Evolution of Student Development Theory

Abstract

In this quotation from a chapter titled "Theory as Liberatory Practice," prolific writer, scholar, and social change agent bell hooks narrates her coming to understand theory as a positive force that may serve as a pathway to healing from the injustices and pain of life' s circumstances. However, she reminds the reader, theory does not fulfill this function by definition or on its own. Instead, theory becomes healing only when the focus of theorizing is centered on issues and questions that elevate larger historical, social, and cultural structures that pattern a diverse array of lived experiences. In other words, when theories are created through a critical lens, the possibilities for healing, liberation, and radical social change are revealed. This way of looking at theories, as responding to what theorists ask them to do, helps frame the evolution of student development theory and provides a scaffolding for understanding how the theories that undergird practice in higher education and student affairs reflect the sociohistorical contexts in which they were created, the nature of the questions held up for concern, and the commitments and values of those individuals developing theories. It also illuminates the potential of theories to indeed become liberatory practice if scholars and practitioners "direct our theorizing towards this end" (hooks, 1994, p. 61).In this chapter, we adopt from feminist scholars the metaphor of "waves" (Humm, 1995) to capture the shifts in the kinds of questions and concerns addressed by student development theories over time. We locate critical perspectives on student development theory in a larger context of the evolution of these theories from "first wave" (for example, foundational, NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES, no. 154, Summer 2016

Reconsidering Asian American Student Development

“…Kodama et al.’s () framing of Asian American student development influenced heavily by social contexts, parallels some of the newer understandings of student and identity development such as those proposed by Jones and Abes (), Hernández (), and Jones and Stewart (). For Asian American students, the negotiation of campus and home cultures has been demonstrated to be central in students’ understanding of self and experiences in college.…”

“…In discussing the evolution of student development theory, Jones and Stewart () noted that “perspectives that critique, challenge, and seek to dismantle inequitable power structures are significantly altering the evolution of student development theory” (p. 21). They encourage theorists and educators to think about how these critical and poststructural perspectives (also called “third wave”) enable us to reevaluate the focus of student development theory and practice as well as reconsider knowledge in the field.…”

“…Additionally, the student development literature has undergone a paradigm shift in recent years: not just what theories are included in the discourse but what development is and how it works (Jones & Stewart, ; Patton, Renn, Guido, & Quaye, ). Jones and Stewart () document the evolution of student development theories from discrete theories (often informed by psychological perspectives) to contemporary, interdisciplinary models much broader in scope. These new approaches are informed by critical theory, postmodernism, and intersectionality in seeking to advance a more inclusive, realistic, and holistic view of student development for today's diverse student body (Abes, ; Patton et al., ).…”

“…These new approaches are informed by critical theory, postmodernism, and intersectionality in seeking to advance a more inclusive, realistic, and holistic view of student development for today's diverse student body (Abes, ; Patton et al., ). This is especially relevant for students of color whose experiences were not considered in many of the foundational theories and whose development has been shown to be intertwined with the social context, particularly as related to race (Jones & Abes, ; Jones & Stewart, ; Patton et al., ).…”

“…The first part of this chapter revisits Kodama et al.’s () model of Asian American psychosocial development and examines its relevance to more recent research and scholarship. The second part of this chapter uses the framework of Jones and Stewart () in reevaluating the way we think about student development knowledge, theory, and practice in light of what we know about Asian American students beyond specific models. Finally, we suggest areas for future research and attention in complicating our thinking about Asian American student development.…”