11
56
28
17
11
56
28
17
10
55
28
3.9091
4.0714
4.4286
4.6471
4.6364
4.5357
4.1071
4.2353
4.1000
4.1455
4.3214
0.5394
0.7594
0.5728
0.4926
0.5045
0.5382
0.7373
0.5623
0.5677
0.6503
0.6118
17
4.5294
0.6243
11
56
28
17
11
56
28
17
11
56
28
17
11
56
28
17
11
4.3636
4.3929
3.9286
3.8824
4.0909
3.9464
4.3929
4.6471
4.5455
4.5000
4.4643
4.2941
4.1818
4.3571
4.4643
4.5882
4.5455
0.5045
0.5933
0.8576
0.8575
0.5394
0.7959
0.4974
0.6063
0.6876
0.5721
0.7445
0.5879
0.4045
0.6447
0.5762
0.5073
0.5222
163
Oral/Verbal communication
skills
Presentation skills
Problem solving
Professionalism
Programming skills
Technology skills
Total
Entry
Supervisor
Expert
Total
Entry
Supervisor
Expert
Total
Entry
Supervisor
Expert
Total
Entry
Supervisor
Expert
Total
Entry
Supervisor
Expert
Total
Entry
Supervisor
Expert
Total
Entry
Supervisor
Expert
Total
Entry
Supervisor
Expert
Total
[Oral/Verbal communication skills]
[Presentation skills]
[Problem solving]
[Problem solving skills]
[Problem solving]
[Commitment to professionalism]
[Professionalism]
[Sense of professionalism]
[Programming skills]
[Programming skills]
[Program planning and evaluation skills]
[Technological skills]
[Technological skills]
[Knowledge of and ability to use technology]
[Time management skills]
[Time management]
[Time management]
[Written communication skills]
56
28
4.5179
4.5000
0.5391
0.5774
17
11
56
28
17
11
56
28
17
11
56
28
17
11
56
28
17
11
56
28
17
11
56
28
17
11
56
28
17
11
56
4.5294
4.5455
4.5179
3.8214
3.8235
3.8182
3.8214
4.2143
4.7647
4.8182
4.5000
4.1071
4.4706
4.6364
4.3214
3.7143
4.0000
3.9091
3.8393
3.5000
3.7647
3.7273
3.6250
4.5000
4.4118
4.7273
4.5179
4.1429
4.5294
4.3636
4.3036
0.5145
0.5222
0.5391
0.6118
0.7276
0.7508
0.6635
0.6862
0.4372
0.4045
0.6325
0.9165
0.5145
0.5045
0.7653
0.8545
0.7906
0.7007
0.8040
0.7935
0.6642
0.6467
0.7277
0.5774
0.6184
0.4671
0.5718
0.6506
0.5145
0.5045
0.6006
An examination of the means for each individual competency and the combined
competencies did not immediately convey whether there is a statistically significant
difference between the groups on their ratings for each competency. A comparison of the
means using a more advanced statistical analysis was required.
Using SPSS, the researcher calculated a one-way ANOVA for each of the
combined competencies, producing an F ratio which, “determines the ratio between the
variability occurring between the sample groups and the variability occurring within each
of the sample groups” (Sprinthall, 2003, p. 344). When the calculated F ratio is greater
164
than the critical value of F at an alpha level of .05, it can be inferred that there is greater
variability between-groups, than within-groups. Similarly, when there was a lower F
ratio that is calculated, little between-group variability can be inferred compared to the
variability occurring within-groups, indicating that there is likely no significant
Table 23
ANOVA Table for Competencies Proposed by All Three Participant Groups
df
F
Sig.
Ability to be adaptable
55
0.789
0.460
55
1.233
0.300
55
0.239
0.788
Advising skills
55
0.563
0.573
Assessment
55
1.193
0.311
Balance work/personal life
55
1.450
0.244
Budget skills
54
1.861
0.166
Common sense
55
4.099
0.022
Conflict resolution skills
55
0.167
0.847
Counseling skills
55
0.405
0.669
55
1.116
0.335
Customer service
54
0.229
0.797
Emergency/Crisis response
55
0.658
0.522
Empathy
55
0.237
0.790
55
1.091
0.343
Leadership skills
55
0.871
0.425
Listening skills
55
0.290
0.750
55
0.032
0.968
Presentation skills
55
0.000
1.000
Problem solving
55
6.988
0.002
Professionalism
55
2.478
0.094
Programming skills
55
0.712
0.495
Technology skills
55
0.830
0.442
55
1.046
0.359
55
2.372
0.103
165
differences between the groups. Table 23 above presents the results of the one-way
ANOVAs that were calculated for each of the 25 competencies that were identified by all
three participant groups. Of the 25 competencies identified by all three groups, only two
competencies were found to be statistically different.
A one-way ANOVA was computed comparing the scores of the three participant
groups on the competency, common sense. A significant difference was found between
the groups (F(2,53) = 4.099, p < .05). Additionally, a one-way ANOVA was computed
comparing the scores of the three participant groups on the competency, problem solving.
A significant difference was found between the groups (F(2,53) = 6.9888, p < .05). For
the two competencies that were identified as statistically significant, Tukey‟s HSD was
used to determine the nature of the differences between the participants groups on their
ratings for the two competencies, common sense and problem solving.
Table 24
Tukey‟s Post Hoc Analysis for Competencies Found to Be Statistically Different
Between Participant Groups
Participant Group
(I)
Participant
Group (J)
Common Sense
Expert
Problem Solving
Entry-level
Entry-level
Supervisor
Supervisor
Expert
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
-.60714*
.47059
-.55042*
-.60390*
Std. Error
Sig.
.21257
.23116
.17622
.20394
.017
.114
.008
.013
For the competency common sense, entry-level participants offered a lower rating of
importance (M = 4.3929, SD = 0.7373) than did expert participants (M = 5.0, SD = 0.0).
For the competency problem solving, entry-level participants (M = 4.2143, SD = 0.6862)
166
differed from supervisor participants (M = 4.7647, SD = 0.4372), and the entry-level
participants also differed from expert participants than expert participants (M = 4.8182,
SD = 0.4045).
Aside from statistical analysis, a visual comparison, using the associated rank of
each competency on each of the separate participant lists does little to highlight any
differences. Using means scores to determine rank within a set of competencies,
common sense is ranked (a) 14 out 114, 19 out of 99, and 1 out of 66 for the entry-level,
supervisor, and expert groups respectively. Additionally, problem solving was ranked (a)
39 out of 114, 2 out of 99, and 3 out of 66 for the entry-level, supervisor, and expert
groups respectively. Taking a competency that was not found to be statistically
significant between the groups, such as the ability to be adaptable, shows that this
competency was ranked 1 out of 114, 15 out of 99, and 2 out of 66 for the entry-level,
supervisor, and expert groups respectively. There is clearly a range when it comes to
how competencies were ranked, based on mean scores. However, because there were
competencies that were not identified by all participant groups, a comparison using rank
order can only be considered to a certain extent. The mean scores may offer a better
measure upon which to analyze the differences between the groups on like-competencies.
Summary
The chapter presented the results of a three-round modified Delphi study, using
three separate participant groups, to identify competencies that are important for the
success of entry-level residence life professionals. A set of competencies was produced
167
by each participant group, allowing the researcher to answer the first three research
questions. The competencies proposed include specific skills, as well as personal traits
and characteristics. In order to maintain the integrity of the data, many of the individual
responses were included in the Round One analysis and presented for the groups‟
consideration in the subsequent rounds.
During Round One, the entry-level participant group (n = 53) proposed 514
individual competencies. Through data reduction this resulted in 107 competencies. An
additional seven competencies were proposed by the individuals in this group (n = 43)
during Round Two. At the conclusion of Round Three the competencies identified by the
remaining participants (n = 28) as most important were (a) ability to be
adaptable/flexible, (b) ability to prioritize, (c) oral/verbal communication skills, (d)
ability to act as a role model for both staff and students, and (e) time management skills.
The supervisor group (n = 28) initially proposed 254 competencies that resulted in
94 competencies after qualitative analysis. An additional five competencies were
proposed by the individuals in this group (n = 19) during Round Two. At the conclusion
of Round Three the competencies identified by the remaining participants (n = 17) as
most important were (a) ability to manage multiple priorities, (b) problem solving skills,
(c) follow-through, (d) ability to prioritize, and (e) approachable.
Finally, the expert group (n = 14) proposed 66 competencies during Round One,
resulting from an analysis of the raw data that included 132 competencies. Expert
participants (n = 14) did not propose any additional competencies during Round Two. At
the conclusion of Round Three the competencies identified by the remaining participants
168
(n = 11) as most important were (a) common sense, (b) adaptability, (c) problem solving,
(d) being trustworthy, and (e) open to feedback.
For the final research question, each of the competencies that were identified by
all three participant groups was examined for significance, to determine if there were
differences between the groups on the perceived importance assigned to each of those
competencies. Of the 25 competencies analyzed for significance, only two competencies
(a) common sense, and (b) problem solving were found to be different at a statistically
significant level (p < .05).
Participants were asked to rate competencies, not rank-order them. The set of
competencies that was presented to the different groups during Round Two and Round
Three were presented in descending order of group mean, but individuals were not able to
rank them. This study may have produced different results if the groups were asked to
rank-order the competencies instead of rating them. However, the utility of asking
participants to rank-order, in some cases more than 100 competencies, confirmed the
need to allow participants to consider the importance of each competency on a
fixed-scale.
Using the mean scores for each competency to examine similarities and
differences between the groups suggests that groups may have rated individual
competencies similarly on a scale of importance, compared to other groups‟ rating. A
group‟s ranking of a particular competency, where the mean scores determine the rank,
was one way of determining differences between the groups, however a competency may
have been ranked higher within an existing set of competencies, but might have been
169
ranked differently if other competencies, that were not proposed by that group, were to be
considered.
The next chapter will provide a thorough discussion of the results of this study as
they relate to previous empirical work examining competencies for student affairs and
residence life professionals. That chapter will include this study‟s implications, the
limitations of this study, and recommendations for future research around this topic.
170
CHAPTER V
Discussion
Residence life employs more professionals at the entry-level than any other
functional area within student affairs. Individuals often work in an entry-level residence
life position before moving into other positions within residence life or student affairs
(Belch & Mueller, 2003; Collins & Hirt, 2006). During the past ten years, entry-level
residence life positions have received increased attention in the literature. Research has
examined a number of professional issues associated with this professional population,
including the recruitment and retention of individuals in these positions, as well as the
training and professional development that is available to them (ACUHO-I, 2008b; Belch
& Mueller, 2003; Collins & Hirt, 2006; Jennings, 2005; St. Onge, et al., 2008). Despite
conflicting reports that there is a shortage of qualified individuals interested in entry-level
residence life positions (ACUHO-I, 2008b; Belch & Mueller, 2003), many scholars agree
that there is a need to identify competencies that are necessary for success in these
positions as a way of addressing concerns about the preparation, training and retention of
this professional population (ACUHO-I, 2008b; Belch & Mueller, 2003; Kretovics &
Nobles, 2005).
Research has noted that the perceived importance of specific competencies can
differ depending on the individuals who are asked to evaluate those competencies. For
example, Burkard, et al. (2005) surveyed mid-level and senior-level student affairs staff
and found no differences in the competencies that were identified as most important. In
contrast, a study conducted by Hyman (1988) surveyed graduation preparation program
faculty, directors of housing and senior student affairs officers to determine which
171
competencies were most important for entry-level staff, and found differences between
the groups about which competencies were important. Additionally, a study conducted
by Kuk, et al. (2007) grouped competencies into a factor structure and found that midlevel professionals, senior student affairs officers and graduate program faculty did not
agree as to which competency groupings were the most important. Further, findings from
a study conducted by Saidla (1990) suggests that there are differences in the perceived
importance of specific competencies depending on the functional area one is working in.
Finally, a study conducted by Englin (2001) found that there were small differences
between entry-level residence life professionals and supervisors in the perceived
importance of specific competencies for effective entry-level residence life professionals.
This study sought to identify which competencies were important to success in
entry-level residence life positions through surveys that were distributed to three distinct
groups of professionals. Through a three-round modified Delphi study, individual
members of the Northeast Association of College and University Housing Officers
(NEACUHO) who were identified as entry-level residence life professionals, supervisors
of entry-level residence life professionals, and residence life experts produced three sets
of competencies that were then rated to indicate how important each competency was to
success in entry-level residence life positions. Each set of competencies bares some
differences as well as similarities when compared to the competencies identified by the
other groups. Additionally, some parallels and variations can be seen between those
competencies identified by the participant groups in this study, and those competencies
identified by groups in previous studies.
172
This chapter will offer a discussion of the findings from this study as it relates to
previous research. The implications of these findings, as well as this study‟s limitations
will also be presented. Finally, recommendations for future research will be offered.
Important Competencies According to Whom?
Though many previous studies identifying competencies for student affairs
professionals identified similarities and differences, any comparison of this study‟s
findings to that of another must acknowledge some inherent challenges with qualitative
research and specifically with the Delphi method and its varied
modifications/applications as a research methodology. Despite the fact that participants
were provided with a definition of the word competency, and were offered examples that
suggest competencies are inclusive of skills and abilities and are distinct from personal
characteristics and traits, participants in this study offered a variety of “competencies”.
Without a pre-established set of competencies for use by individuals to offer their
opinions, competencies generated from raw participant responses included characteristics
and traits, as well as skills and abilities. The ability of participants in this study to be able
to offer competencies, and have those responses serve as a basis for the group‟s responses
during the next two rounds, contributes to the difficulty in comparing a group‟s final
results to the results produced by other groups within this study, as well as to the results
produced by previous studies‟ groups. The context of results produced by qualitative
research notwithstanding, this section will examine the competencies identified by three
distinct participant groups, and discuss them in relation to the findings of previous
empirical work.
173
The discussion that follows is structured in relation to the participant groups that
were asked to identify competencies. As a method of relating these findings to previous
studies, the competencies identified by the entry-level residence life professionals in this
study are compared to previous studies that used entry-level residence life participants.
The entry-level competencies identified by supervisors will be compared to those studies
that utilized supervisors to identify competencies, and so on. Observations about the
competencies identified by each of the participant groups in this study, in relation to the
competencies produced by the other participant groups in this study, will also be offered.
Important Entry-level Residence Life Competencies Identified by Entry-level
Professionals
Entry-level residence life professionals proposed 114 individual competencies
deemed important for success in entry-level residence life positions, through a threeround modified Delphi study. As the largest of this study‟s three participant groups, it is
not surprising that they produced the largest set of competencies. This comprehensive
inventory provides a broad set of individual competencies that can be considered in
relation to previous scholarship.
The findings suggest that entry-level residence life professionals perceive a
number of competencies as important, based on the calculated means for each of the
individual competencies. As a means of discussing the competencies identified by this
group in comparison to those identified in previous studies, the most important
competencies identified will be considered for the discussion here. The top 10 most
important competencies identified by this entry-level group, in descending order of
174
importance, are (a) the ability to be adaptable and flexible, (b) the ability to prioritize, (c)
oral/verbal communication skills, (d) the ability to act as a role model for both staff and
residents, (e) time management skills, (f) listening skills, (g) leadership skills, (h) ability
to handle work demands/hours, (i) bachelors degree, and (j) critical thinking skills.
The competencies identified by this entry-level residence life group are consistent
with many of the studies examining entry-level student affairs competencies (Burkard, et
al., 2005; Herdlein, 2004; Hyman, 1988; Kretovics & Nobles, 2005; Kuk, et al., 2007;
Ostroth, 1981a; Saidla, 1990; Waple, 2006), especially given the high ratings for
oral/verbal communication skills in this study. However, many of the previous studies do
not distinguish between oral/verbal communication skills and written communication
skills (c.f., Herdlein, 2004; Kuk, et al., 2007; Ostroth, 1981a; Saidla, 1990; Waple, 2006).
When they did distinguish between the two, as they are in the findings from this
participant group, oral/verbal communication skills are sometimes rated as more
important (Burkard, et al., 2005; Hyman, 1988), though not always (Kretovics & Nobles,
2005). The entry-level participant group in this study rated oral/verbal communication
skills higher than written communication skills. Additionally, listening skills are
included as a separate competency proposed by the entry-level participants in this study,
where it may be included as part of a larger “communications” competency grouping in
other studies (Coffey, 2010).
Additional comparisons between this study and previous studies are better seen
through research that utilized similar populations to identify the competencies. For
instance, Waple (2006) utilized entry-level student affairs professionals to rate 28
competencies on their use in entry-level student affairs work, however few studies have
175
used participants who held the specific entry-level positions within a functional area for
which competencies were being considered. One study that did however is Englin‟s
(2001) research that examined competencies for effective professional hall directors. A
Delphi study produced 49 competencies that were then used to develop a separate survey
instrument where participants rated each competency on a scale of one to five to indicate
the level of importance a particular competency had to being an effective hall director.
Both entry-level residence life professionals (hall directors) and supervisors participated.
Comparable to this current study, Englin‟s (2001) results indicate similar
competencies were identified as important by entry-levels and supervisors, though the
two different groups‟ ratings resulted in them being ranked differently in importance.
The competencies identified as most important by Englin‟s supervisors will be discussed
in the next section. Entry-level participants in Englin‟s study rated the ability to be
flexible as seventh in importance, whereas the ability to be adaptable/flexible was
considered the most important competency in this study. The most important
competency identified by Englin‟s entry-level participants was the ability to supervise.
For this study, the ability to supervise was not ranked in the top ten, but in fact was
ranked as 15th, based on group means. Some competencies identified within the top ten
competencies for this study were not identified in Englin‟s study at all. Specifically,
Englin‟s list does not include listening skills or the ability to act as a role model for both
staff and residents.
The difficulty in comparing the findings of this study to any other study is the
inconsistency associated with how competencies are referred to (Coffey, 2010). For
instance, this current study highlights leadership skills as a particularly important
176
competency, whereas Englin (2001) cites a competency referred to as understanding
personal leadership style. If these competencies are to be understood as the equivalent,
they were rated quite differently in that this study has it as 7th out of 114, where in
Englin‟s study it is ranked as 35th out of 49. Commonalities between the two studies‟
findings are evident however. In particular, the ability to communicate orally and
verbally was listed as the third most important by the entry-level participants in both
studies. The ability to manage time also held close rankings when the two studies
competencies were compared. To better illustrate the distinctions between the two
studies‟ findings, Table 24 below highlights the top competencies identified by the entrylevel participants in both studies.
With 114 competencies identified by the entry-level participants in this study,
there were some competencies proposed by entry-level participants that were not
addressed in all of the other past studies. Many of the previous studies examining
competencies for entry-level student affairs staff generally, and residence life staff
specifically, offer broader competency themes or categories. This makes it difficult to
decipher whether there were any “new” competencies proposed in this study that had not
been considered previously.
The findings produced from this participant group are important in that they offer
a current assessment of the competencies needed for success in these entry-level roles.
Even more noteworthy, is that the competencies were produced by individuals currently
working in these professional roles. The most closely related study, completed by Englin
(2001), utilized a Delphi technique to produce a set of competencies that were then rated
177
Table 25
Entry-level Residence Life Competencies Identified by Entry-level Residence life
Professionals
Englin (2001)
Haggerty (2011)
8. Ability to be flexible
4. Ability to act as a role model for both staff and residents
5. Time management skills
6. Listening skills
8. Ability to handle work demands/hours
9. Bachelors degree
13. Administrative ability
14. Common sense
16. Can respond and act under pressure
17. Discretion/Privacy
18. Consistency and reliability
19. Enforce policies
20. Self-management
for their importance to being an effective hall director. While both entry-level residence
life professionals and supervisors rated each of the competencies in Englin‟s study, the
competencies were developed through a Delphi study that only included supervisors.
Surely some consideration should be given to the competencies identified by this
group in that perhaps no one is more familiar with the day to day tasks and
178
responsibilities, and therefore, the skills needed, of entry-level residence life
professionals, than entry-level residence life professionals themselves. A set of
competencies produced by individuals from a variety of institutional types, across
demographic groupings, all working in entry-level residence life positions, produced an
exhaustive list. While the ratings assigned by participants indicates very few that are
unimportant, and indeed, many that are, the more considerable outcome is that the large
number of competencies is indicative of the breadth of skills required of entry-level
residence life professionals, based on the responses of those people doing those jobs in a
variety of settings.
From the results of this survey, entry-level residence life professionals are saying
that skills in the areas of student development and supervision are less important to being
successful in these roles than other competencies. These findings counter Englin‟s
(2001) study, where entry-level residence life professionals identified the ability to
supervise as the most important competency for effective entry-level residence life
professionals (hall directors). The absence of these skills in the set of “most important”,
and an examination of what actually is included, such as the ability to be
adaptable/flexible, the ability to prioritize, time management skills, and the ability to
handle work demands/hours, suggests that the entry-level residence life position is
somewhat administrative in focus, and perhaps is less programmatic than understood.
The findings add substance to the claims of Collins and Hirt (2006) who studied the
nature of professional life for residence life staff. The findings from their research
suggest that residence life staff spend more time on administrative tasks than they do
interacting with students compared to other student affairs colleagues.
179
In summary, the set of competencies identified, taken as a whole, represents the
scope of skills needed for success in entry-level residence life positions, according to
those individuals who are currently in those roles. A specific competency‟s rated
importance illustrates the particular credence this group of entry-level residence life
professionals puts on it, in relation to other competencies. Though the findings represent
a confirmation that communication skills are important for this group of entry-level
student affairs professionals as well, the results of previous studies examining entry-level
residence life competencies now adds the voice of entry-level residence life professionals
themselves. The findings from this particular group also suggest the nature of the
position may not be as developmentally focused on students as assumed, though we
should be hesitant to insinuate that there is no developmental focus. The next section will
offer a review of the competencies identified by supervisor participants in this study
compared to studies using similar participants.
Important Entry-level Residence Life Competencies Identified by Supervisors
The participant group comprised of supervisors of entry-level residence life
professionals identified 99 competencies through a three-round modified Delphi study.
This list is expansive, representing a wide-range of competencies perceived to be
important by this group, for success in entry-level residence life positions. Similar to the
entry-level participant group, there are a variety of skills that are consistent and not,
compared to earlier studies examining entry-level competencies. The focus of this
section will offer a discussion of the findings from the supervisor group as they relate to
180
previous studies that used supervisors of entry-level residence life professionals to
identify competencies.
To help focus the comparison, the top ten competencies in descending order of
performance, based on supervisors‟ mean ratings, are (a) ability to manage multiple
priorities, (b) problem solving skills, (c) follow-through, (d) ability to prioritize, (e)
approachable, (f) ability to follow directions, (g) dependability, (h) willingness to learn,
(i) ability to relate/connect/establish a rapport with students, and (j) ability to supervise
student staff. Though many competencies received scores indicating these participants
felt they were important, the highest rated competencies will serve as a basis for the
discussion here.
What is missing from the top ten, and even the top 20, most important
competences identified by supervisors is the oral/verbal communication skills
competency. Though this participant group proposed oral/verbal communications skills,
and rated them as important, the ratings caused its rank to be lower than others. This is a
noticeable difference between the competencies identified as most important by the
entry-level residence life participants in this study, as well as previous studies examining
entry-level student affairs competencies (Burkard, et al., 2005; Herdlein, 2004; Hyman,
1988; Kretovics & Nobles, 2005; Kuk, et al., 2007; Ostroth, 1981a; Saidla, 1990; Waple,
2006).
Though many previous studies have used mid-level professionals to identify
entry-level student affairs competencies (e.g., Burkard, et al., 2005; Kuk, et al., 2007),
this discussion will examine the findings from this participant group in contrast to the
findings of studies by Englin (2001) and Kretovics and Nobles (2005) where supervisors
181
of entry-level residence life professionals were asked to rate competencies for entry-level
residence life staff. Englin‟s (2001) study utilized the Delphi method with a group of
supervisors of entry-level residence life professionals to develop competencies which
were then used to develop a survey instrument. The survey was distributed to entry-level
residence life professionals and supervisors of entry-level residence life professionals,
and participants were asked to rate their level of agreement that each competency was
important for the effectiveness of the entry-level residence life professional (hall
director). Very few competencies received low ratings in the current study, but the
rankings, based on the submitted ratings, indicate an order of importance that is
noticeably different from Englin‟s supervisors‟ rankings. Specifically, both studies rank
the ability to supervise in their top ten competencies, but Englin‟s supervisors ranked it as
second most important, whereas supervisors in this study ranked the ability to supervise
(student staff) as tenth in importance. Again, the ratings for both indicate that
participants feel it is important, but how important, relative to the ratings submitted for
other competencies, is where the two studies differ. Incidentally, the ability to supervise
was not part of the top ten most important competencies identified by entry-level
residence life professionals in this current study. The fact that it was considered one of
the most important competencies by supervisors, in this study, and in Englin‟s, suggests
that supervisors may see the supervision piece of the entry-level residence life position as
more significant than do the individuals in those jobs.
Another conspicuous difference between the findings of Englin‟s (2001) study
and this study is the crisis response competency. Knowledge of crisis intervention
practice was rated as the most important competency by Englin‟s supervisors. This was
182
not a top ten competency for supervisors in this study. In fact, the competency received a
ranking of 21st. It is difficult to determine the reason for the differences between the two
studies. Given the great deal of attention the media has paid to campus personnel‟s
ability to manage and respond to crises, in light of events like the shootings at Virginia
Tech and Northern Illinois University, it is somewhat surprising. It seems more likely
that the expectations of supervisors about entry-level residence life professionals‟ ability
to respond to crisis would in some ways be higher than it may have been with similar
respondents a few years ago.
Shifting the comparison to the findings that came out of Kretovics and Nobles‟
(2005) research, differences are also noted between that study and the current one.
Kretovics and Nobles surveyed employers, who utilized a national student affairs
conference‟s placement service to hire entry-level residence life professionals, on criteria
used to recruit and later select individuals for these positions. After having an earned
masters degree and possessing relevant assistantship experience, participants in Kretovics
and Nobles‟ study indicated that demonstrated helping skills – listening, responding, and
referral, was the next most important criteria. The findings are consistent with the
supervisors in Englin‟s (2001), but not with the supervisors in this study. Again, a
significant difficultly in comparing the findings of one study to another lies in the
inconsistencies associated with how individual competencies and skills are referred to
(Coffey, 2010). While Kretovics and Nobles identify helping skills to be inclusive of
listening, and responding and referring, the supervisors in this study identified these skills
as separate and distinct. However, though they are separate and distinct, they are still
183
ranked 17th (listening effectively) and 57th (referral skills), out of 99 competencies in this
study by supervisors.
Employers hiring entry-level residence life professionals in Kretovics and Nobles‟
(2005) study cite a personal commitment to diversity as a particularly important
competency. This competency is not included amongst those considered to be the most
important by the supervisors in this study. Supervisors in this study ranked multicultural
awareness, knowledge and skills as 33rd out of 99 in importance for success in entry-level
residence life positions. At first glance, this absence in the list of most important
competencies is unexpected, given the values of diversity and the necessity to be able to
work effectively with diverse populations that have been espoused in the field of student
affairs for some time (e.g., Pope & Mueller, 2011; Talbot, 2003). However, similar
competencies were ranked in much the same way by entry-level and expert participants
in this study. Englin‟s (2001) supervisors ranked a similar competency as 15th out of 49
competencies. It is difficult to state why supervisors in this study did not rate this
competency as important as it had been in Kretovics and Nobles‟ study, or in Englin‟s
study.
One additional contrast between the findings of this study and Kretovics and
Nobles‟ (2005) is in the ranking of communication competencies, specifically oral/verbal
communication skills. As discussed earlier in this section, this competency is listed
outside of the top 20 competencies in terms of importance to success by supervisors.
Kretovics and Nobles identify oral presentation as the sixth most important criteria used
to hire entry-level residence life professionals. Kretovics and Nobles‟ findings also
describe an interesting divergence. They found a statistically significant difference
184
between residence life employers and other student affairs employers when it comes to
oral communication skills, suggesting that in general, residence life employers find this
competency to be less important than other employers. This suggests that perhaps the
difference in rankings between the two studies on this specific competency is not all that
remarkable. Nevertheless, the fact that this competency is not included in the rankings of
the most important competencies identified by supervisors in this study, and it is by
supervisors in Kretovics and Nobles study, as well as Englin (2001), in addition to being
considered one of the most important by this study‟s entry-level group, is notable.
Table 25 offers a comparison of the findings from the Englin (2001) study and the
Kretovics and Nobles (2005) study, with the findings of the supervisors group from this
study. The competencies identified in this study by supervisor participants signifies a
widely held belief that entry-level residence life professionals are expected to do it all.
As Palmer (1995) suggests, entry-level residence life professionals are called upon to do
all sorts of things, at all sorts of hours of the day and night. In order to accomplish these
tasks, a variety of skills are needed. Supervisors in this study identified many
competencies as important, though only a few are considered the most important.
Competencies such as the ability to prioritize, and the ability to manage multiple
priorities, demonstrate supervisors‟ expectations that staff should able to multi-task.
Noting that some studies have examined the unique nature of the entry-level residence
life position (Collins & Hirt, 2006), and cited the potential for burnout (Palmer, et al.,
2001), the nature of the competencies rated by these supervisors as most important
indicates that supervisors are at least aware of the numerous roles entry-level residence
life professionals area asked to play.
185
Table 26
Entry-level Residence Life Competencies Identified by Supervisors of Entry-level
Residence life Professionals
Englin (2001)
Kretovics (2005)
Haggerty (2011)
(Identified by Supervisors of Entry-Level Residence Life Staff)
10. Ability to take initiative
17 Criteria for Entry-Level Employment
(Identified by Residence Life Employers)
1. Masters in Student Personnel/Student Affairs
2. Relevant assistantship experience while in graduate program
3. Demonstrated helping skills- listening, responding and referral
4. Personal commitment to diversity
5. Written communication
6. Oral Presentation
7. Practicum experience while in graduate school
(Identified by Supervisors of Entry-Level Residence Life Staff)
2. Problem solving skills
3. Follow-through
5. Approachable
7. Dependability
9. Ability to relate/connect/establish rapport with students
17. Listening effectively
19. Common sense
186
Related to the other competencies identified as most important by supervisors,
willingness to learn, and the ability to follow directions, suggests that supervisors see the
position as an entry-level position, one in which direction will need to be provided, and
where professional growth is expected. More needs to be learned about what this group
thinks about the competencies that are needed for success in these entry-level residence
life positions. As the direct supervisors of these individuals, they have a critical role in
determining the training curriculum, the supervision that is provided, and the evaluations
that are given, to entry-level residence life professionals. As supervisors, they are
uniquely qualified to say what it is that is needed for success in these roles.
Though supervisors do not function in entry-level residence life positions, they do
have the perspective that some entry-level residence life professionals may lack due to
the fact that they are removed from the day to day responsibilities and tasks of these
roles. Additionally, if these individuals supervise more than one entry-level residence
life professional, they may have the benefit of having a more global view on the skills
needed to be a successful entry-level residence life professional, versus just knowing the
skills needed as it pertains to one individual. The competencies identified by this group
are presumably indicative of the competencies sought in candidates for entry-level
residence life positions. As the hiring managers for these jobs, supervisors have a sense
of the skills that are needed for success in these positions.
The following section discusses the entry-level competencies identified by the
expert participants and reviews scholarship that similarly involved expert participants to
identify entry-level residence life competencies.
187
Important Entry-level Residence Life Competencies Identified by Experts
A three-round modified Delphi study was used to generate a set of 66
competencies from expert participant responses. As identified experts in the field of
residence life, participants have reached a level of proficiency that is respected by others
within the profession. Participants were recommended for participation, and needed an
invitation in order to participate as an expert in this study. As the smallest participant
group, these individuals proposed a set of competencies that is comprehensive, but
includes fewer competencies than the set of competencies produced by the other two
participant groups. This section will examine the competencies proposed by the expert
group and offer a discussion in relation to a previous study asking individuals of
comparable experience to identify entry-level competencies.
Once again, the top ten most important competencies will be used as basis for this
assessment. The competencies identified by this study‟s experts are, in descending order
of importance, (a) common sense, (b) adaptability, (c) problem solving, (d) being
trustworthy, (e) open to feedback, (f) time management, (g) professional ethics, (h)
ability to identify and manage multiple competing priorities, (i) sense of professionalism,
and (j) critical/logical thinking. While all competencies proposed by the experts received
mean ratings of 3.0 or higher, only the highest rated competencies are listed above.
The Delphi method has traditionally involved the use of experts to participate in a
futures forecasting process, or to help bring resolution to an existing problem. Many
variations of the method exist, and experts are still often used as participants, though how
one defines expert is often varied as well. The use of an expert group provides a
perspective that may not be found through the use of other participant groups. Experts
188
often have the benefit of experience and history to inform their responses in a study like
this.
In seeking studies to offer comparisons to, there is a scarcity of studies that have
utilized residence life experts to identify competencies specifically for entry-level
residence life professionals. Even with loose definitions of the term expert, it is difficult
to find studies that utilized residence life staff to identify these competencies. Herdlein
(2004) used senior student affairs officers to identify entry-level student affairs
competencies. Burkard, et al (2005). used senior student affairs officers and mid-level
student affairs professionals to identify entry-level student affairs professionals, and Kuk,
et al. (2007), used chief student affairs officers, faculty and mid-level professionals to do
to same. The study that most closely relates to this study‟s use of residence life experts in
identifying entry-level residence life competencies, was a study conducted by Hyman
(1988).
Hyman (1988) conducted a study examining entry-level student affairs
competencies using chief student affairs officers, senior housing officers and student
affairs graduate preparation faculty as participants. For the purposes of discussing the
findings associated with this current study‟s experts, the findings reported by Hyman for
the senior housing officers, as the closest association to a residence life expert, will be
used. It should be acknowledged that there are more than 20 years between the studies,
and that Hyman‟s directors of housing participants (as compared to experts in this current
study) may or may not have been considered experts within their field at the time. It
should also be noted that Hyman‟s participants were being asked to rate their agreement
with the level of importance these competencies had to entry-level student affairs work,
189
and not specifically residence life. That aside, there are some similarities between the
competencies identified as most important by the two studies.
Hyman (1988) grouped the 33 individual competencies he used into five
competency categories. In order to examine the most important individual competencies
from that study, to the individual competencies identified by this study‟s experts,
Hyman‟s top ten individual competencies identified by chief housing officers were taken
out of the five competency categories. In descending order of group mean, they are (a)
teach students the consequences of their behavior, (b) select, train, and supervise staff, (c)
recognize and accept the ethical consequences of personal and professional behavior, (d)
work effectively with a diversity of individual students and faculty, (e) accept authority
and responsibility and delegate as appropriate, (f) perceive and accurately interpret
attitudes, beliefs, and needs of others, (g) facilitate staff development through in-service
training, (h) assess student needs, (i) make effective use of verbal and nonverbal skills in
group presentations, and (j) recognize and define confidentiality practices and
procedures.
Hyman‟s (1988) directors of housing identify staff supervision as a particularly
important competency. This competency is not included in the list of most important
competencies identified by the expert group in this study. Other top rated competencies
identified by Hyman include assessing student needs and teaching students the
consequences of their behavior. Though we can only assume this is applicable to entrylevel residence life positions given the make-up of the participant group, it is just an
assumption. Accepting that these are applicable though, the competencies seem very
student-focused, and pertinent to an individual who would have high levels of contact
190
with students. In comparison, the competencies identified specifically for entry-level
residence life staff by this study‟s recommended experts, is less focused on working
directly with students.
In light of the numerous studies examining entry-level student affairs
competencies, and the overarching theme of communication competencies being
important, the absence of a competency related to oral/verbal communication skills is
noticeable in the competencies identified by this study‟s experts. Though not
inconsistent with the the supervisors group, this competency‟s lack of appearance as part
of the top ten most important competencies identified by experts is one more distinction
between this study‟s findings and that of Hyman (1988). Verbal and nonverbal
communication skills, though not the most important competency rated by Hyman‟s
directors of housing, was certainly part of the group‟s top ten. Related to this oral/verbal
communications competency, Hyman had three participant groups – faculty, directors of
housing, and chief student affairs officers. His findings report a statistically significant
difference in the perceived importance of faculty and directors of housing regarding the
use of verbal and nonverbal skills; specifically, faculty rated it as more important than did
directors of housing. Kretovics and Nobles (2005) also note statistically significant
differences between residence life employers and non-residence life employers when it
comes to the importance of oral communications skills. In that study, residence life
employers also rate this competency as less important than others. Hesitant to suggest
too many implications related to a lack of importance associated with oral/verbal
communication skills on behalf of residence life experts (and supervisors) in this study, it
191
does suggest that there may be some consistency and agreement about the importance of
specific competencies when compared to others.
The most important competencies according to residence life experts suggest a
wide set of skills to be possessed by entry-levels. At first, the skills seem very applicable
to the responsibilities we associate with entry-level residence life professionals, however,
the skills noted as most important, don‟t speak to residence life specific job functions.
This is a major distinction between the competencies proposed by directors of housing in
Hyman‟s (1988) study, though Hyman‟s director of housing participants were not
selected as experts, and were identifying competencies for entry-level student affairs
staff. Table 26 below highlights the differences in some of the individual competencies
identified with the use of experts in this study, the findings of Hyman‟s (1988) director of
housing group.
Residence life experts can have a tremendous influence when considering the
training and development needs of entry-level residence life professionals. In some
cases, dependent on their institution and position, they may also have direct say into the
criteria used to select candidates for these positions. The field will continue to rely on
residence life experts to shape the nature and content of professional development
programs at national conferences, to guide research and assessment activities examining
residence life programs, and potentially, to influence the curriculum of professional
preparation programs. The competencies identified by these expert participants suggest
differences from previous research about the perceived importance of specific
competencies. With a lack of research utilizing residence life experts to identify entry-
192
Table 27
Entry-level Residence Life Competencies Identified by Residence life Experts
Hyman (1988)
Updated Miller & Prince
(1976) model.
Haggerty (2011)
5 Skill Areas – 33 Individual Competencies Identified – Individual
Competencies Listed Below
(Identified by CHOs)
1. Teach students the consequences of their behavior
2. Select, train, and supervise staff
3. Recognize and accept the ethical consequences of personal and
professional behavior
4. Work effectively with a diversity of individual students and
faculty
5. Accept authority and responsibility and delegate as appropriate
6. Perceive and accurately interpret attitudes, beliefs, and needs of
others
7. Facilitate staff development through in-service training
8. Assess student needs
9. Make effective use of verbal and nonverbal skills in group
presentations
10. Recognize and define confidentiality practices and procedures.
(Identified by Residence Life Experts)
1. Common sense
2. Adaptability
3. Problem solving
5. Open to feedback
6. Time management
8. Ability to identify and manage multiple competing priorities
11. Accountability
16. Know your role
level residence life competencies to be able to compare the findings of this study to,
future research is warranted to determine any themes and inconsistencies.
193
The discussion has drawn parallels between the findings from the individual
groups used in this study, to previous empirical work that examined entry-level residence
life competencies. The next section will discuss findings of the individual groups as they
relate to each other.
Differences Between The Participant Groups
This study utilized three separate groups to identify competencies important for
success in entry-level residence life positions. The resultant competency sets produced
by the groups bares similarities and differences. Due to the fact that the competencies
were developed from the qualitative responses of participants, and that the groups worked
independent of each other to develop the competencies, a straightforward comparison is
not possible for all competencies because each set of competencies is comprised of the
same, as well as different competencies. That said, for like-competencies where a
competency to competency comparison was possible, statistical measures were used to
determine if there were statistically significant differences in the perceived importance
between groups. Analysis completed only found two of 25 competencies to be
statistically different when compared between groups. While the comparison provides a
starting point in determining which competencies were identified by all three groups, any
inferences from the results of the statistical analysis performed should be made with
caution, especially given the small number of participants in each group.
Though statistical analysis allowed for a competency by competency comparison,
a larger purpose of this study was to be able to examine collectively, all of the
stakeholder groups‟ final set of competencies, and in particular, the competencies that
194
were identified as most important by each of the groups. This provides another platform
upon which the findings can be discussed. Table 27 below presents the top 20
competencies identified by each of the participant groups in this study. It is provided as a
reference to the discussion about the comparison of the between group findings.
Table 28
Competencies Identified by All Three Groups
(Identified by Entry-Level
Residence Life Staff)
1. Ability to be
adaptable/flexible d
2. Ability to prioritize a
3. Oral/Verbal communication
skills c
4. Ability to act as a role
model for both staff and
residents d
5. Time management skills a
6. Listening skills c
7. Leadership skills a
8. Ability to handle work
demands/hours d
9. Bachelors degree f
10. Critical thinking skills d
11. Confrontation skills c
12. Interpersonal skills c
13. Administrative ability a
14. Common sense d
15. Ability to supervise student
staff a
16. Can respond and act under
pressure d
17. Discretion/Privacy d
18. Consistency and reliability d
19. Enforce policies a
20. Self-management d
a
Administrative/Management Skills;
b
(Identified by Supervisors of
Entry-Level Residence Life
Staff)
1. Ability to manage multiple
priorities a
2. Problem solving skills a
3. Follow-through a
4. Ability to prioritize a
5. Approachable c
6. Ability to follow directionsa
7. Dependability d
8. Willingness to learn d
9. Ability to
relate/connect/establish
rapport with students c
10. Ability to supervise student
staff a
11. Decision making skills d
12. Ability to reason and
rationalize d
13. Critical thinking skills d
14. Interpersonal skills c
15. Adaptability/Flexibility d
16. Ability to stay calm and
think through various
situations d
17. Listening effectively c
18. Positive attitude d
19. Common sense d
20. Dealing with difficult
people c
Assessment/Research Skills;
and Content-Specific Knowledge; f Other
c
(Identified by Residence Life
Experts)
Common sense d
Adaptability d
Problem solving a
Being trustworthy d
Open to feedback d
Time management a
Professional ethics e
Ability to identify and
manage multiple competing
priorities a
Sense of professionalism e
Critical/Logical thinking d
Accountability a
Getting to know students c
Interpersonal skills c
Oral/Verbal communication
skills c
Listening skills c
Know your role e
Supervision skills a
Ability to balance personal
and professional life d
Recognition of chain of
command e
Ability to work as part of a
team c
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Human Relation Skills;
d
Personal Characteristics;
e
Resource
195
As a means of offering an additional reference to the discussion comparing the
similarities and differences between the participant groups in the competencies identified,
an analysis was performed to determine if there were differences between the groups
when examining the competency categories assigned to each of the individual
competencies. A chi-square analysis was performed to determine if the distribution of
competencies amongst the competency categories differed depending on the participant
groups. Table 29 below presents the results of the calculation.
Table 29
Chi-Square Analysis of Competency Category Distribution for All Competencies for All
Participant Groups
Competency Category
Group
Entry
Superv.
Expert
Total
Count
% within Category
Count
% within Category
Count
% within Category
Count
% within Category
Admin/
Mgmt
Skills
29
43.9%
25
37.9%
12
18.2%
66
100.0%
Assess/
Research
Skills
4
40.0%
4
40.0%
2
20.0%
10
100.0%
Human
Relation
Skills
25
37.9%
23
34.8%
18
27.3%
66
100.0%
Personal
Charact
40
41.7%
33
34.4%
23
24.0%
96
100.0%
Resource
ContentSpecific
14
35.9%
14
35.9%
11
28.2%
39
100.0%
Other
Total
2
100.0%
0
.0%
0
.0%
2
100.0%
114
40.9%
99
35.5%
66
23.7%
279
100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Pearson Chi-Square
a
Value
df
5.253a
10
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.874
6 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .47.
A chi-square test was calculated comparing the distribution of competencies to
competency categories amongst among all three participant groups. No significant
relationship was found (χ2(1) = 5.253, p> .05). Additionally, a chi-square analysis was
196
performed to determine if the distribution of the top 20 most important competencies
amongst the competency categories differed depending on the participant groups. Table
30 below presents the results of the calculation.
Table 30
Chi-Square Analysis of Competency Category Distribution for the Top 20 Most
Important Competencies for All Participant Groups
Competency Category
Group
Entry
Superv.
Expert
Total
Count
% within Category
Count
% within Category
Count
% within Category
Count
% within Category
Admin/
Mgmt
Skills
6
35.3%
6
35.3%
5
29.4%
17
100.0%
Human
Relation
Skills
4
28.6%
5
35.7%
5
35.7%
14
100.0%
Personal
Charact
Resource
ContentSpecific
9
37.5%
9
37.5%
6
25.0%
24
100.0%
0
.0%
0
.0%
4
100.0%
4
100.0%
Value
df
11.011a
8
Other
Total
1
100.0%
0
.0%
0
.0%
1
100.0%
20
33.3%
20
33.3%
20
33.3%
60
100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Pearson Chi-Square
a
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.201
9 cells (60.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .33.
A chi-square test was calculated comparing the distribution of competencies to
competency categories amongst among all three participant groups. No significant
relationship was found (χ2(1) = 11.011, p> .05).
A review of the most important of the competencies identified by entry-level
residence life group gives us a glimpse into the role of today‟s residence hall director
position. All of them in and of themselves may have merit as a valid competency, each
contributing to the relative success of an individual working as an entry-level residence
197
life professional. Further inquiry, particularly into what is missing, is revealing. Of note,
is that student development theory, and supervision, are not included in the set of which
competencies are most important. What we know about entry-level residence life
positions is that there is presumably a great deal of student contact, and that their primary
role is to manage a building that houses students and to supervise student staff (RAs).
Though the ability to supervise student staff falls shortly below the top ten, it is surprising
to see that this skill is not considered one of the most important. Additionally, familiarity
with student development concepts and approaches falls much farther down the list.
When compared to the most important competencies identified by supervisors,
supervision ranks in their top ten. What does this say about the skills entry-level
residence life professionals consider important versus the skills their supervisors are
citing? The mean ratings indicate both groups feel supervision is an important
competency, however, supervisors produced a higher mean rating. The administrative
nature of the entry-level residence life position is highlighted by such competencies like
the ability to be adaptable/flexible, the ability to prioritize, time management skills, and
the ability to handle work demands/hours, all ranking as some of the most important
competencies identified by the entry-level group. Perhaps supervisors are envisioning the
entry-level residence life position to be less administrative and more focused on the
supervision and development of staff who report to the entry-level residence life
professionals. The administrative focus of the entry-level residence life position was
suggested by Collins and Hirt (2006). Experts on the other hand also do not include
supervision amongst their highest rating competencies, which is more consistent with the
findings of the entry-level group.
198
One competency that was included in the set of most important competencies by
entry-level residence life professionals was oral/verbal communication skills. In fact, it
received the third highest mean rating by the entry-level group. This competency has
been referred to extensively in the literature (Burkard, et al., 2005; Herdlein, 2004;
Hyman, 1988; Kretovics & Nobles, 2005; Kuk, et al., 2007; Ostroth, 1981a; Saidla, 1990;
Waple, 2006), yet the supervisors and experts participants‟ ratings did not rank this
competency in the ten most important for their groups.
The other two groups assigned high mean ratings to oral/verbal communication
skills, yet in relation to the other competencies they rated, it was not as important as
entry-levels deemed it to be. As previously mentioned though, the reduced emphasis on
the importance of oral/verbal communication skills by supervisors, and even experts, in
relation to the weight entry-levels gave to it, may not be mysterious. Kretovics and
Nobles did determine that there was a statistically significant difference between the
importance allocated to this competency by residence life employers and non-residence
life employers, in that residence life employers felt the competency was less important
than their other student affairs counterparts. Additionally Hyman‟s study determined that
there was also a statistically significant difference between faculty and directors of
housing when they rated the importance of verbal communications skills for entry-level
student affairs staff, and found that directors of housing rated this competency lower than
their faculty colleagues. This further suggests that the absence of this competency from
the most important competencies identified by supervisors and experts is not without
explanation.
199
The experts group in this study produced individual competencies that were
comparable to those produced by the other two participant groups. An examination of
the most important competencies reveals similarities in that problem solving, and the
ability to manage multiple priorities, were also identified by supervisors, and adaptability,
and time management, were competencies that were identified by entry-level participants.
Looking more closely at the rating assigned to the individual competencies by the experts
allows us to consider those competencies earning the designation as most important.
Experts identify common sense as the top rated competency, receiving a rating of 5.0
from all expert participants during the final round. Entry-level and supervisor
participants also rated this competency as important, though it was not ranked within the
ten most important. Absent again in the set of most important competencies, is a
competency related to oral/verbal communication. This is consistent with the supervisors
group that also did not rank oral/verbal communication skills in their ten most important.
The specific competencies rated as most important by experts are a mix of skill
based competencies, like problem solving and time management, while also being
inclusive of other broader traits like being trustworthy, having professional ethics, and a
sense of professionalism. Here to, like the findings from the entry-level group, there is
no mention of the supervision of student staff or working with resident students. There is
at least some indication in the competencies identified by the entry-level and supervisors
groups that the most important competencies included at least one skill that is related to
residence life-specific work. The competencies identified by experts in this study for
entry-level residence life professionals are general enough that they could easily be
accepted as helpful, or even important, skills for all entry-level positions within student
200
affairs. Among the competencies given the highest ratings by experts, there are no
competencies that are explicitly residence life in nature. Perhaps the view of experts is
that a good entry-level residence life professional is a generalist, or someone with
transferrable skills. These are of course assumptions; however, the lack of skills directly
associated, at least on the surface, to the entry-level residence life position, raises valid
questions about the sole use of experts in determining competencies for this professional
population.
The set of competencies produced by the individual participant groups in this
study offer slight variations. Some competencies are included on one, two or all three of
the final sets produced by the groups, or put differently, some groups failed to include
specific competencies. For groups assigning a higher level of importance to a specific
competency than another group does, postulations can be made about which group‟s
opinion is more correct. It brings the discussion to the larger question of who is best able
to determine what competencies are most important for success in entry-level residence
life positions? Are the supervisors right because they have presumably had the entrylevel residence life experience, and have the benefit of seeing the bigger picture, or are
the entry-level residence life professionals more correct in that they are doing the jobs in
today‟s environment with today‟s students, facilities, politics, etc.? The experts can‟t be
left out either. After all, they are experts! These individuals, often having reached a
level of positive notoriety in the field, have established themselves as leaders and
contributed in significant ways. Aren‟t these individuals uniquely qualified to say what is
important from a more experienced and historical perspective?
201
The purpose of this study was not to determine who was most qualified to decide.
Rather, the purpose was to determine what each of the groups would identify as the
important competencies. Subsequent research can perhaps take on who should ultimately
determine the competencies necessary for success, but as this study intended to embark
upon, many stakeholders should have input, helping to move the field towards an agreed
upon set of competencies for use in entry-level residence life recruitment, training,
supervision, development and evaluation.
Implications
The purpose of the study was to identify important competencies for success in
entry-level residence life positions. No contemporary work examining entry-level
residence life competencies from the perspective of multiple groups had been completed
prior to this study. The competencies that are important for success have changed over
time. There will be a need to continually revisit any established set of competencies
(ACPA, 2008) for use in a professional setting as that setting will evolve to include new
responsibilities and environments, necessitating reprioritized and new competencies.
This study helps to provide a current examination of competencies for the entry-level
residence life professional role.
This examination has several implications for research and for practitioners.
From a research standpoint, this study is being completed in the wake of other recent
scholarship examining competencies in the field of student affairs (ACPA & NASPA,
2010; Coffey, 2010). For the first time in the history of student affairs, the two national
professional associations in student affairs have adopted a document outlining
202
professional competencies all individuals working in student affairs should possess
(ACPA & NASPA, 2010). Though there still exists no compulsory standards or
competencies that are required of graduate preparation programs to cover, or for entry
into the field (Herdlein, 2004), this foundational document helps to bring stronger accord
within the student affairs community about what competencies are expected. This study
adds to the existing literature, and also helps to establish a starting point towards an
agreed upon set of competencies for entry-level residence life professionals.
This study also has implications for general student affairs practice, and
specifically entry-level residence life practice. The competencies identified in this study
can assist supervisors of entry-level residence life professionals in selecting the most
qualified candidates for these positions. A set of competencies for use by employers in
evaluating candidates will likely result in a better professional staff selection process for
institutions. Better candidates mean better hall directors
The preparation of individuals for work as entry-level residence life professionals
is also extremely important given the high number of individuals who are employed in
these roles (Belch & Mueller, 2003). This study has positive implications for
professional staff training as well. A set of competencies for use in designing training
curricula will bring greater focus to professional training programs. With a set of
competencies available to establish learning outcomes, better assessment tools can be
developed to ensure entry-level residence life professionals are trained properly. The
supervision of entry-level residence life professionals can be further enhanced with
improved training. Supervisors will better be able to evaluate entry-level residence life
staff when there is an established set of competencies that individuals should be able to
203
demonstrate capacity in. A better trained and supervised entry-level residence life
professional will likely be more successful, presumably having a positive impact on the
student affairs field due to the high number of individuals who will move on to other
student affairs positions (Belch & Mueller, 2003; Collins & Hirt, 2006; Dunkel &
Schreiber, 1992; Frederiksen, 1993).
The implications of this study will also serve the professional development needs
of this professional group. Professional associations, as well as individual entry-level
residence life professionals themselves, may find the results of this study helpful in
determining professional development activities. Intentional professional development
for entry-level residence life professionals will help to address retention issues within this
professional population (ACUHO-I, 2008b).
The findings of this study will be useful on a variety of levels. As the field
considers future research, graduate preparation program content, training competencies,
and professional development needs, the use of various stakeholders, such as the ones
utilized in this study, will enrich the outcomes of those future endeavors. This study‟s
findings indicate both agreement and disparities amongst the groups on specific
competencies and their relative importance to success in entry-level residence life
positions. A major implication of this study is that each of those stakeholder groups,
having responded to the surveys independent of the other groups, proposes a set of
competencies that is not exactly the same. Any work towards an agreed upon set of
competencies will need to consider the views of various stakeholders on this topic,
including differences that may exist due to institutional type or size for example.
204
Limitations
As with any study, there were limitations that may have impacted the results of
this study that must be addressed. A review of the methodology, data collection
procedures, analyses, and findings suggests three main limitations.
The first limitation of this study is that participants held primary work
assignments in residence life, limiting the participation of individual participants whose
primary area of responsibility is within student affairs but outside of residence life.
Given the high number of individuals who begin their careers as an entry-level residence
life professional and later move on to other positions within student affairs, there may be
some value in seeking the input of others outside of residence life as a participant group,
such as chief student affairs officers. Other populations were considered for inclusion as
participant groups, however, the unique nature of entry-level residence life positions
affirmed the need to include participants that have a current understanding of the
distinctive nature of these roles, and the competencies that are important to success in
these jobs. Subsequent research may explore this research topic with a broader
population of participants.
A second limitation lies in the use of three separate participant groups. Because
the entry-level, supervisor and expert participants responded independently of other
groups‟ participants to the modified Delphi rounds, there was no opportunity to share
data across groups. One could argue that the participants may have produced a more
comprehensive list had they been able to hear from as many individuals as possible. It‟s
possible that an individual would be able to suggest additional competencies if they were
prompted by exposure to all of the competencies proposed. If the entire list of
205
competencies were shared with all participants, a more exhaustive inventory that could
also have been evaluated by all participants in all groups, conceivably could have
produced a better sense of which competencies were more important across stakeholder
groups. With small groups, it‟s also possible that the group might have rated
competencies higher or lower if they had been presented with a comprehensive list of
competencies (and comments) proposed by participants across groups. In contrast, the
data may be richer having been produced by separate groups, helping to confirm or refute
the findings from previous studies that showed differences in the perceived importance of
some competencies depending on the individuals who are asked to rate their importance.
A future Delphi study may utilize a preexisting set of competencies, for consideration by
separate groups, allowing each group to evaluate the same competencies.
A final limitation lies in the methodology itself. There is no one standard use of
the Delphi method. The modifications of the traditional Delphi technique that were used
in the design of this study have produced a method that can only be referred to as a
“modified Delphi” method. The ability to compare the findings of this study, to others
that used modifications of the Delphi technique is difficult due to the atypical way in
which this study may have modified the technique. Moreover, the use of a modified
Delphi method for the design of this study produced a comprehensive set of
competencies, and the utility of such a long register of competencies arguable. Though
the researcher did employ coding techniques to summarize qualitative responses to the
first round survey as scholars suggest (Martino, 1993; Ziglio, 1996), the data reduction
was minimal. In some cases, participants were asked to provide ratings to approximately
100 individual competencies in the second round. Furthermore, some participants groups
206
produced additional competencies during that round. As a result, it may be difficult to
use the resulting lists to structure a performance program or job description, though its
usefulness in informing future research could be considered advantageous. As a means
of addressing the functionality of such a long list, the researcher did propose competency
themes following the reporting of findings for each of the research questions. An
additional limitation is that those themes were identified following the conclusion of the
data collection period, and were not vetted by participants.
Recommendations for Future Research
From a research standpoint, the findings of this study offer a number of potential
next steps. Future studies may choose to utilize the methodology employed in this study
differently, or they may choose to expand the number and types of participants.
Additionally, the findings may help to provide the basis for another study that more
clearly established competency themes or groupings.
A variety of alternative Delphi methodologies could be utilized to determine the
merit and use of the individual competencies identified in this study. A pre-identified set
of competencies, like the ones identified in this study, could help to bring more structured
group analysis. The type of feedback offered from the previous rounds could be
different. In this modified Delphi study, qualitative comments were offered, as well as
the group‟s means. Future studies could include other measures of central tendency or
interquartile ranges to help participants understand the level of group consensus around a
particular competency in offering their next rating. In future studies, participants could
207
also be asked to rank a set of competencies, rather than rate them, as a means of
identifying which competencies are more or most important.
Future scholars may wish to replicate this study with similar or different groups,
either with the aim of ascertaining if the same competencies are identified, or with the
goal of consensus, to agree upon which of the important competencies is most important.
The competencies identified through this study may help to serve as a foundation for a
research project that develops a competency instrument that can used to determine if
individuals currently in those roles poses specific skills. Future research in this vein
would help to improve training, supervision and professional development for entry-level
Though the findings of this study denote some differences, they do not indicate
clear, wide-spread disagreement between stakeholder groups on the importance of
specific competencies for success in entry-level residence life positions. The participant
groups used in this study were too small to permit inferences like that. They do however
support further inquiry, using distinct participant groups to see if these differences are
consistent. A number of demographic factors could serve as variables in future studies to
examine differences between groups on the perceived importance of some competencies.
This study only utilized individuals within the NEACUHO region. Perhaps the
participant group could be expanded geographically. Institutional type could be explored
more to understand the distinctions in the perceived importance, if any, of competencies
by those individuals working at private colleges, compared to those working at public.
Other institutional types, like historically black colleges could also be explored. Schools
with small bed counts, such as community colleges should also be included.
208
Finally, with the recent publication of the ACPA & NASPA Competencies
document (2010), the field of student affairs is closer than ever in terms of agreement
regarding the competencies necessary for entry-level student affairs work. Studies such
as this one, examining competencies for entry-level staff within different functional areas
will help add to our understanding of the skills needed for work within the student affairs
profession, and the unique skills needed for work within the different functional areas.
Given the high number of individuals employed in entry-level residence life positions,
and the number of individuals who go on to work in other residence life and student
affairs positions, additional research examining entry-level residence life competencies
will benefit both student affairs and residence life.
Summary and Conclusions
Members of NEACUHO participated in three separate groups as entry-level
residence life professionals, supervisors of entry-level residence life professionals, and
residence life experts, utilizing a three-round modified Delphi study to identify a set of
competencies for success in entry-level residence life positions. Each of the groups
produced an independent set of competencies that is inclusive of an array of skills and
characteristics.
Each of the competencies was rated by participants to indicate a level of
agreement as to how important each competency is to the success of individual in entrylevel residence life positions. Individual competencies identified by all three participant
groups were analyzed to determine if there were statistically significant differences in the
perceived importance of the different groups. Of the 25 individual competencies
209
identified by all participant groups, the ratings of only two competencies were found to
be statistically significant between the groups. For further comparison, the mean scores
calculated for each competency were used to rank order the competencies and determine
which ones were identified as most important. The lists were then examined for
similarities and differences based on the competencies identified as most important.
The resultant lists of competencies identified by the three groups offers a current
inventory of the skills deemed important by those groups. A current set of competencies,
identified through empirical means did not exist prior to this study. These sets, identified
by entry-level residence life professionals, supervisors, and residence life experts, reveals
some agreement between the groups. Most competencies identified by all three groups
were assigned at least some level of importance by participants. On the other hand,
differences are seen in the competencies identified as most important by these groups.
Three assembled sets of competencies help to highlight the disparities between these
stakeholder groups over which competencies are most important. Without an agreed
upon set of competencies that are important for success in entry-level residence life
positions, there will continue to be debate as to the competencies that should guide the
preparation, selection, training, development, and evaluation of entry-level residence life
staff. This study sought to address that need. The development of an exhaustive list of
competencies, identified by different stakeholder groups, will help to inform the
discussion around the development of an agreed upon set of competencies for entry-level
The literature demonstrates a considerable amount of attention has been paid to
the recruitment, retention and attrition of entry-level residence life staff by researchers
210
and professional associations (ACUHO-I, 2008b; Belch & Mueller, 2003; Collins & Hirt,
2006; Jennings, 2005; Krajnak, 2001; St. Onge, et al., 2008). The specific skills needed
for success in these positions has not been explored to a great extent in the literature. A
report of a research study published by ACUHO (2008b) recommended training for
entry-level residence life staff that focuses on, among other things, skills building. A
residence life program can have a significant influence on a students‟ development
(Blimling & Miltenberger, 1981; Pascarella, Terenzini, & Blimling, 1994; Schuh, 1996),
and an effective entry-level residence life professional directly influences the impact of a
residence life program. Aside from the important influence an entry-level residence life
professional can have on a campus, the broader impact of more qualified entry-level
residence life professionals in the field is significant. There are more individuals
employed in residence life as entry-level professionals than there are in other student
affairs functional areas (Collins & Hirt, 2006). A well skilled entry-level professional
will serve the field for years to come, especially if most mid-level professionals are hired
from entry-level positions (Coffey, 2010).
The need to identify competencies for the different functional areas within student
affairs has been argued for some time (e.g., ACPA, 2008; ACPA & NASPA, 1990;
Schreiber, et al., 1994). For years, the scholars have noted a lack of consensus within
student affairs about the competencies necessary for effective practice (Cuyjet, et al.,
2009; Kretovics, 2002; Kuk, et al., 2007; Pope, et al., 2004; Waple, 2006). The work
done to develop the ACPA & NASPA Competencies Document (2010) is a milestone in
the development and adoption of profession-wide competencies for work in this field.
Though the document outlines basic, intermediate, and advanced skills, little research has
211
been done to evaluate those competencies application to entry-level, mid-level and senior
student affairs practice. A recent study conducted by Coffey (2010) did examine the
basic competencies outlined in ACPA‟s (2008) document and it‟s relation to entry-level
student affairs competencies. More work will need to continue in this area, and in the
examination of competencies for the specific functional areas at the entry-level, mid-level
and senior level.
212
APPENDICES
213
Appendix A: Letter of endorsement from ACUHO-I
214
215
Appendix B: Solicitation of Recommendations for Expert Participants
216
217
218
Appendix C: Website to Submit Recommendations for Expert Group Participants
219
220
221
222
223
Appendix D: Round One Invitation to Recommended Experts
224
225
226
Appendix E: Round One Invitation to Entry-level and Supervisor Participants
227
228
229
Appendix F: Informed Consent for All Participants, All Rounds
230
231
232
Appendix G: Demographic Questionnaire for Expert Participants
233
234
235
Appendix H: Demographic Questionnaire for Entry-level and Supervisor Participants
236
237
238
239
240
Appendix I: Round One Survey for All Participants
241
242
243
244
Appendix J: Round Two Invitation to All Participants
245
246
247
Appendix K: Round Two Survey for Entry-level Participants
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
Appendix L: Round Two Survey for Supervisor Participants
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
Appendix M: Round Two Survey for Expert Participants
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
Appendix N: Round Three Invitation to all Participants
288
289
290
Appendix O: Round Three Survey for Entry-level Participants
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
Appendix P: Round Three Survey for Supervisor Participants
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
Appendix Q: Round Three Survey for Expert Participants
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
REFERENCES
Allen, T. H. (1978). The delphi technique. In T. H. Allen (Ed.), New methods in social
science research: Policy sciences and futures research. New York: Praeger
Publishers.
Ambler, D. A. (2000). Organizational and administrative models. In M. J. Barr, M. K.
Desler & Associates (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (2nd
ed., pp. 121-134). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
American College Personnel Association. (2006a). Assessment skills and knowledge
(ASK) standards. Washington, DC: Author.
American College Personnel Association. (2006b). Task force on certification
preliminary report. Washington, DC: Author.
American College Personnel Association. (2008). Professional competencies. A report of
the steering committee on professional competencies. (pp. 19). Washington, DC:
Author.
American College Personnel Association, Association of College and University Housing
Officers - International, & Syracuse University Office of Residence Life. (2002).
Housing/Residence life professionals recruitment and retention survey report
2002. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.
American College Personnel Association, & National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators. (1990). The recruitment, preparation, and nurturing of the student
affairs professional: A report of the task force on professional preparation and
practice. Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association & National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators.
American College Personnel Association, & National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators. (2010). Professional competency areas for student affairs
practitioners (pp. 28). Washington, DC: Author.
American Council on Education. (1937). The student personnel point of view.
Washington, DC: Author.
Applebee, M. M. (1980). A model for the implementation of student development theory
in the training and development of professional residence hall staff. Dissertation,
Boston College.
Association of College and University Housing Officers - International. (2008a).
ACUHO-I About Us Page Retrieved September 28, 2008, from
http://www.acuho-i.org/AboutUs/tabid/61/Default.aspx
327
Association of College and University Housing Officers - International. (2008b).
Recruitment and retention of entry-level staff in housing and residence life: A
report on activities supported by the ACUHO-I commissioned research program.
Columbus, OH: Author.
Association of College and University Housing Officers - International. (2009). ACUHOI FAQs Page Retrieved April 5, 2009, from http://www.acuhoi.org/AboutUs/FAQs/tabid/91/Default.aspx
Barr, M. J., & Associates (Eds.). (1993). The handbook of student affairs administration.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barr, M. J., Desler, M. K., & Associates (Eds.). (2000). The handbook of student affairs
administration. (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Belch, H. A., & Mueller, J. A. (2003). Candidate pools or puddles: Challenges and trends
in the recruitment and hiring of resident directors. Journal of College Student
Development, 44(1), 29-46.
Blimling, G. S. (1993). New challenges and goals for residential life programs. In R. B.
Winston Jr., S. Anchors & Associates (Eds.), Student housing and residential life
(pp. 1-20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Blimling, G. S., & Miltenberger, L. J. (1981). The resident assistant: Working with
college students in residence halls. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing
Company.
Brandel, R. L. (1995). Chief housing officers' perceptions of selected competencies.
Dissertation, Northern Arizona University.
Bryan, W. A., & Schwartz, R. A. (1998). Some final thoughts about staff development.
New Directions for Student Services, 84, 95-100.
Burkard, A., Cole, D. C., Ott, M., & Stoflet, T. (2005). Entry-level competencies of new
student affairs professionals: A delphi study. NASPA Journal, 42(3), 282-309.
Carpenter, D. S. (1991). Student affairs profession: A developmental perspective. In T.
K. M. R. B. Winston (Ed.), Administrative leadership in student affairs;
actualizing student development in higher education. Muncie, IN: Accelerated
Development Inc.
Carpenter, S., & Stimpson, M. T. (2007). Professionalism, scholarly practice, and
professional development in student affairs. NASPA Journal, 44(2), 265-284.
Chronicle of Higher Education. (2010a, January 21). This year's freshmen at 4-year
colleges: Highlights of a Survey, Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/This-Years-Freshmen-at-4-Year/63672
328
Chronicle of Higher Education. (2010b, December 10). Who are the undergraduates?,
The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/Who-Are-the-Undergraduates-/123916/
Clayton, M. J. (1997). Delphi: A technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision
making tasks in education. Educational Psychology, 17(4), 373-386.
Coffey, C. M. (2010). A study of competencies perceived to be important by professionals
in entry-level positions within college student affairs. Dissertation, University of
Central Florida.
Cohen, A. M. (1998). The shaping of American higher education: Emergence and growth
of the contemporary system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
Coleman, D. D., & Johnson, J. E. (1990). The new professional. In D. D. Coleman & J.
E. Johnson (Eds.), The new professional (pp. 1-15). Washington, DC: National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators.
Collins, D., & Hirt, J. B. (2006). The nature of professional life for residence hall
administrators. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 34(1), 14-24.
Cooper, D. L., & Miller, T. K. (1998). Influence and impact: Professional development in
student affairs. New Directions for Student Services, 84, 55-69.
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2003a). The book of
professional standards for higher education. Washington, DC: Author.
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2003b). Council for the
advancement of standards in higher education; Masters-level graduate program
for student affairs professionals standards and guidelines Retrieved April 5, 2008,
2008, from http://www.myacpa.org/comm/profprep/facressub/cas.htm
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2006). CAS
characteristics of individual excellence for professional practice in higher
education Retrieved December 12, 2008, 2008, from
http://www.cas.edu/CAS%20Statements/IndividualExcellence.pdf
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2008). CAS handout Thirty years of professional services Retrieved December 12, 2008, 2008, from
http://www.cas.edu/CAS%20Resources/CAS%20Handout.doc
Cowley, W. H., & Williams, D. (1991). International and historical roots of American
higher education. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Creamer, D. G., Winston, R. B., Jr., & Miller, T. K. (2001). The professional student
affairs administrator: Roles and functions. In R. B. Winston Jr., D. G. Creamer, T.
K. Miller & Associates (Eds.), The professional student affairs administrator.
Educator, leader, and manager (pp. 3-38). New York: Brunner-Routledge.
329
Creamer, D. G., Winston, R. B., Jr., Schuh, J. H., Gehring, D. D., McEwen, M. K.,
Forney, D. S., . . . Woodard, D. B., Jr. (1992). Quality assurance in college
student affairs: A proposal for action by professional associations. Washington,
DC: American College Personnel Association & National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cuyjet, M. J., Longwell-Grice, R., & Molina, E. (2009). Perceptions of new student
affairs professionals and their supervisors regarding the application of
competencies learned in preparation programs. Journal of College Student
Development, 50(1), 104-119.
Dalkey, N. C. (1967). Delphi. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
Dalkey, N. C. (1972). The delphi method: An experimental study of group opinion. In N.
C. Dalkey, D. L. Rourke, R. Lewis & D. Snyder (Eds.), Studies in the quality of
life. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
DeCoster, D. A., & Brown, S. S. (1991). Staff development: Personal and professional
education. In T. K. Miller & R. B. Winston Jr. (Eds.), Administrative leadership
in student affairs: Actualizing student development in higher education (2nd ed.,
pp. 563-613). Muncie, IN: Accelerated Development, Inc.
Delworth, U., Hanson, G., & Associates. (1980). Student services: A handbook for the
profession. (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Delworth, U., Hanson, G., & Associates. (1989). Student services: A handbook for the
profession. (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Domeier, P. E. (1977). A study to examine the training of student affairs administrators
for specified competency tasks. Dissertation, Michigan State University.
Dungy, G. J. (2003). Organization and functions of student affairs. In S. R. Komives, D.
B. Woodard, Jr. & Associates (Eds.), Student services. A handbook for the
profession (4th ed., pp. 339-357). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dunkel, N. W., & Schreiber, P. J. (1992). Competency development of housing
professionals. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 22(2), 19-23.
Ebbers, L. H., & Kruempel, B. J. (1992). Student affairs preparation programs: Should
they be accredited? NASPA Journal, 30(1), 59-65.
Englin, P. D. (2001). Performance competencies and appraisal practices for professional
hall directors in large residence hall systems. Dissertation, Iowa State
University.
330
Evans, N. J., & Tobin, C. E. P. (1998). State of the art preparation and practice in
student affairs: Another look. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Fey, C. J., & Carpenter, D. S. (1996). Mid-level student affairs administrators:
Management skills and professional development needs. NASPA Journal, 33,
218-231.
Frederiksen, C. F. (1993). A brief history of collegiate housing. In R. B. Winston Jr., S.
Anchors & Associates (Eds.), Student housing and residential life (pp. 167-183).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gay, L. R. (1996). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (5th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gordon, S., Strode, C., & Mann, B. (1993). The mid-manager in student affairs: What are
CSAOs looking for? NASPA Journal, 30(4), 290-297.
Hancock, J. E. (1988). Needs and reinforcers in student affairs: Implications for attrition.
Journal of College Student Development, 29(1), 25-29.
Hanson, G. (1976). Tentative taxonomy for student development staff skills and
competencies. American College Personnel Association.
Herdlein, R. J., III. (2004). Survey of chief student affairs officers regarding relevance of
graduate preparation of new professionals. NASPA Journal, 42(1), 51-71.
Hyman, R. (1988). Graduate preparation for professional practice: A difference of
perceptions. NASPA Journal, 26, 143-150.
Jahr, P. K. (1990, November). Recruitment and preparation: Our future. ACUHO-I
Talking Stick, 6-7.
Janosik, S., Carpenter, S., & Creamer, D. (2006a). Beyond professional preparation
programs: The role of professional associations in ensuring a high quality work
force. College Student Affairs Journal, 25(2), 228-237.
Janosik, S., Carpenter, S., & Creamer, D. (2006b). Intentional professional development:
Feedback from student affairs professionals. NASPA Journal, 43(4), 127-146.
Jennings, S. A., II. (2005). The relationship between residence hall director job
satisfaction and attrition. Dissertation, Cappella University.
Jones, D. P. (2002a). College housing officers' job satisfaction: A national study.
Dissertation, The College of William and Mary in Virginia.
Jones, D. P. (2002b). College housing professionals at the crossroads. Journal of College
and University Student Housing, 31(1), 8-12.
331
Kane, N. E. (1982). A comparative study of student affairs mid-level professionals:
Characteristics, perceived skill attainment and need for continued development.
Dissertation, Florida State University.
Kazlauskas, J., & Ellett, T. (2003, February). Entry-level staff hiring. Are we hiring to
achieve our goals or to perpetuate the myths associated with having "the degree"?
ACUHO-I Talking Stick, 13-14.
Kearney, P. A. (1993). Professional staffing. In R. B. Winston Jr., S. Anchors &
Associates (Eds.), Student housing and residential life (pp. 269-291). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Keim, M. C. (1991). Student personnel preparation programs: A longitudinal study.
NASPA Journal, 28, 231-242.
Kimble, G., Timson, G., & Oltersdord, D. (2004, June). Staff perceptions of a career in
housing. ACUHO-I Talking Stick, 12, 14.
Komives, S. R. (1992). The middles: Observations on professional competence and
autonomy. NASPA Journal, 29(2), 83-89.
Komives, S. R. (1998). Linking student affairs preparation with practice. In N. J. Evans
& C. E. P. Tobin (Eds.), State of the art preparation and practice in student
affairs: Another look. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Komives, S. R., & Carpenter, S. (2009). Professional development as lifelong learning. In
G. S. McClellan, J. Stringer & Associates (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs
administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Komives, S. R., Woodard, D. B., Jr., & Associates (Eds.). (1996). Student services: A
handbook for the profession (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Komives, S. R., Woodard, D. B., Jr., & Associates (Eds.). (2003). Student services: A
handbook for the profession (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Krajnak, K. (2001, October). ACUHO-I staffing think tank. ACUHO-I Talking Stick, 8-9.
Kretovics, M. (2002). Entry-level competencies: What student affairs administrators
consider when screening candidates. Journal of College Student Development,
43(6), 912-920.
Kretovics, M., & Nobles, J. (2005). Entry-level hiring practices used in college and
university housing: Competencies recruited versus competencies hired. Journal of
College and University Student Housing, 33(2), 44-50.
Kruger, K. (2000). New alternatives for professional development. In M. J. Barr, M. K.
ed., pp. 535-553). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
332
Kuk, L., Cobb, B., & Forrest, C. (2007). Perceptions of competencies of entry-level
practitioners in student affairs. NASPA Journal, 44(4), 664-691.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1977). The Delphi method: Techniques and
applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Lovell, C. D., & Kosten, L. A. (2000). Skills, knowledge, and personal traits necessary
for success as a student affairs administrator: A meta-analysis of thirty years of
research. NASPA Journal, 37(4), 553-572.
Martino, J. P. (1993). Delphi. In J. P. Martino (Ed.), Technological forecasting for
decision making (3rd ed., pp. 15-36). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
McClellan, G. S., Stringer, J., & Associates (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of student
affairs administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McEwen, M. K., & Talbot, D. M. (1998). Designing the student affairs curriculum. In N.
J. Evans & C. E. P. Tobin (Eds.), State of the art preparation and practice in
student affairs: Another look (pp. 125-156). Lanham, MD: University Press of
America.
Miller, T. K., & Eyster, M. E. (1993). Professional standards for housing programs. In R.
B. Winston Jr., S. Anchors & Associates (Eds.), Student housing and residential
life (pp. 370-393). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, T. K., & Prince, J. S. (1976). The future of student affairs: A guide to student
development for tomorrow's higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Minetti, R. H. (1977). An analytical description of the relationship between the academic
training and assistantship experiences of master's degree programs in student
personnel administration. Dissertation, Michigan State University.
Murry, J. W. J., & Hammons, J. O. (1995). Delphi: A versatile methodology for
conducting qualitative research. The Review of Higher Education.
Nelson, T. S. (2005). Internet infidelity: A modified delphi study. Dissertation, Purdue
University.
Newton, F. B., & Richardson, R. L. (1976). Expected entry-level competencies of student
personnel workers. Journal of College Student Personnel, 17, 426-430.
Northeast Association of College and University Housing Officers. (2008). NEACUHO
Regional Entry Level Institute Retrieved October 11, 2008, from
http://neacuho.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=85&Itemid=1
2010-2011. In Northeast Association of College and University Housing Officers
(Ed.): Northeast Association of College and University Housing Officers.
333
RELI Brochure. In Northeast Association of College and University Housing
Officers (Ed.): Northeast Association of College and University Housing Officers.
Nuss, E. M. (2003). The development of student affairs. In S. R. Komives, D. B.
Woodard, Jr. & Associates (Eds.), Student services. A handbook for the profession
(4th ed., pp. 65-88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ostroth, D. D. (1975). Master's-level preparation for student personnel work. Journal of
College Student Personnel, 16, 319-322.
Ostroth, D. D. (1981a). Competencies for entry-level professionals: What do employers
look for when hiring new staff? Journal of College Student Personnel, 22, 5-11.
Ostroth, D. D. (1981b). Selecting competent residence hall staff. New Directions for
Student Services, 13, 65-80.
Palmer, C. (1995). Graduate preparation of resident directors: The addition and
subtraction dilemma. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 25(2),
5-8.
Palmer, C., Broido, E. M., & Campbell, J. (2008). A commentary on "the education role
in college student housing". Journal of College and University Student Housing,
35(2), 86-99.
Palmer, C., Murphy, R. K., Parrott, K. P., & Steinke, K. (2001). An international study of
burnout among residence hall directors. Journal of College and University
Student Housing, 29(2), 36-44.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (Eds.). (2005). How college affects students: A third
decade of research (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Blimling, G. S. (1994). The impact of residential life
on students. In C. G. Schroeder, P. Mable & Associates (Eds.), Realizing the
educational potential of residence halls (pp. 22-52). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pope, R. L., & Mueller, J. A. (2011). Multicultural competence. In J. H. Schuh, S. R.
Jones, S. R. Harper & Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the
profession (5th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pope, R. L., & Reynolds, A. L. (1997). Student affairs core competencies: Integrating
multicultural awareness, knowledge, and skills. Journal of College Student
Development, 38, 266-277.
Pope, R. L., Reynolds, A. L., & Mueller, J. A. (2004). Multicultural competence in
student affairs. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
334
Porter, J. D. (2005). Application of Sandwith's competency domain model for senior
college housing officers in the United States. Dissertation, University of Florida.
Renn, K. A., & Jessup-Anger, E. R. (2008). Preparing new professionals: Lessons from
graduate preparation programs from the national study of new professionals in
student affairs. Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 319-334.
Rentz, A. L. (2009). A history of student affairs. In G. S. McClellan, J. Stringer &
Associates (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Rhatigan, J. J. (2000). The history and philosophy of student affairs. In M. J. Barr, M. K.
Roberts, D. M. (2007). Preferred methods of professional development in student affairs.
NASPA Journal, 44(3), 561-577.
Rotondi, A., & Gustafson, D. (1996). Theoretical, methodological and practical issues
arising out of the delphi method. In M. Adler & E. Ziglio (Eds.), Gazing into the
oracle: The delphi method and its application to social policy and public health
(pp. 34-55). Bristol, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (1999). The delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and
analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15, 353-375.
Rowe, G., Wright, G., & Bolger, F. (1991). Delphi: A reevaluation of research and
theory. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 39, 235-251.
Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college & university: A history. Athens, GA:
University of Georgia Press.
Rybalkina, O. (2005, November 23, 2005). U.K. and U.S. senior student affairs officers
agree on important competencies and skills in student affairs. NASPA's NetResults
Retrieved December 10, 2007, 2007, from
www.naspa.org/membership/mem/nr/PrinterFriendly.cfm?id=1510
Saidla, D. D. (1990). Competencies for entry-level staff identified by professionals in
different positions in eight student affairs areas. The College Student Affairs
Journal, 10(1), 4-14.
Sandeen, A. (1982). Professional preparation programs in student personnel services in
higher education: A national assessment by chief student affairs officers. NASPA
Journal, 20(1), 51-58.
Saunders, S. A., & Cooper, D. L. (1999). The doctorate in student affairs: Essential skills
and competencies for midmanagement. Journal of College Student Development,
40(2), 185-191.
335
Scheuermann, T., & Ellett, T. (2007). A 3-D view of recruitment and retention of entrylevel housing staff: Déjà vu, deliberation, decisive action. Journal of College and
University Student Housing, 34(2), 12-19.
Schmitt Whitaker, C. (2005). Personal attributes and professional skills essential for
student affairs mid-level administrator job performance success in the year 2015.
Dissertation, University of La Verne.
Schoper, S. E., Stimpson, R., & Segar, T. C. (2006). ACPA certification taskforce
synthesis: A professional development curriculum. Washington, DC: American
College Personnel Association.
Schreiber, P. J., Dunkel, N. W., & Jahr, P. K. (1994). Competency based developmental
programs. College Student Affairs Journal, 14(1), 22-30.
Schroeder, C. C., & Mable, P. (1994). Residence halls and the college experience: Past
and present. In C. G. Schroeder, P. Mable & Associates (Eds.), Realizing the
educational potential of residence halls (pp. 3-21). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schuh, J. H. (1996). Residence halls. In A. L. Rentz & Associates (Eds.), Student affairs
practice in higher education (Vol. 2nd). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Schuh, J. H., Jones, S. R., Harper, S. R., & Komives, S. R. (Eds.). (2011). Student
services: A handbook for the profession (5th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schwartz, R. A., & Bryan, W. A. (1998). What is professional development? New
Directions for Student Services, 84, 3-13.
Scott, J. E. (2000). Creating effective staff development programs. In M. J. Barr, M. K.
Sermersheim, K. L. (2002). Characteristics, perceived skill importance and need for
continued professional development of mid-level student affairs professionals.
Dissertation, Southern Illinois University Carbondale.
Shaffer, R. H. (1991). Foreward. In T. K. Miller & R. B. Winston (Eds.), Administrative
leadership in student affairs; actualizing student development in higher
education. Muncie, IN: Accelerated Development, Inc.
Sprinthall, R. C. (2003). Basic statistical analysis (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
St. Onge, S., Ellett, T., & Nestor, E. M. (2008). Factors affecting recruitment and
retention of entry-level housing and residential life staff: Perceptions of chief
housing officers. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 35(2), 1023.
336
Strange, C. C. (1993). Developmental impacts of campus living environments. In R. B.
Winston Jr., S. Anchors & Associates (Eds.), Student housing and residential life
(pp. 134-166). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Talbot, D. M. (2003). Multiculturalism. In S. R. Komives, D. B. Woodard, Jr. &
Associates (Eds.), Student services. A handbook for the profession (4th ed., pp.
423-446). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tillotson, E. A. (1995). An analysis of technical, human and conceptual skills among
student affairs administrators in higher education. Dissertation, Texas A&M
University.
Trudeau, D. A. (2004). Toward a conceptual model of executive coaching practices in
organizations in the United States: A modified delphi forecasting study.
Dissertation, University of Nebraska.
Turoff, M. (1977). The policy delphi. In H. A. Linstone & M. Turoff (Eds.), The Delphi
method: Techniques and applications (pp. 84-101). Reading, MA: AddisonWesley Publishing Company.
Turoff, M., & Hiltz, S. R. (1996). Computer based delphi practices. In M. Adler & E.
Ziglio (Eds.), Gazing into the oracle: The delphi method and its application to
social policy and public health (pp. 56-85). Bristol, PA: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Tyrell, S. J., & Farmer, M. S. (2006). A comparative analysis of mid-level managers'
(and other staff in student affairs) skills and knowledge competencies. In M.-L. R.
T. ACPA's Commission for Administrative Leadership (Ed.). Washington, DC:
American College Personnel Association.
University of Maryland College Park. (2008). NHTI Competencies Page Retrieved
December 21, 2008, from http://www.resnet.umd.edu/nhti/competencies.html
Upcraft, M. L. (1998). Do graduate preparation programs really prepare practitioners? In
N. J. Evans & C. E. P. Tobin (Eds.), State of the art preparation and practice in
student affairs: Another look. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Veysey, L. R. (1965). The emergence of the American University. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Waple, J. N. (2000). The preparation of new professionals in the field of student affairs
administration: An assessment of skills and competencies necessary for entrylevel student affairs work. Dissertation, Illinois State University.
Waple, J. N. (2006). An assessment of skills and competencies necessary for entry-level
student affairs work. NASPA Journal, 43(1), 1-18.
337
Weatherman, R., & Swenson, K. (1974). Delphi technique. In S. P. Hencley & J. R.
Yates (Eds.), Futurism in education (pp. 97-114). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan
Publishing Corporation.
Webler, T., Levine, D., Rakel, H., & Renn, O. (1991). A novel approach to reducing
uncertainty: The group delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 39,
253-263.
Winston, R. B., Jr., & Creamer, D. G. (1997). Improving staffing practices in student
affairs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Winston, R. B., Jr., & Creamer, D. G. (1998). Staff supervision and professional
development: An integrated approach. New Directions for Student Services, 84,
29-42.
Woudenberg, F. (1991). An evaluation of delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 40, 131-150.
Young, D. G., & Janosik, S. M. (2007). Using CAS standards to measure learning
outcomes of student affairs preparation programs. NASPA Journal, 44(2), 341366.
Young, R. B. (2003). Philosophies and values guiding the student affairs profession. In S.
R. Komives, D. B. Woodard, Jr. & Associates (Eds.), Student services. A
handbook for the profession (4th ed., pp. 89-106). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ziglio, E. (1996). The delphi method and its contribution to decision-making. In M. Adler
& E. Ziglio (Eds.), Gazing into the oracle: The delphi method and its application
to social policy and public health. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Final Dissertation - acuho-i

Transcription

Similar documents

Artfully designed residence in the heart of KL

declaration by individuals

Closing Edition - Alvernia University

Designing and Building Our Net-Zero Home

Powerpoint

Campus map - Lynn University

Summer 2010

Winter 2012

12-question survey