This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.
The concept of transition is not a new one for those interested in human
development and the delivery of human services. Transition denotes passage from
one state, stage, or place to another. Levinson (1978) utilizes the concept of
transitional stage to describe that phase between more stable stages in adult
development. It is during the transitional stage that life structures are not only
reassessed, but the outcome of that reassessment gives form to the next stage
(Rogers, 1984).
Golan (1981) uses the concept in a broader sense and gives a number of
examples: "... the leaving of an old familiar world and the entry into an unknown
one, ...a passage ...from one place or... set of circumstances to another." Golan
suggests the following definition: "a period of moving from one state of certainty
to another, with an interval of uncertainty and change in between."
Transitions: An Ecological Perspective
Uric Bronfenbrenner (1979) introduced the concept of ecological
transitions to define the situation where there is a change in a person's role, a
person's setting or both. Wapner (1981) points out that such transitions occur
throughout one's life, but further points out that "While every moment of our lives
involves change, the concern here is for those transitions where perturbation to
the person-in-environment system is experienced as so potent that the ongoing
modes of transacting with the physical, interpersonal, and socio-cultural features
of the environment no longer suffice."
Categorizations of Transitions
Transitions can be described in a variety of ways. Golan (1981) suggests a
number of useful categories: "...time periods, the passage from one...stage to
another, role shifts, the relinquishing of one set of social roles and the taking on
of new ones, ...marker events, which serve as the transformational points which
start off and shape the period of change." Other possible categorizations are also
noted by Golan (1981), for example: "as gradual or sudden, expanding or
contracting, anticipated or nonanticipated, transitory or permanent, reversible or
irreversible, internally or externally directed, voluntarily or involuntarily
imposed.'' Wapner (1981) also offers a useful taxonomy for ecological transitions.
He suggests the concept of addition to describe the situation where there is a shift
from living in one "world'' to living in two. For example, a child enters school and
adds the school environment to the already existing home environment. The
concept of substitution is used by Wapner to describe the situation where living in
one world is substituted by another. Substituting the college environment for the
high school environment would be an example. Wapner uses the concepts of
removal or elimination to describe the transition where one gives up a world.
Retirement, for example, removes the world of work.
Transition and Development
Imbedded in the concept of the ecological transition are two elements: (1)
transitions are stressful and (2) they provide opportunity for development or
nondevelopment. Bronfenbrenner (1979) describes the ecological transition as
both a consequence and an instigator of developmental processes. Golan (1981)
recognizes these developmental processes and ties her analysis to traditional
crisis theory.
Campus Applications
Banning (In press) uses the ecological transition as a concept to assist in
understanding the impact that the collegiate environment may have on freshman
students. The concept of ecological transition can also be of help in
understanding the differences in needs of the commuter versus the resident
student (Sloan. 1988). The traditional resident students are most likely to
experience a substitutional transition when they come to the campus. On the other
hand, a commuter student is more likely to experience an additive transition. The
nature of orientation programs should recognize this difference. For the
commuter student, services and programs to ease the additional burden of an
additive transition may be needed, but the resident student may need help in the
substitution transition where the campus becomes the new home.
Most importantly to the campus ecologist will be the need to increase
skills in designing environments where the results of the mulitple transitions that
occur on campus can become growth producing.
(Note Resource References on back page.)
There are probably many barriers to the development of community on
campus, but there are four which become important from an ecological
perspective. These are (1) size, (2) competition, (3) level of participation, and (4)
the issues of ethical practices.
Size
Size is a critical issue to community. Size of classes, size of residence
halls, number of roommates, and faculty-student ratio are common themes and
extremely important ones. Allan Wicker (1979) illustrates the importance of size
in his story about the boy in a small school who played on the basketball team,
but at half-time he played in the band while still wearing his basketball uniform.
(See Campus Ecologist V.III(3), page 2). The message was clear. The school was
so small that the boy was needed for both the band and the basketball team. He
was involved in learning two skills because of the environmental condition of
size, or more precisely the number of persons per opportunity. A sense of
belonging was created. Large introductory classes on campuses do not produce
belonging and involvement. One instructor, one TV, a couple of graders and
200-600 students does not produce a sense of belonging. What happens when the
setting is small or under occupied? Wicker (1979) suggests the following:
"Persons more frequently serve in responsible positions, engage in actions
that are difficult for them, engage in activities that are important to the setting,
engage in a wide range of activities, see themselves as being important to the
setting, feel responsible for the setting, work hard to support the setting, feel more versatile, less sensitive to, and less evaluative of individual differences, see
themselves more often in terms of jobs they do, and less often in terms of
personality characteristics.''
As higher education moves to increase its size, it also may be increasing a
potent barrier to the sense of community.
Competition
Competition can found everywhere in the campus ecosystem. Students are
competing with each other in the classrooms. Athletic contests are occurring
almost on a daily basis in both formal and informal settings. Faculty members are
competing for advancement, tenure slots, and grant funds. Administrators are in
constant competition internally over turf and funds. Externally, the institution is
in competition with other state institutions, systems of higher education and other
departments of state government. The competition continues at the federal and
international level for "special projects", contracts, and grant funding. From all
perspectives, competition appears to be a major ingredient in the institution's
ecosystem. Is this widespread and high level of intense competition a help or
hindrance to the campus ecosystem?
Palmer (1987) in an article in Change suggests that "civic virtue has collapsed into expressive and competitive individualism, and a loss of integrated
vision." Has the sense of community within the campus been eroded by the nature
of competition?
Kohn (1986), in his book No Contest: The Case Against Competition
states we as members of the American culture engage in "endless succession of
contests" whose arrangements require "some people to fail in order that others
can succeed''. You are either the winner or the loser. Winning and losing does not
produce community. Cooperation not competition builds community.
Participation
Is participation a part of the campus ecosystem? Who engages in the
decision making processes? Who benefits from participation? The participatory
environment of decision making on campus is a white male environment. Those
who are not white and male do not usually participate in the decisions that impact
the community. Despite the new diversity or if you wish because of it,
participation is even more in the hands of a few. People of color can scarcely be
found in the ranks of the faculty, let alone in the chambers of the decision
makers. Women as well find their participation limited. The higher the ranks the
fewer the women. The more prestigious the school or department the fewer the
women. Participation within our campus ecosystems reflects sexism and oracles.
Can you build community when these conditions exist?
Ethics
Ethical behavior on campus leaves much to be desired. Every week in the
Chronicle there is another universitv charged with violations in their athletic programs. Someone has been giving money or favors under the table. Someone
usually gets the ax, but the campus community of faculty, students, and staff go
unaccountable.
Aid and support are given to student events ranging from all-campus
events to weekend parties in our sororities, fraternities, and residence halls. These
events are ridden with alcohol, drugs, sexual assaults and harassment. Again the
community's ethical attention to these events is similar to violations in the athletic department. It is difficult to imagine what might stir the ethical soul of our campus communities.
These are formidable barriers to community: size, competition, lack of equality in participation, and a lack of ethical concerns. It is unlikely that community will develop under these conditions.
Barrier Removal
The hope for a sense of community on our campuses rests with the recognition that community is unattainable until we address the "white male system" issues. The white male system operates on the following set of myths. I reference the work of Ann Wilson Schaef (1985) and Kohn (1986) as background for this set of myths:
These myths give meaning to the barriers of community: Size (bigger the better!) Competition (tougher the better!) Participation (for white males only!) Ethics (whatever it takes to win!) We need the many positive features of white male culture, but other voices and other world views must emerge in our campus ecosystem before the sense of community can be developed.
A sense of community a sense of belonging, a sense of celebration will
only be possible when involvement challenges size, when cooperation challenges
competition, when inclusive participation challenges exclusive participation, and
when ethics challenge the need to win at all costs. Diversity yields richer
possibilities and participation unites. (Bookchin, 1986) It is out of diversity and
participation that community can be built and maintained .
REFERENCES:
Bookchin, M. (1986). The modern crisis. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.
Kohn, A. (1986). No contest: The case against competition. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company.
Palmer, P. (1987). Community, conflict, and ways of knowing. Change,
September/October, 20-25.
Schaef, A.W. (1985). Women's reality. San Francisco: Harper and Row.
Wicker, A. (1979). An introduction to ecological psychology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Editors Note:
The foregoing comments were given as a part of a Presentation for the annual meeting of the Minnesota College Personnel Association, November 17th, 1988 by James H. Banning
Arin-Krupp, J. (1984). A plan for dealing with transitions. Career Planning and
Adult Development Journal, 2(1), 25-30.
Banning, J. (In press). Campus Ecology: The impact of the collegiate
environment on today's freshman. In J. Gardner and M. Upcraft (Eds.). Enhancing
success in the first year of college: The freshman year experience. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Bendersky, N. et al. (1984). Coping with transitions. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 25(6), 555-556.
Bennett, J. (1976). The ecological transition. New York: Pergamon Press Inc.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge:
Harvard University press.
Golan, N. (1981). Passing through transitions. New York: The Free Press.
Golan, N. (1980). Intervention at times of transition: Sources and forms of help.
Social Casework, 61(5), 259-266.
Golan, N. (1981). Building competence in transitional and crisis situations. In A.
Maluccio (Ed.). Promoting competence in clients: A new/old approach to social
work practice. New York: The Free Press.
Hamburg, D. and Adams, J. (1967). A perspective on coping behavior: Seeking
and utilizing information in major transitions. Archives of General Psychiatry, 17,
277-284.
Hareven, T. (1978) (Ed). Transitions: The family and life course in historical
perspective. New York: Academic Press.
Levinson, D. (1978). The seasons of a man's life. New York: Knopf.
Pacheco, A., Lucca, N. and Wapner, S. (1979). Migration as a critical
person-in-environment transition: An organismic-developmental interpretation.
Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 21, 133-57.
Parkes, C. (1971). Psycho-social transitions. Social Science and Medicine, 5,
101-115.
Rogers, R. (1984). Theories of adult development: Research status and counseling
implications. In S. Brown & R. Lent (Ed.). Handbook of counseling psychology.
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Schlossberg, N. and et. al. (1981). Adult transitions. Counseling Psychologist,
9(2), 2-51.
Sloan, D. (1988). Ecological transitions and commuters: An interview with James
H. Banning. The Commuter, 14(1), 2-5.
Wapner, S. (1981). Transactions of persons-in-environment: Some critical
transitions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1, 223-239.
Wapner, S., Kaplan, B. and Cohen, S. (1973). Organismic-developmental perspective for understanding transactions of men-in-environment. Environments and Behavior, 5, 255-89.
This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by
Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.