2 ASSIGNMENTS ATTACHED INDIVIDUALLY

College Student Affairs Journal, Volume 30(2), 2012, pp. 45–60 ISSN 0888-210X

Copyright © 2012 Information Age Publishing, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

SELF, COLLEGE EXPERIENCES, AND SOCIETY

Rethinking the Theoretical Foundations of Student

Development Theory

Rachelle Winkle-Wagner

University of Wisconsin-Madison

This article examines the psychological theoretical foundations of college student development theory and the

theoretical assumptions of this framework. A complimentary, sociological perspective and the theoretical

assumptions of this approach are offered. The potential limitations of the overuse of each perspective are con-

sidered. The conclusion is drawn that the use of both theoretical frameworks could lead to more holistically

serving college students.

Scholars and practitioners in student affairs

often assert the importance of a holistic

approach to understanding and serving stu-

dents, combining students’ social, emotional,

physical, and mental growth (American Coun-

cil on Education, 1937; Baxter Magolda, 1999;

Brown, 1972; Hamrick, Evans, & Schuh,

2002). This consideration of the “whole stu-

dent” often does not seem to translate into col-

lege student development theory which

includes numerous categorizations of student

characteristics such as ethnic/racial identity

(Renn, 2003; Torres & Hernandez, 2007), sex-

ual orientation identity (Renn, 2007), cognitive

and moral development (King, 2009, Baxter

Magolda, 2009a) and personality type (Evans,

Forney, Guido, Renn, & Patton, 2010).

Recent advances have offered some alter-

natives to traditional ways of approaching stu-

dent development. These advances have

initiated from scholars (Baxter Magolda, 1999;

Torres, Jones, & Renn, 2009) and from student

affairs practitioners who have noticed that

some student development theories do not

work for all students. Newer theories assert

students’ multiple dimensions/categories of

identity, or the importance of the environment

for students’ development (Abes, Jones &

McEwen, 2007; Baxter Magolda, 2009b;

King, 2009; Torres & Hernandez, 2007; Tor-

res, Jones, & Renn, 2009; Taylor, 2008). More

holistic work is needed because even recent

work often focuses on particular aspects of stu-

dents (race, gender, cognitive development,

Please direct inquiries about this manuscript to: Rachelle Winkle-Wagner, [email protected]

46 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 30, No. 2, 2012

etc.) rather than on more holistic notions of

development that intersect race/class/gender/

spirituality, emotional, or cognitive develop-

ment. This could be due to the theoretical

underpinnings of college student development

theory. Just as the mineral content of soil

changes the colors of the flowers that bloom, 1

the theoretical assumptions of student develop-

ment theories shape the research, findings, and

practices with students in higher education.

Yet, examining how the implications of these

theoretical underpinnings affect the questions,

data, and findings of college student develop-

ment is extraordinarily rare.

This project is a critical examination of the

underlying theoretical assumptions of college

student development theory (Winkle-Wagner,

2009a). While student development theory is

overwhelmingly guided by the psychological

approach to development (Torres et al., 2009),

in the larger discipline of social psychology,

there is a wide understanding that there are two

perspectives on identity: psychological and

sociological. The sociological approach con-

siders identity in terms of the meanings indi-

viduals construct amidst their location in social

interactions and social structures, while psy-

chological approaches focus on the cognitions

(processes in one’s mind) of individuals

(Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995). 2 Sociologists

have long argued that approaches to college

student development theory have not ade-

quately considered the nuances of people’s

relationship with the college environment,

diversity within the environment, or the role of

socialization in development (Feldman &

Newcombe, 1969/1994). Some higher educa-

tion scholars have attempted to continue this

conversation, calling for more nuanced and

holistic approaches to developmental theory

(Baxter Magolda, 2009b; King, 2009; Taylor,

2008; Torres et al., 2009). Yet the psychologi-

cal canon of college student development the-

ories continues to dominate the field perhaps

because there remains little emphasis on com-

plimentary theoretical perspectives in much of

the higher education scholarship.

The theoretical foundations of the sociolog-

ical and psychological perspectives are differ-

ent and lead to distinct understandings of

college student identity. These differences

affect knowledge about students, what policies

get recommended and implemented, and thus,

affect college student experiences and out-

comes. It is important to understand these

underpinnings so that scholars and practitioners

have a clearer sense of what a particular per-

spective is likely to shed light on and what it is

not. This project asks: What are the underlying

theoretical assumptions of sociological and

psychological frameworks of identity/develop-

ment and how might these frameworks influ-

ence the creation of theories of student

development?

The dominance of the psychological frame-

work within student development theory has

resulted in huge advances in understanding

college students, but, also major criticisms rel-

ative to unanswered questions, particularly for

underrepresented groups (Torres, Howard-

Hamilton, & Cooper, 2003). For example, why

do some students not seem to fit the general-

izations made by many student development

theories? Why are some students such good

fits for these theories? The inclusion of more

work rooted in the sociological perspective

may help to answer some of these questions,

but, so too would more psychologically rooted

papers. This article is not an attempt to disre-

gard decades of research in college student

development that has been rooted in psychol-

ogy. Nor is this project an exploration as to

whether psychologically or sociologically

rooted scholarship has necessarily aligned with

their theoretical foundations (some have cer-

tainly challenged these foundations; e.g., Tor-

res et al., 2003). Additionally, this is not an

indictment of student affairs practitioners,

many of whom have applied existing student

development theories, but who also see the

nuances for which the theories might not

allow. Rather, this article examines the under-

lying theoretical assumptions of these two

frameworks in order to reveal the way that

contemporary perspectives on student devel-

Self, College Experiences, and Society 47

opment have been/could be influenced by

these theoretical underpinnings. Subsequently,

it is important that scholars and practitioners

begin to explicitly state the ways in which their

theories of student development either align or

part ways with these theoretical frameworks in

order to fully explicate the approach that is

taken. Ultimately, I suggest possibilities for

the use of both perspectives, not combined but

as compliments to one another, to inform a

more holistic approach to college student

development theory.

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL

PERSPECTIVE AND COLLEGE

STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY

The foundational theories of college student

development are rooted in psychology, partic-

ularly that of Erikson, Piaget, and Jung

(Evans et al., 2010; Torres et al., 2003).

Aimed at understanding the unique process of

personal development that college students

undergo, these theories are helpful in offer-

ing ways to successfully facilitate students’

college success. These theories, categorized

into four branches, influence practice, policy,

and scholarship in higher education (Evans et

al., 2010):

• Psychosocial theories: Based on Erik Erik-

son’s (1959/1980) clinical observations of

development from adolescence through

early adulthood, these theories examine

individuals’ personal and interpersonal

lives (e.g., Chickering & Reisser, 1993;

Marcia, 1966) and often provide a method-

ologically generalizeable description of

observable behavior and insight into the

challenges of students, implying that one

must accomplish particular tasks to

develop. Applied to college students who

are moving through adolescence into adult-

hood (for traditional-aged students), psy-

chosocial theories and the resulting

practices focus on facilitating particular

areas of students’ various areas of develop-

ment (i.e., vectors for Chickering &

Reisser, 1993) or the fostering of identity

crises (Erikson, 1959/1980; Marcia, 1966)

that encourage students to progress toward

a different stage in their identity develop-

ment.

• Cognitive-structural theories: Rooted in

the psychology of Piaget (1952) who exam-

ined people’s life stages, these theories

address the way people think, linking

heredity and the environment (e.g., King &

Kitchener, 1994; Kohlberg, 1969; Perry,

1981). Cognitive-structural theories imply

that college students’ development and the

practice associated with it is often facili-

tated through cognitive dissonance, when

current ways of thinking no longer explain

situations in which a person finds oneself to

be involved (King, 2009). Later work

examined gender differences in cognitive

growth (Gilligan, 1982/1993); and offered

more nuanced models for cognitive devel-

opment (e.g., King & Kitchener’s 1994,

reflective judgment model and Baxter

Magolda’s 2001, 2009a theory of self-

authorship in college students and beyond).

• Typological theories: Based on Jungian

psychology, these theories examine differ-

ences in how people view and relate to the

world. These are nonevaluative appraisals

of mental processing (e.g., Kolb’s, 1984,

theory of learning styles, Myers-Briggs

personality type, Myers, 1980). These theo-

ries are used to help advice college students

on their interests, styles of learning that

could facilitate their success, and potential

career goals. While these theories are gen-

erally not stage-oriented, they remain con-

nected to a model-making tradition of

separating individuals into a series of gen-

eralizable categories in order to understand

individual types.

• Person-environment interaction theories:

Rooted in the psychology of Kurt Lewin

(1935), and adapted for practical applica-

tion by Karl Rodgers (1990), these theories

explore the interaction of a student with the

48 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 30, No. 2, 2012

college environment (e.g., Holland, 1992).

Lewin’s initial theory asserted that a value

is placed on one’s interaction with the envi-

ronment and this became the basis of Bron-

fenbrenner’s (1979; Bronfenbrenner &

Morris, 2006) ecological systems theory.

This line of student development theory is

more amenable to some of the nuances sug-

gested by a sociological approach as

explained below.

There is a growing critique of the founda-

tional theories of college student develop-

ment for focusing too much on students from

majority groups (e.g., White, male, hetero-

sexual) to the exclusion of underrepresented

students (Torres et al., 2009). More recent

work on student development strives for the

inclusion of racially underrepresented stu-

dents, women, and students of various sex-

ual orientations (Cass, 1984; Cross, 1995;

Josselson, 1987) and some are less focused

on students’ progression through stages (e.g.,

Renn, 2000; Robinson & Howard-Hamilton,

1994). These advances extend the founda-

tional theories through the consideration of

diverse groups.

Recent studies are shifting toward new

theoretical frameworks (e.g., Renn’s, 2003,

use of an ecological approach), multiple com-

ponents, dimensions, or categories of iden-

tity (e.g., Baxter Magolda, 2001, 2009a;

Jones & McEwen, 2000; Reynolds & Pope,

1991; Torres & Hernandez, 2007; Torres et

al., 2009) or use multiple theoretical frame-

works (e.g., Abes et al., 2007; Taylor, 2008).

These studies suggest a singular/core iden-

tity with the possibility of multiple compo-

nents or factors which influence identity

processes. The underlying theoretical

assumptions of even these studies still need

to be explored in order to reveal implica-

tions of these theoretical foundations for

research and practice with college students.

Student affairs practitioners often use stu-

dent development theory as a way to predict

better ways of serving students or to help

understand students’ behavior. There is often

minimal focus on the theoretical foundations

or roots of these theories.

Assumptions of the Psychological

Approach

Within the social psychology literature, the

discussion centers on the concept of identity

(Stryker, 1997) and thus, a discussion of “iden-

tity” is warranted. The psychological perspec-

tive of identity, social identity theory,

maintains a few assumptions (Hogg et al.

1995; Stryker, 1997):

• A theoretical priority of the individual (self

before society): This perspective begins

with the individual. While some theories

may consider the environment (e.g., per-

son-environment theories; recent cogni-

tive-structural theories) and student affairs

practitioners are often concerned with envi-

ronments even if theories are not, the indi-

vidual self exists before the environment in

this theoretical perspective, implying that

one has a core identity regardless of experi-

ences.

• A singular self: The assumption is of a sin-

gular self, a core identity that would not

necessarily change in different contexts.

• An emphasis on the processes within an

individual’s mind (cognitions): The theo-

retical focus of many studies is on cogni-

tions. Identity theoretically arises out of

cognitions rather than out of socialization.

• Cognitions arise out of one’s experiences:

The environment shapes the minds’ pro-

cesses, but, the self and cognitions exist

before the environment. Cognitions would

then effectively create the social environ-

ment.

• A discussion of concepts such as traits,

characteristics, and personality: Research

often focuses on these concepts. There is

not often a discussion of an individual’s

ability to choose these characteristics/traits,

differing from the sociological framework

(see below).

Self, College Experiences, and Society 49

• Studies often examine perceptions of mem-

bership within groups: Group characteris-

tics influence behavior and self-concept

within one’s mental processes/cognitions

serving as either a catalyst or a barrier to a

person’s self-discovery (Tajfel, 1982).

Despite noteworthy findings using the psy-

chological approach, there are substantive and

theoretical limitations, particularly to the pre-

ponderance of this approach in the absence of

other perspectives. There are two substantive

limitations: instrumentality and the tendency

toward pathology. Many theories of college

student development claim that students

develop through a linear set of stages (e.g.,

most psychosocial theories). Other theories

maintain that one must experience a particular

event or phenomena such as cognitive disso-

nance (e.g., cognitive-structural theories).

While there may be a great deal of “variabil-

ity” in the way that students may develop, the

“implicit metaphors” of these models often

portray a sequential, linear process rather than

one that is “continuous, recursive” (King,

2009, pp. 610-611).

These approaches assert an instrumental

approach to identity, a series of tasks or expe-

riences a person must achieve. This instrumen-

tality can become value-laden, meaning that

some students would be labeled as more

advanced (i.e., achieved) in their identity than

others. Many theories assume an end-point

where a student is more advanced in his/her

thinking, fully developed or more functional. It

is as if one can have a more achieved identity

if she/he can accomplish more tasks or facili-

tate particular experiences. One who is in early

stages or an earlier part of the model may be

considered less developed. For example,

Cross’ (1995) initial racial identity theory of

Nigrescence (process of becoming Black)

maintained that a person may “regress,” or be

“fixated” in particular stage, or some may

“drop out” of the stages altogether. It seemed

that moving linearly through the stages is bet-

ter than going backward through them, or than

choosing not to go through them at all. Addi-

tionally, some stages could be considered to be

very problematic, leaving one to be considered

stuck in a particular stage if he/she did not

move out of it. While revisions to Cross’s

model allowed for more diversity in identities

between Black students and more fluidity

(Cross & Vandiver, 2001), the idea of stages

through which a student does or does not prog-

ress continues.

Closely related to the instrumentality often

underlying a psychological approach is a ten-

dency toward pathologizing people as failures

of human development (Lesko, 2001). While

college student development theory and the

majority of those employing it typically take a

much more positive stance geared toward try-

ing to help students develop, there remains an

implicit assumption that not developing in a

typical manner is pathological. The downside

of the generalization prevalent in the psycho-

logical approach is a risk of denying people the

chance to determine their own identity pro-

cesses and criticizing those who do not fit well

with the generalization.

Theoretically, the psychological perspec-

tive has limitations such as a lack of centrality

of social structure, the assumption of a single

self, and the root in cognitions. Theoretically,

the psychological perspective begins with the

individual single self (self before society)

ignoring the way that a person’s location in the

social structure may influence identities.

While there are certainly student development

theories that consider the way that students are

influenced by their environment (e.g., person-

environment theories in particular), the theo-

retical focus is still primarily on the individual

rather than the social structure. This is not to

say that environments cannot be included in

psychological theories or in student affairs

practice that stems from psychologically based

theories. Rather, it is to explain the theoretical

primacy of the individual before the environ-

ment which may mean that scholars focus on

implications for individuals rather than cam-

puses (environments).

The process of the identity development

may differ markedly depending on one’s loca-

50 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 30, No. 2, 2012

tion in the social structure (Taub & McEwen,

1992). In the psychological perspective, the self

is theoretically primary to the social structure.

The theoretical assumption is that a person

would have a self even if she/he never inter-

acted with others. Thus, within these theories,

the social structure and its effect on the self is

continually secondary to the individual. Theo-

ries implicitly maintain that students would

progress through developmental stages/sta-

tuses regardless of the student’s initial location

in the social structure (i.e., development would

be the same for a racially underrepresented stu-

dent as it would for a student who was not

racially underrepresented). The assumption of

a singular identity does not centrally allow for

the sense that an individual is different in vari-

ous contexts. However, many students, partic-

ularly underrepresented students, describe a

sense of multiple, fluid identities in college

(Winkle-Wagner, 2009a).

Finally, the centrality of cognitions in the

psychological perspective makes less likely

complete considerations of the self: emotion,

the impact of interaction on the self, roles, or

social structure’s impact on self because of the

central claim that the self arises out of cogni-

tions. While cognitions are likely influenced

by the social structure, this perspective does

not readily allow for a meaningful theoretical

consideration that the environment may alter

cognitions (Stryker, 1997). The limitations I

described here become limiting when the psy-

chological perspective is used in absence of

another perspective, as the only way of view-

ing college student development. Research,

thought, and dialogue within the field of higher

education should be expanded to include a

complimentary sociological perspective.

THE SOCIOLOGICAL APPROACH TO

IDENTITY

The sociological perspective of identity, called

identity theory, is rooted in the work of prag-

matist thinkers such as William James, Charles

Cooley, and George Herbert Mead. Mead

(1934/1967) argued that the source of the mind

and self were ongoing processes entirely

linked to others. This perspective differs from

the psychologically-based theoretical perspec-

tives in higher education in that it maintains

that both individuals and society are continu-

ally created in and through social processes,

through interaction. Rather than focusing on a

particular stage-based endpoint, the sociologi-

cal perspective emphasizes the ongoing pro-

cess and interaction between the individual

(self), the larger society, and the college cam-

pus.

Symbolic Interactionism

The sociological perspective shifted from

the behaviorist psychological perspective

which studied only the observable self, to the

self as a product of one’s reflection and inter-

action (Mead, 1934/1967). Mead’s theoretical

inquiry was labeled the symbolic interactionist

approach because interaction involves both the

self and society in this view. The self, initiated

within social interaction, is dependent on soci-

ety, making the social structure explicit within

identity. 3

Mead (1934/1967) considered two parts of

self: the “I” and the “Me.” The “I” part of self

is linked to what some call a “core identity” –

the part of a person’s self that can never be

fully known, even to oneself. Given the elusive

nature of the “I,” it is difficult to empirically

study it. The “Me” aspect of self, on the other

hand, is the socialized part of self, it: (a) initi-

ates in the social structure; (b) is dependent on

cultural forms such as language, norms, and

culture; (c) is the objectified sense of self; and

(d) assumes one has multiple “Mes,” multiple

selves. The “Me” is dependent on what Mead

referred to as a “generalized other” for recog-

nition, a compilation of cultural norms, values,

and attitudes that an individual takes into one-

self as he/she develops a “Me.”

Sheldon Stryker (1980), the father of

structural symbolic interactionism, from

whom the sociological perspective in social

psychology largely grew, adapted the frame-

Self, College Experiences, and Society 51

work developed by Mead to empirically test

ideas relating to social structures, selves in

the form of multiple identities, and social

behavior. Stryker (1980) began by conceptu-

alizing society as a set of social relation-

ships and the self as a hierarchical structure

of multiple identities (Mes). The strength of

one’s commitments to her/his social net-

works is affected by the relative salience of

one’s identities (how prominent a particular

identity is in a particular setting).This links

to the roles an individual plays in social set-

tings. Salient means that one’s identity as a

student, for example, might be more relevant

in a classroom than it would at the students’

dinner table with family (where being a

daughter/son might be more salient). In turn,

the relative salience/dominance of a person’s

identities in a particular context influences

the probability of opting, in choice situa-

tions, for behaviors consistent with those

identities (Stryker, 1980). This allowed for a

way to empirically test Mead’s theoretical

arguments: interrelating commitment, iden-

tity salience, and role choice. For example, if

a student feels committed to being smart, he/

she will more likely have a salient intellec-

tual identity in the classroom and he/she is

more likely to accept a role as a “good stu-

dent.” At home with family, the student may

feel committed to the role of a “good daugh-

ter/son” and act quite differently than when

on campus.

Many scholars in sociology use Stryker’s

(2000) notions of identity to examine the

way in which college experiences influence

students’ identity (Burke & Reitzes, 1991;

Thoits, 2003; Winkle-Wagner, 2009a,

2009b). This sociological perspective may be

useful for better understanding the perspec-

tives and identity-related challenges of under-

represented students, facilitating better ways

of supporting these students. Evidence from

studies using this approach suggests that stu-

dents of color often report multiple identi-

ties; whereby, they act one way with their

ethnic group and another way when they are

the minority (Arroyo & Zigler, 1995), the

pressure of which can result in academic dis-

engagement, influencing academic achieve-

ment (Brewer & Silver, 2000; Oyserman et

al., 2003).

Assumptions of the Sociological

Approach

Similar to the psychological perspective,

the sociological perspective (called identity

theory), also has underlying assumptions that

should be considered (Stryker, 1997):

• Identities develop out of interaction: The

theoretical assumption is that identities

develop out of interactions between one’s

self, others, and the larger social structure. 4

This is an ongoing, continual interaction,

rather than something that has an endpoint

or goal (the theoretical underpinning of

psychological work), lending this perspec-

tive to a fluid notion of identities; a person

is simultaneously interacting with one’s

self (reflecting on one’s identity), those

around him/her (e.g., peers, professors,

family) and the larger society (e.g., media

earlier experiences).

• A theoretical primacy to the social struc-

ture (society before self): The ordering of

self and society is reversed from the psy-

chological perspective. Society develops

first and then one’s self initiates in society.

The self is entirely linked to and initially

located within the existing social structure

(Stryker, 1997). Society’s influence on

identities is highlighted.

• Multiple identities: There are “identities”

associated with different aspects of the

society and the roles one plays within social

groups (psychology emphasizes a single

identity). For example, an individual could

have identities associated with being a col-

lege student, a family member, or a friend

and these identities may overlap. While one

identity may have salience over another in a

particular social setting, a person always

has multiple identities at one time. Accord-

ingly, race, gender, class, spirituality,

52 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 30, No. 2, 2012

morality, and cognitive development would

be referenced simultaneously.

• The self works to organize social life: Once

the identities have developed out of the

social structure, identities organize social

groupings, the roles that are available, and

the rules of membership within particular

groups. A person may associate with partic-

ular groups of people based on the way that

her/his identities or roles (and the commit-

ment one has to those roles) have developed.

• Reflection is central to identity develop-

ment: An individual can hypothetically

accept or reject the socially constructed

identity through self-reflection/reflexivity,

emphasizing agency or the ability to choose

one’s identity. A college student would the-

oretically have the agency to self-reflect

and identify her/his own identities and

descriptions of them. Alternatively, with

the psychological perspective, there is an

implicit assumption that others can locate

and describe at least in part, a person’s

identity as being in a particular stage/phase/

trait/cognition level.

• An emphasis on roles, commitment to roles

and identity salience: Empirical work often

focuses on roles, commitment to roles, and

identity salience (psychology primarily

studies traits/cognitions/personality). The

use of the sociological perspective in the

field of college student development could

provide insight into group membership, the

roles one plays within that group versus

those played outside of the group, what this

says about one’s commitment to particular

groups, and the salience of particular iden-

tities within each social group. Stryker’s

(1980) work initiating this sociological per-

spective was largely quantitative. Yet the

adaptation of this perspective has been

more qualitative, perhaps because the fluid,

dynamic spirit of the sociological perspec-

tive may lend itself to qualitative traditions

that are typically associated with interpreta-

tion and meaning-making.

The sociological perspective of identity

would provide the field of higher education an

opportunity to more centrally locate issues of

social justice and equality within discussions

about student development because of the

emphasis on the social structure (Stryker,

2000). The inequalities inherent in the social

structure as it relates to postsecondary student

access and retention become more explicit with

this perspective because of the primacy of the

social structure. Due to the theoretical primacy

of society before the self (i.e., identity is depen-

dent on the existing social structure), one’s

identities initiate in the already stratified social

structure (e.g., unequal by race, class, gender).

This implies that social stratification and gen-

eral inequality can critically influence a per-

son’s development of identities (Winkle-

Wagner, 2009a, 2009b). The primacy of soci-

ety before self assumes that all identities are

not created equal. Some individuals will

develop identities and roles that are considered

“normal” and others would develop identities

that would be deemed “abnormal” or less

acceptable. Identity in essence would mirror

existing social stratification and the study of

identity could enlighten the reasons for this

stratification and perhaps ways to ameliorate it.

If one is only able to develop a socially

acceptable or recognizable identity based on

her/his location in the existing social structure,

this will influence how groups of people

develop. This is what is implied by the premise

that identities work to organize social life.

Based on the roles that an individual takes and

one’s commitment to those roles, one will

associate with particular groups of people and

will act in particular ways. For instance a grad-

uate student would accept this as a role and

would become friends and colleagues with

other graduate students. The role and identity

of being a graduate student helps to organize

the social grouping of graduate students in this

way. Additionally, the focus on reflection or

agency (one’s ability to choose identities, at

least in part) may offer insight into why some

students do not fit into some psychologically

rooted development theories.

Self, College Experiences, and Society 53

There are limitations to the sociological

approach just as there are with the psychologi-

cal framework. Theoretically, the primacy of

the social structure, the assumption that iden-

tity would not exist without interaction or a

social structure (assumed by Mead’s “me” part

of self), is not only difficult to empirically test,

it may be inaccurate to students’ experiences.

It is difficult to test whether one could develop

an identity if he/she were removed from all

social interactions because these tests would

be unethical and rarely occur in modern soci-

ety. Additionally, while there are certainly

identities that seem completely linked to

socialized roles (e.g., student, son/daughter,

girl/boy, community member) many people

often sense that there is a part of self that

remains outside of this socialization. The inter-

play between what could potentially be called

a “core” part of self, to use psychological

terms, and the socialized part of self has not

been well studied. Building on this connection

between the “me” and “I” could be a way to

link psychological and sociological notions of

identity.

Another potential theoretical limitation is

the emphasis on roles, commitment to roles,

and identity salience. While this focus is

largely because of Stryker’s (1980) adaptation

of Mead’s (1934/1967) theory, the emphasis

on roles may not allow enough attention to

other aspects of identity that remain outside of

roles such as emotions or the ways that people

perceive roles not to fit them.

A substantive limitation of sociological

frameworks is the emphasis on reflection

which assumes that one has the opportunity/

ability to reflect. There may well be instances

where a person may not feel empowered to

accept or reject the roles that seem available.

Some work indicates that students of color

might be disallowed from fully reflecting on

their own sense of self on White college cam-

puses, meaning that they feel compelled to

accept prescribed roles or identities (Winkle-

Wagner, 2009a). It may not be that students

cannot reflect in such situations, but, they may

not have the opportunity to act on this reflec-

tion. More work is certainly needed on the

reflective process itself within the sociological

framework to examine such nuances.

A second substantive limitation of socio-

logical frameworks is the challenge of general-

izability. Because identity is posed as fluid and

dynamic, this would imply an individualized

approach to the study and practice associated

with students’ identity. Yet if used as the sole

foundation for student development this very

individualized approach may not be practical,

given that most student affairs practitioners

interact with many students at once.

Taken together, both the sociological and

psychological frameworks offer opportunities

and limitations for understanding the ways that

students develop on college campuses. Below,

I call for a more holistic approach to college

student development that allows for these

frameworks to work in tandem.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE WHOLE

STUDENT: COMPLIMENTARY

APPROACHES

Both the psychological and sociological per-

spectives have the potential to provide impor-

tant foundations for college student

development theories but, the dominance of

one theoretical perspective over the other lim-

its the possibilities for holistically understand-

ing students. If the psychological perspective

provides the foundation to nearly all student

development theories, the theoretical focus is

on singular identity, giving primacy to the

individual self and cognitions. The sociologi-

cal perspective is needed for a full theoretical

development of multiple identities and the role

of the social structure as potentially constrain-

ing, determining, or at least effecting identity

development. Yet the sociological perspective

would be limited if used in absence the psy-

chological perspective too.

While it is tempting to recommend that

future work combines aspects of sociological

and psychological theories, scholars focused

on the explicit theoretical underpinnings of

54 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 30, No. 2, 2012

each of the two perspectives do not generally

advocate a blending of the two perspectives

because of the fundamental, intractable differ-

ences in underlying assumptions (Hogg et al.,

1995; Stryker, 1997). It would be difficult to

marry the psychological focus on individual

cognitions before the environment/social

structure (self before society) with the socio-

logical notion that one’s identity cannot

develop without interaction within a existing

society (society before self). It is also difficult

to reconcile the psychological framework’s

theoretical assumption of a singular identity

with the sociological framework’s assumption

of multiple identities. To try to merge these

theoretical foundations would mean losing the

theoretical focus of one frame over another.

Those advances in student development theory

that offer good examples of attempting to

somehow overlap multiple/singular identities

and the way an individual interacts with a

larger environment/other people are firmly

rooted theoretically in either psychological or

sociological foundations.

I argue for one perspective to inform the

other as visually depicted in Figure 1, to allow

for each of the theoretical underpinnings to

guide student development work (i.e., to

develop theories rooted in both psychology

and sociology), and then for scholars and prac-

titioners to take into account the strengths and

weaknesses of each. The field is primed for

this movement. For instance, there is an

emphasis on meaning-making in college stu-

dent development theory (e.g., Baxter

Magolda, 2001), a shift toward focusing more

on social interactions. Laudably, Torres and

Hernandez (2007) contemplate cognitive and

affective (emotional) aspects of multiple

dimensions of identity and this helps to rem-

edy some of the limitations of both psycholog-

ical and sociological frames (see also, Abes et

al., 2007; Torres & Hernandez, 2007). The

studies that allow for multiple components of

identity (e.g., Abes et al., 2007) also offer

insight into ways to begin connecting the

divide between singular (psychological) and

multiple (sociological) identity frameworks.

If these perspectives were used to inform

each other, overlapping in some ways, this may

lead to a more holistic and thorough notion of

the way that students develop during college,

informing policy and practice, particularly with

regards to issues of equality in higher education

(Figure 1). The use of both perspectives to

guide student development theory, not neces-

sarily in combination but in their own right as

compliments to each other, would allow for: (1)

multiple and singular notions of identity; (2) the

study of individual and group development pro-

cesses; (3) the influence of the social structure

and cognitive processes on the self; (4) the

study of roles, commitment, and identity

salience alongside inquiry into traits and per-

sonality; and (5) the exploration of reflection

and cognition. The use of both approaches

would allow for the generalizable, macro-level

methodologies (well suited for psychological

frameworks) alongside more interpretative,

micro-level research methods (connecting

nicely to the sociological framework).

Implications for Theory, Research, and

Practice

In many ways, the field of student affairs is

primed for the use of a sociological approach

to identity as a compliment to existing psycho-

logical approaches. Some of the more recent

theories and research have started to bridge the

divide between sociological and psychological

approaches. Student affairs practitioners have

often intuitively considered the nuances of stu-

dents’ identities, even if the theories have not

represented this. During their graduate pro-

grams, these practitioners often take a course

that directly connects students and environ-

ments. But, these courses and perspectives are

generally not directly connected with student

development theory or the psychological foun-

dations of college student development.

Many of the recent advances in college

student development theory, have initiated a

trend toward considerations of nuances or the

“intersectionality” of identities, highlighting

the intersections between racialized, class-

Self, College Experiences, and Society 55

p

Psychological Perspective

x Singular identity x Self comes before society x Self is rooted in cognitions x Discussion of traits,

personality x Studies often examine

perceptions of membership within groups

Sociological Perspective

x Multiple identities x Society comes before self,

identity stems from socialized roles

x The self develops out of interaction

x The self is located in social structures

x Self works to organize social life

x Reflexivity, reflection, is a central aspect of the self

x Studies emphasize roles, commitment to roles, and identity salience

x

O verlap in Perspectives

Holistic College Student Development Theory

x Multiple AND Singular Notions of Identity, x Individual AND Group Processes, x Social structure influences AND Cognitive

processes x Roles, Commitment, Identity Salience AND Traits,

personality characteristics x Reflection AND Cognition x Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methodologies

Policy and Practice Aimed at the Whole Student

based, and gendered experiences (Torres et al.,

2009). For example, theories aimed at

understanding underrepresented groups are less

stage-oriented and have moved the field of

higher education and student affairs in a new

direction (e.g., Robinson & Howard-

Hamilton’s (1994) Afrocentric resistance

paradigm; Renn’s (2000) situational identity

for multiracial students).

Other research suggests that college stu-

dents may experience multiple components or

categories of identity (Abes et al., 2007; Reyn-

olds & Pope, 1991; Taylor, 2008; Zaytoun,

2006). Jones’ (1997) work with college

women identified multiple categories or

dimensions (Jones & McEwen, 2000) of iden-

tity, all related to a core identity category that

is differentiated through meaning-making

FIGURE 1

The overlap between psychological and sociological perspectives

56 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 30, No. 2, 2012

(Abes et al., 2007). Additionally, there are

advances that attempt to blend multiple com-

ponents of development (Abes et al., 1997;

Kegan, 1994; Torres & Hernandez, 2007; Tor-

res et al., 2009). Belenky et al.’s (1986) work,

blended identity/self, relationships with others,

and knowledge/cognitive development. Simi-

larly, Marcia Baxter Magolda’s (2001, 2009a)

scholarship integrates cognitive, intrapersonal,

and nterpersonal development.

There has also been a growing focus on

meaning-making in college student develop-

ment theory. Baxter Magolda’s (2001) self-

authorship theory, rooted in the psychological

work of Kegan (1994), has been increasingly

utilized as a way of understanding how stu-

dents learn and develop cognitively in college

and her theory includes students interpersonal

and intrapersonal dimensions of development.

As another example, Torres and Hernandez

(2007) contemplate cognitive and affective

aspects of multiple dimensions of identity (see

also, Abes et al., 2007; Torres & Hernandez,

2007).

These studies all advance the field, suggest-

ing the possibility of multiple components of

identity or multiple identity characteristics,

contexts, and factors which influence identity

processes. This shift in research and the resul-

tant theory opens the door of student affairs to

a complimentary sociological approach that is

more attentive to “structural and relational

constraints placed on identity” (Deutsch, 2008,

p. 7). Future work should examine whether the

psychological approach or the sociological

approach is best suited for the population or

the topic of study. Perhaps there is a need for

an entirely different perspective on which the

theoretical and empirical work remains to be

conducted. Regardless, the student affairs field

should remain open to shifting approaches to

student development that might help to

advance knowledge and understanding of new

student populations. In addition, college stu-

dent development theory should be grounded

in the experiences and wisdom of practitioners

and faculty who work with students on a con-

tinual basis.

The methodological implications of adding

the sociological approach to the existing psy-

chological approaches might be summarized

as a call for diversification of methods and for

an end of the quantitative-qualitative divide.

This may mean a need for mixed methods

studies, or, it may simply be the necessity of

reading and understanding across qualitative

and quantitative scholarship; however, the

focus or outcome of the research will be differ-

ent for sociologically- or psychologically-

based studies. Studies using the sociological

approach highlight the explanation of interac-

tions between one’s sense of self, roles, com-

mitments, and the social or institutional

structure. This implies that qualitative methods

that emphasize individual meaning-making

might be well-suited to this theoretical

approach. Outcomes of these studies may help

to explain the structural or institutional con-

straints that students experience relative to the

development of their identity during college

(e.g., Winkle-Wagner, 2009a, 2009b). This

may help scholars and practitioners alike to

better structure programs and policies that help

students navigate these constraints. Addition-

ally, these findings may help scholars and

practitioners examine campuses to remove

identity-related constraints within the environ-

ment when possible. Psychologically rooted

studies often focus on cognitive processes, the

way one processes the college experience, trait

or personality characteristics, and membership

in groups (i.e., exclusion, inclusion). Findings

may lead to models, theories, or ways of iden-

tifying the developmental progression students

may undergo during their time in college.

These results may help to structure programs

that facilitate students’ development.

Student affairs practitioners are well aware

of the importance of the interaction between

students and their college environment. There

are programs that are specifically geared

toward helping students navigate campus envi-

ronments. It is important to consider students’

cognitions relative to their experiences on

campus and the psychological approach allows

for that. The generalizations that often stem

Self, College Experiences, and Society 57

from college student development theories that

are rooted in the psychological approach are

helpful for practitioners to predict how partic-

ular groups of students might behave or react

to their experiences. These generalizations

also help practitioners to predict how to best

serve students.

Alternatively, the sociological approach

calls for a holistic, fluid tactic toward viewing

students’ development in college suggesting

that students be viewed individually relative to

their stated roles and commitments. The pri-

mary focus is not on generalizing students but

is on finding ways in which college may influ-

ence students’ roles, commitments and the

identity salience that results from this interac-

tion. Practice would be refocused toward iden-

tifying students’ multiple, at times conflicting

or contradictory, roles and commitments, and

then initiating programs that allow students to

navigate these roles and commitments. These

programs should be especially effective for

those who do not fit the expectations of the

most widely accepted psychological theories

of college student development. Programs and

policies would be aimed at allowing space

both figuratively and literally for students to

express their important identities. This implies

a bottom-up approach to serving marginalized

students, giving them the room to identify for

themselves the roles and commitments they

feel are important to make salient in college,

rather than being told that they must display

those identities that are salient for the majority

groups on campus.

This sociological approach could be cou-

pled with the existing knowledge gained from

theories of college student development that

create models, theories, or measures that can

be used to prescribe particular campus experi-

ences. Psychologically based college student

development theories may recommend oppor-

tunities and experiences that facilitate

advancement through stages/phases/statuses in

psycho-social theories or that cause cognitive

dissonance in cognitive-structural theories.

These prescriptions, the deliberate structuring

of student experiences for development, may

be even more useful when used in concert with

the sociological approach: this implies both

allowing students to identify roles and com-

mitments for themselves while also challeng-

ing students to continue to develop.

CONCLUSION

The psychological and sociological perspec-

tives on identity can, at best, provide a system

of checks and balances for college student

development theory. Conversely, they could

provide conflicting, contrary perspectives

competing for the “right” way of considering

college student development. I advocate the

former—allowing both the psychological per-

spective and the sociological perspective to

inform what is known about the identity devel-

opment processes of college students. In the

past few decades of college student develop-

ment theory work, there has been a preponder-

ance of the psychological perspective, leading

to many sequential, metaphorically (if not

explicitly) linear theories of students’ develop-

mental processes. While these theories have

provided numerous important insights into

ways to better understand college students,

they ultimately make difficult a full consider-

ation of multiple identities, a meaningful

inclusion of the effect of the social structure on

students’ identity processes, and the influence

of interaction between one’s self, the larger

society, and the college campus in the way that

the sociological perspective does. Future

empirical work in college student development

could expand the field and what is known

about serving students in college, by using the

sociological perspective as a guiding founda-

tional framework.

Ultimately, both the psychological and

sociological perspectives are necessary for a

deeper understanding of college students. In

absence of the other, the psychological

approach could be overly reductionist, catego-

rizing and classifying students’ into particular

stages, phases, or models while the sociologi-

cal approach could be too individualistic, not

58 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 30, No. 2, 2012

allowing enough generalization to how student

groups may differ in the aggregate. The psy-

chological perspective provides scholars and

practitioners with insight into intergroup and

sociocognitive processes (Hogg et al., 1995),

emphasizing group-level behavior and cogni-

tions. The sociological perspective is primarily

a “microsociological” (p. 255) approach,

allowing for an opportunity to better under-

stand identity processes in a fluid and contin-

ual manner, the way that the social structure

influences students before, during, and after

they enter higher education. This perspective

provides insight into who students might

become as they interact with others, the larger

social structure, and the college campus.

Together, the sociological and psychological

perspective could revolutionize the way that

students are served in higher education, mov-

ing ever closer to a more holistic approach.

NOTES

1. For example, the aluminum content and acidity

of soil can affect the color of the hydrangea

flower.

2. This is not to say that psychologically based

theories do not allow room for considerations

of environments. Rather, the point is that psy-

chological foundations often place a greater

emphasis on cognitions while sociological

approaches highlight environments.

3. While few scholars theorizing sociological

identity perspectives use this term, the idea that

one’s identity is entirely dependent on society

and interaction for development relates to the

idea of a “tabula rasa” (blank slate) that was

originally developed by John Locke (Milton &

Milton, 2006). The notion of a tabula rasa

assumes that people’s mental content (cogni-

tions) would be reliant on experiences, primar-

ily gathered through the senses.

4. This both dovetails and separates from Kurt

Lewin’s (1935) assertion that behavior is a func-

tion of the interaction of the person and the envi-

ronment. For Lewin the interaction of self and

environment led to an outcome of behavior.

Sociological approaches to identity consider the

outcome of the interactions between the self,

others, and the environment to be an identity

that may or may not influence behavior.

REFERENCES

Abes, E. S., Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M.K. (2007).

Reconceptualizing the model of multiple dimen-

sions of identity: The role of meaning-making

capacity in the construction of multiple identi-

ties. Journal of College Student Development,

48(1), 1-22

American Council on Education. (1937). The stu-

dent personnel point of view. In A.L. Rentz

(Ed.), Student affairs a profession’s heritage

(2nd ed., pp. 66-71). Washington, DC: American

College Personnel Association.

Arroyo, C. G., & Zigler, E. (1995). Racial identity,

academic achievement, and the psychological

well-being of economically disadvantaged ado-

lescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 69(5), 903-914.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1999). Constructing adult

identities. Journal of College Student Develop-

ment, 40(6) 629-644.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own

way: Narratives for transforming higher educa-

tion to promote self-development. Sterling, VA:

Stylus.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2009a). Authoring your

life: Developing an internal voice to meet life’s

challenges. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2009b). The activity of

meaning making: A holistic perspective on col-

lege student development. Journal of College

Student Development, 50(6), 621-639.

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R.,

& Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of know-

ing: The development of self, voice, and mind.

New York, NY: Basic Books.

Brewer, M. B., & Silver, M. D. (2000). Group dis-

tinctiveness, social identification, and collective

mobilization. In S. Stryker, T. Owens, & R.

White (Eds.), Self, identity and social move-

ments. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minne-

sota Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human

development: Experiments by nature and design.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P.A. (2006). The

bioecological model of human development. In

W. Damon & R.M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of

Self, College Experiences, and Society 59

child psychology (6th ed.) Hoboken, NJ: Wiley,

793-828.

Brown, R. D. (1972). Student development in

tomorrow’s higher education: A return to the

academy. Alexandria, VA: American College

Personnel Association.

Burke, P. J., & Reitzes, D. (1991). An identity the-

ory approach to commitment. Social Psychology

Quarterly, 54, 239-251.

Cass, V. (1984). Homosexual identity formation:

Testing a theoretical model. Journal of Sex

Research, 20, 143-167.

Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education

and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Cross, W. E., Jr. (1995). The psychology of Nigres-

cence: Revising the Cross model. In J. G. Pon-

terotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M

Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural

counseling (pp. 93-122). Thousand Oaks, CA:

SAGE.

Cross, W. E., & Vandiver, B.J. (2001). Nigrescence

theory and measurement: Introducing the cross

racial identity scale (CRIS). In J. G. Ponterotto,

J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander

(Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling

(pp. 371-393). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Deutsch, N. (2008). Pride in the projects: Teens

building identities in urban contexts. New York,

NY: New York University Press.

Erikson, E. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New

York, NY: Norton. (Original work published in

1959).

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Renn,

K.A., & Patton, L.D. (2010). Student develop-

ment in college: Theory, research, and practice.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Feldman, K., & Newcomb, T. (1994). The impact of

college on students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass. (Original work published 1969)

Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psycholog-

ical theory and women’s development. Cam-

bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original

work published in 1982).

Hamrick, F. A., Evans, N. J., & Schuh, J. H. (2002).

Foundations of student affairs practice: How

philosophy, theory and research strengthen edu-

cational outcomes. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A

tale of two theories: A critical comparison of

identity theory with social identity theory. Social

psychology Quarterly, 58, 255-269.

Holland, J. L. (1992). Making vocational choices: A

theory of vocational personalities and work

environments (2nd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psycholog-

ical Assessment Resources.

Jones, S. R. (1997). Voices of identity and differ-

ence: A qualitative explore of the multiple

dimensions of identity development in women

college students. Journal of College Student

Development, 38(4), 376-386.

Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). Conceptual

model of multiple dimensions of identity. Jour-

nal of College Student Development, 41(4), 405-

414.

Josselson, R. (1987). Finding herself: Pathways to

identity development in women. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental

demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Har-

vard University Press.

King, P. M. (2009). Principles of development and

developmental change underlying theories of

cognitive and moral development. Journal of

College Student Development, 50(6), 597-620.

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing

reflective judgment: Understanding and promot-

ing intellectual growth and critical thinking in

adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: the cogni-

tive developmental approach to socialization. In

D. A. Gosling (Ed.), Handbook of socialization

theory and research (pp. 347-480). Chicago, IL:

Rand McNally.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experi-

ence as the source of learning and development.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lesko, N. (2001). Act your age! A cultural construc-

tion of adolescence. New York, NY: Routledge-

Falmer.

Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality.

New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Marcia, J. (1966). Development and validation of

ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 3, 551-588.

Mead, G. H. (1967). Mind, self, and society: From

the standpoint of a social behaviorist (C. W.

Morris, Ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of

Chicago Press. (Original was published 1934)

Milton, J. R., & Milton, P. (2006). John Locke: An

essay concerning toleration and other writings

on law and politics, 1667-1683. Oxford, Eng-

land: Oxford University Press.

60 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 30, No. 2, 2012

Myers, I. B. (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, CA:

Counseling Psychologists Press.

Oyserman, D., Kemmelmeier, M., Fryberg, S.,

Brosh, H., & Hart-Johnson, T. (2003). Racial-

ethnic self schemas. Social Psychology Quar-

terly, 66(4), 333-347.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in chil-

dren. New York, NY: International Universities

Press.

Perry, W. G., Jr. (1981). Cognitive and ethical

growth: The making of meaning. In A.W. Chick-

ering and Associates, The modern American col-

lege: Responding to the new realities of diverse

students and a changing society (pp. 76-116).

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Renn, K. A. (2000). Patterns of situational identity

among biracial and multiracial college students.

The Review of Higher Education, 23(4), 399-

420.

Renn, K. A. (2003). Understanding the identities of

mixed-race college students through a develop-

ment ecology lens. Journal of College Student

Development, 44(3), 383-403.

Renn, K. A. (2007). LGBT student leaders and

queer activists: Identities of lesbian, gay, bisex-

ual, transgender, and queer identified college

student leaders and activitists. Journal of Col-

lege Student Development, 48(3), 311-330.

Reynolds, A. L., & Pope, R. L. (1991). The com-

plexities of diversity: Exploring multiple oppres-

sions. Journal of Counseling & Development,

70, 174-180.

Robinson, T. L., & Howard-Hamilton, M. F. (1994).

An Afrocentric paradigm: Foundation for a

health self-image and health interpersonal rela-

tionships. Journal of Mental Health Counseling,

16(3), 327-340.

Rodgers, R. F. (1990). An integration of campus

ecology and student development: The Olen-

tangy project. In D. G. Creamer & Associates

Eds.), College student development: Theory and

practice for the 1990s (pp. 27-79). Alexandria,

VA: American College Personnel Association.

Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A

social structural version. Menlo Park, CA: Ben-

jamin/Cummings.

Stryker, S. (1997). In the beginning there is society:

Lessons from a sociological social psychology.

In C. McGarty & A. Haslam (Eds.), Message

from social psychology: Perspective on Mind in

Society. London, England: Blackwell.

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup

relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1),

1-39.

Taylor, K. B. (2008). Mapping the intricacies of

young adults’ developmental journey from

socially prescribed to internally defined identi-

ties, relationships, and beliefs. Journal of Col-

lege Student Development, 49(3), 215-234.

Taub, D. J., & McEwen, M. K. (1992). The relation-

ship of racial identity attitudes to autonomy and

mature interpersonal relationships in black and

white undergraduate women. Journal of College

Student Development, 33(5), 439-446.

Thoits, P. (2003). Personal agency in the accumula-

tion of multiple role-identities. In P. J. Burke, T.

J. Owens, R. T. Serpe, & P. Thoits, Advances in

identity theory and research (pp. 179-194). New

York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Torres, V., & Hernandez, E. (2007). The influence

of ethnic identity on self-authorship: A longitu-

dinal study of Latino/a college students. Journal

of College Student Development, 48(5), 558-

573.

Torres, V., Howard-Hamilton, M. F., & Cooper, D.

L. (Eds.). (2003). Identity development of

diverse populations: Implications for teaching

and administration in higher education. ASHE-

ERIC Higher Education Report, 29(6). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Torres, V., Jones, S. R., & Renn, K. A. (2009). Iden-

tity development theories in student affairs: Ori-

gins, current status, and new approaches.

Journal of College Student Development, 50(6),

577-593.

Winkle-Wagner, R. (2009a). The Unchosen Me:

Race, gender and identity among Black women

in college. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins

University Press.

Winkle-Wagner, R. (2009b). The perpetual home-

lessness of college experiences: The tensions

between home and campus for African Ameri-

can women. The Review of Higher Educa-

tion¸33(1), 1-36.

Zaytoun, K. (2006). Theorizing at the boarders:

Considering social location in rethinking self

and psychological development. NWSA Journal,

18(2), 52-72.

Author Biographical Data 93

in counseling, marriage and family therapy,

and qualitative research. Practicing as a

national certified counselor (NCC) and a Mar-

riage and family therapist (MFT), Dr. Tse is

also an ordained minister and former pastor.

His research interests have revolved around

multicultural issues and relationships.

Krista M. Soria is a doctoral candidate in edu-

cational policy and administration (higher edu-

cation) and an analyst in institutional research

at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities.

She has prior experience working in student

affairs in several areas including admissions,

college advising, and academic advising.

Krista also serves as an adjunct faculty in the

leadership minor at the University of Minne-

sota-Twin Cities. Her research interests

include social class in higher education, com-

munity engagement, student leadership, and

academic advising.

Terrell L. Strayhorn is an associate professor

of higher education at The Ohio State Univer-

sity where he also serves as senior research

associate in the Kirwan Institute for the study

of race and ethnicity, and holds joint appoint-

ments in Africana studies, engineering educa-

tion, and sociology. Author of 5 books, over

100 articles and book chapters, Strayhorn is

associate editor of the NASAP Journal and

Editor of Spectrum: A Journal on Black Men.

Rachelle Winkle-Wagner is an assistant pro-

fessor in the Department of Educational Lead-

ership and Policy Analysis at the University of

Wisconsin-Madison. She uses sociological

approach to investigate how race and gender

are manifested in gaining access to and persist-

ing through college for students of color in par-

ticular. She is the author of The Unchosen Me:

Race, Gender, and Identity among Black

Women in College (Johns Hopkins University

Press, 2009).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without

permission.