The Campus Ecologist is a new national quarterly newsletter (funded through subscriptions) seeking to provide an opportunity for the exchange of information, ideas, and resources about students and their environment. But Why? and Why Now?
The questions of intention and timing are legitimate ones and can best be addressed from the perspective of "paradigm shift". In his book The Structure of Scientif ic Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn (1962) outlines the process by which new patterns of thinking (paradigms) come into being. Building on Kuhn's work, Marilyn Ferguson (1980), in the Aquarian Conspiracy, embellishes the concept paradigm shift by pointing out a paradigm shift is a distinctly new way of thinking out old problems.
First we will answer the question why. A paradigm shift is occurring in the field of college student personnel work. The shift is basically from viewing students as individuals to viewing students as part of an ecology. Older paradigms that focused on the students' intra and interpsychic concerns are no longer adequate. Student personnel as well as other human service delivery systems are involved in this "shift struggle". For example, in Health, Behavior and the Community Ralph Catalano states: "The fault in this is that psychology's basic assumptions, analogies, conventions, and exemplars are concerned with measuring and explaining individual behavior as a function of internal, or very immediate influences. This 'person' oriented paradigm is of little help in measuring or explaining the economic and political forces which shape the larger environmental determinants of emotional stability." (1979, pg. 10) Similarly, Banning and Kaiser (1974) spoke to this basic shift by suggesting the need to take an ecological perspective toward college student personnel work rather than the more traditional student adjustment or student development perspective. Recently, a number of theorists and practitioners have greatly enhanced the ecology perspective through their efforts to develop the student-environment interaction approach. (See Resource References on back page.) The Why is that The Campus Ecologist hopes to participate in and to promote the paradigm shift to an ecological perspective as the basic framework for the work of college student personnel workers or "campus ecologists".
Why Now? Given Kuhn's (1962) analysis of the process by which paradigms change, The Campus Ecologist is appearing at a point where additional communication is needed to complete the shift in paradigms. There are individuals and small groups of student personnel workers across the country who are engaged in thinking, writing and implementing an ecological approach, but communication among them is limited. A fully developed paradigm is dependent upon the sharing of basic assumptions, analogies, conventions (epistemology, descriptive mode, research setting, unit of analysis), and exemplars. The presence of these elements signals the arrival of the ecological paradigm. This arrival will not occur, however, without increased communication. The "need for connections and communications" (Ferguson, 1982) is critical to complete the shift, and a vehicle for "networking" does not now exist. The Campus Ecologist may be "at once antennae and transmitters, both listening and communicating", to repeat Ferguson's phrase (1982).
The format of The Campus Ecologist will reflect the concept of networking. Articles will be brief but references will allow in-depth investigation. A "Resource Reference" section will normally appear in each edition. Announcements of upcoming opportunities for workshops and convention programs will be published, as well as book reviews and journal article summaries. Most importantly, if The Campus Ecologist is to serve as a networking vehicle, your subscription and your contributions of ideas, information, articles and resources are needed.
The close of the twentieth century will prove to be a time of challenge, and perhaps a time of renaissance for institutions of higher education. Dropping birth rates coupled with dropping enrollments will force universities to consider new recruiting alternatives for mere survival. Previously untapped sources for prospective students, specifically the nontraditional and culturally diverse segments of the population, including adults returning to school, ethnic minority groups, the handicapped, those able to attend school only on a part time or commuting basis, women, senior citizens, and other traditionally overlooked, will become increasingly more visible and desirable to admissions officers. With this inevitable and welcome increase in nontraditional student enrollment, universities must develop a more creative means for including and involving diverse people in university life.
In the past, the university's responses to the nontraditional student have reflected a variety of approaches, most of which were only minimally successful in retaining the diverse student and unsuccessful in promoting a university value of multiculturalism.
One historical response to the nontraditional student was based on an unenlightened assumption that all new campus figures had to conform to the "mainstream" or they did not belong at the university. This placed the burden of adjustment squarely on the individual who had been newly inducted in the institution. Many times this approach seemed to be saying "figure out how to fit or leave". As one student remarked, "They (the institutions) are trying to make white students out of every 'other' who walks through their door." From this approach, it became evident that the burden of change or adjustment fell squarely on the shoulders of the nontraditional student, without help from the institution.
A somewhat more enlightened approach to the diverse or non-traditional student focused on the provision of special services and included an emphasis on adjustment. The university provided services to the student for "adjustment" to the existing campus environment. The nontraditional person was then rewarded according to his or her level of adjustment and adaptation to the rules and mores set by the traditional culture of the campus. While it appeared the university was paying attention to the nontraditional, it required the diverse student to compromise culture, life style, heritage, and often his or her own personal self respect to conform to the accepted patterns. The required accommodation usually led to the isolation and separation of the student from the benefits of his or her own group.
A more humane method for assimilating the nontraditional student focused on the formation of a more programmatic approach. Activities were developed to provide enrichment for each of the individually identifiable groups. This approach supported the unique qualities of the diverse students by programming events and support activities based solely on recognized cultural differences. These events, however, were run by and only for those who were diverse; this again created an isolated environment for the nontraditional student.
The afore mentioned approaches to diversity have been widely used, but for the future, higher education cannot afford to be comfortable with these responses. Approaches that place the burden of change and adjustment on the nontraditional or diverse students are neither efficient in responding to large numbers nor ethically defensible from a multicultural standpoint.
To respond to diversity from an ecological perspective, however, does hold promise for higher education. The ecological perspective assumes environment or institutional change as well as individual student change. The focus of this approach is the concern not just with student change but with the transactional relationship between students and their environment. The "fit" between the diverse student and the institution can be managed in a way that would include and encourage institutional change. This approach strives to overcome the one-sidedness of higher education's previous responses and approaches. It is not necessary to assume that the new students of the future will be deficient and in need of adjustment and/or in need of programs, but instead suggests that the institution itself may be deficient and in need of change. For example, rather than requiring the returning adult students to adjust their work schedule to meet day classes, the institution can adjust its schedule by making more classes available nights and weekends. Currently, many campuses make no adjustment for ethnic holidays. The adjustment is left to the ethnic students. An accommodation by the institution could be made in response to these important ethnic events.
The ecological approach promotes the celebration f pluralism and sharing for all. Persons are not asked to give up important cultural values or forced to retreat into isolationism, but rather the institution adjusts itself through policy and program redesign to promote the educational advantages afforded through diversity. Be redesigning itself in pursuit of diversity, the institution of higher education of tomorrow will be able to support diversity, both its magnitude and intensity.
Recently an informal survey was implemented to ascertain the breadth of opportunities oncampuses which could promote and assist not only a successful college experience, but also the growth and development of students. A survey instrument was designed to assess and catalogue these opportunities in relation to the departments and agencies found on individual campuses. The survey instrument (Campus Opportunity Survey) was designed to include 56 campus opportunities arranged by the subheadings of (I) financial, (2) housing, (3) recreation, (4) health, (5) academic assistance, (6) cocurricular, (7) special group opportunities, (8) social/leadership, (9) career enhancement, (10) cultural arts, (11) personal, and (12) special support
Surveys were mailed to chief student personnel officers asking them to list the offices and programs on their campuses that were related to one or more of the opportunities. They were asked to list only those agencies that could be identified by a name, address and phone number.
Twenty seven campuses (47% return) responded with completed surveys. Within the responding group were public and private institutions with enrollments from less than 1000 to over 20,000.
The number of student service agencies listed by institutions ranged from a low of 6 to a high of 53, with the average at approximately 23. Of the 56 opportunities listed on the survey form, the number present on any one campus ranged from a low of 32 to a high of 55, with the average at approximately 46.
As one would suspect, opportunity structures vary from campus to campus, but certain opportunities are always present while others are frequently absent.
In terms of specific opportunities, the following were reported available to students by all campuses in the survey: (I) federal financial aid, (2) state financial aid, (3) scholarships, (4) single sex residence halls, (5) health insurance programs, (6) campuswide student government, (7) clubs and organizations, (8) career counseling, (9) career skills and (10) placement services. However, over one-third of the campuses reported the absence of the following opportunities: ( I ) money management, (2) married student housing, (3) cooperative education, (4) in-residence programs, (5) Asian-American student services, (8) learning disabled student services, (9) consumer affairs programs and (10) day care programs.
This pattern suggests the opportunities most critical to the new diverse population (married students, disabled students, ethnic students, and students with small children) do not always exist. Those opportunities that were found to be present without exception are opportunities designed for the traditional student. For example, the opportunity for financial aid, single sex residence halls, student health, student government, clubs and organizations and career services often caters to the more traditional student. The obvious paradox is that campus environments appear positioned to serve the population that is lessening in size, while a third of the campuses lack programs for significant segments of the increasing population of diverse students. The environment needs to be redesigned to promote a more responsive campus ecology. Without these needed programmatic changes, many institutions will not only fail to serve students, but they will be unable to attract them.
Editor's Note: The Campus Opportunity Survey was distributed on an informal basis for the purpose of pretesting the instrument. Due to the non-standard procedure in sampling, the results are presented only for the purpose of stimulating thought and discussion.
Please send your subscription request and material to The Campus Ecologist, Box 9133, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80525.
Books
Barker, R.G.Ecological Psychology: Concepts and Methods for Environment of Human Behavior. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1968.
Conyne, R.K. and Clack, R.O. Environmental Assessment and Design. A New Tool for the Applied Behavioral Scientist. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1981.
Delworth, U. and Hanson, G., eds. Student Services: A Handbook for the Profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980.
Moos, R.H. and Inset, P.M. Issues in Social Ecology. Palo Alto, California: National Press Books, 1974.
Morrill, W., Hurst, J., and Oetting, E., eds. Dimensions of lntervention for Student Development. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980.
Monographs
Aulepp, L., and Delworth, U. Training Manual for an Ecosystem Model. Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1976.
Banning, J.H., ed. Campus Ecology: A Perspective for Student Affairs. Cincinnati, Ohio: NASPA Monograph, 1978.
Huebner, L., ed. Redesigning Campus Environments (New Directions for Student Services Series No. 8). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979
Walsh, W.B. Theories of Person-Environment Interaction. Implication for the College Student. The American College Testing Program, 1973.
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). The Ecosystem Model: Designing Campus Environments. Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1973.
Chapters:
Banning, J. "Campus Ecology: Its Impact on College Student Personnel Work." In Creamer, Don, ed. Student Development in Higher Education: Theories, Practices, and Future Directions. Cincinnati, Ohio:American College Personnel Association, 1980.
Banning, James. "The Campus Ecology Manager Role." In Delworth, U. and Hanson, G., eds. Student Services: A Handbook for the Profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980.
Banning, James and McKinley, Donna. "Conceptions of the Campus Environment." In Morril, W., Hurst, J., and Getting, E., eds. Dimensions of Intervention for Student Development. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980.
Barid, L.l. "Structuring the Environment to Improve Outcorr is In O.T. Lenning, ed. Improving Educational Outcomes: Awe DirectionsforHigherEducation IV (Winter 1976) 1-25.
Corazzini, John. "Environmental Redesign." In Delworth, U. and Hanson, G., eds. Student Services: A Handbookfor the ProJession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980.
French, John, Rogers and Cebb. "Adjustment as PersonEnvironment Fit." In Coelho, et al, eds. Coping and Adaption. New York: Basic Books, 1974.
Huebner, Lois. "Interaction of Student and Campus." In Delworth, U. and Hanson, G., eds. Student Services: A Handbookfor the Profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980.
Hurst, James. "The Emergence of Student/Environmental Development as the Conceptual Foundation for Student Affairs and Some Implications for Large Universities." In Creamer, Don, ed. Student Development in Higher Education: Theories, Practices and Future Directions. Cincinnati, Ohio American College Personnel, 1980.
Hurst, J. and Morrill, W. "Student/Environmental l:)evelopment as the Conceptual Foundation for Student Affairs." In Morrill, W., Hurst, J. and Netting, E., eds. Dimensions of Inrervention For Student Development. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980.
Paul, S. "Understanding Student-Environment Interaction." In Morrill, W., Hurst, J. and Oetting, E., eds. Dimensions of InterventionforStudent Development. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980.
Journal Articles
Banning, J. and Kaiser, 1 . "An Ecological Perspective and Model for Campus Design." The Personnel and Guidance Journal 52 (February 1974).
Blocher, D.H. "Toward an Ecology of Student Development." Personnel and Guidance Journal 52 (1974): 360-365
Conyne, R.K. "Environmental Assessment: Mapping for Cow selor Action." Personnel and Guidance Journal 54 (1975}: 151-154.
Conyne, R.K. "An Analysis of Student-Environment Mismatches." Journal of College Student Personnel 19 ( I 978): 461 -465.
Crookston, B.B. "Milieu Management." NASPA Journal I (Summer 1975): 45-55.
Pervin, L.A. "Performance and Satisfaction as a Function of Individual-Environment Fit." Psychological Bulletin 69 (1968)
Sells, S.B. "Ecology and the Science of Psychology." Multivariate Behavior Research I (April 1966): 131 - 144.
This material resides is maintained by Will Barratt. Please forward any problems and comments to him.