The Organizational Realities of Student Affairs: a Political Perspective Jeremiah B
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Eastern Michigan University DigitalCommons@EMU Master's Theses, and Doctoral Dissertations, and Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations Graduate Capstone Projects 2013 The organizational realities of student affairs: A political perspective Jeremiah B. Shinn Follow this and additional works at: http://commons.emich.edu/theses Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation Shinn, Jeremiah B., "The organizational realities of student affairs: A political perspective" (2013). Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations. 876. http://commons.emich.edu/theses/876 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses, and Doctoral Dissertations, and Graduate Capstone Projects at DigitalCommons@EMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@EMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Organizational Realities of Student Affairs: A Political Perspective by Jeremiah B. Shinn DISSERTATION Submitted to the College of Education Eastern Michigan University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Educational Leadership Dissertation Committee: Dr. James Barott, Chair Dr. Elizabeth Broughton Dr. Ronald Flowers Dr. Sarah Ginsberg March 11, 2013 Ypsilanti, Michigan ii The Organizational Realities of Student Affairs: A Political Perspective Jeremiah Shinn Approval __________________________ _______________ James Barott, Ph.D. Date Dissertation Chair __________________________ _______________ Elizabeth Broughton, Ed.D. Date Committee Member __________________________ _______________ Ronald Flowers, Ed.D. Date Committee Member __________________________ _______________ Sarah Ginsberg, Ed.D. Date Committee Member __________________________ _______________ Jana Nidiffer, Ed.D. Date Committee Member __________________________ _______________ Jaclynn Tracy, Ph.D. Date Department Head iii Dedicated to the memory of my brother, Tripp (1982 – 2010). I continue to learn from you. iv Acknowledgements: To Dr. Ronald Flowers: You are one of the wisest and most diligent scholars I have met. You served as a positive role model for countless EDLD students, and to a kid who probably had no business in a doctoral program when he began. To Dr. Sarah Ginsberg: You were beside me when the journey began, and I’m thankful that you are with me as it ends. You were always a good friend and colleague when I needed one the most. To Dr. Elizabeth Broughton: You have been a constant in my professional life. You connected me with my first professional position in student-affairs, and you’ve been a valued teacher, colleague and friend in the years (decade plus) since. When I think of the study of student-affairs, I think of you. To Dr. Jana Nidiffer: I cannot begin to imagine how my life would have been different had our paths not crossed. You saw something in me that few others had bothered to see. I will forever be indebted to you and your wife, Dr. Jayne Thorson, for your love and support. I’m a better person because of you. To Dr. James Barott: I can barely begin to express my gratitude for your unconditional and unwavering support during this process. It is doubtful you knew what you were signing up for when you agreed to serve as my dissertation committee chair, but I will be forever thankful to you for everything you have taught me. There are few people in my professional life that I admire more than you. Rare is the day that passes when I fail to draw from your wisdom. To Sarah Baynes Shinn: Thank you for supporting me through this…and through everything. I love you. v vi Abstract The purpose of this study was to understand the organizational functions of student- affairs at Indiana University and to understand the nature of the conflict between student- affairs and the larger organization. This study utilized the case-study research design. Much of the data collected and analyzed during this case study were of a historical nature. Both primary and secondary sources were utilized. The conceptual framework that informed this study and that this study served to advance is drawn from classic organization theory, specifically contingency theory, which argues that there is no one best way to organize (Galbraith, 1973; Parsons, 1960; Scott, 2003; Thompson, 2004;). The study sought to answer two primary questions: 1. What is the nature of the conflict between student-affairs and the organization? 2. What are the organizational functions of student-affairs at Indiana University? Student-affairs at Indiana University emerged as a set of managerial activities in response to various conflicts and environmental demands over time. These activities emerged to provide four key functions for the organization: To privatize conflict, to maintain, to buffer the technical activities from environmental influences, and to provide symbolic reassurance to the cultural environment. Student-affairs functions emerged at Indiana University as responses to various environmental demands. The function of student-affairs was historically to engage in the managerial activities of privatizing conflict, buffering the institution’s technical activities, providing symbolic reassurance to the cultural environment, and securing legitimacy in the institutional environment through various isomorphic activities. vii List of Tables Table 1: Constructivist / Interpretive Paradigm Positions ......................................................53 Table 2: Threat and Reassurance: Presbyterian Bias ............................................................102 Table 3: Threat and Reassurance: A Godless University .....................................................106 Table 4: Threat and Reassurance: Student Immorality .........................................................107 Table 5: Periods of Curriculum Evolution ............................................................................109 Table 6: Administrative Responsibilities 1902 .....................................................................115 Table 7: Symbolic Language Pertaining to Student Discipline .............................................122 Table 8: Committee on Student-affairs as a Mechanism for Conflict Privatization .............123 Table 9: Conflict Management Strategies ..............................................................................139 Table 10: Veteran Students ...................................................................................................174 Table 11: Accommodation of International Students ...........................................................177 viii List of Figures Figure 1: Political Conflict ......................................................................................................22 Figure 2: Levels of Organizational Activities .........................................................................28 Figure 3: Technical Activities .................................................................................................28 Figure 4: Managerial Activities ..............................................................................................29 Figure 5: Institutional Activities .............................................................................................30 Figure 6: Cultural Activities ...................................................................................................31 Figure 7: Humans Respond to the Meaning of Stimuli ..........................................................58 Figure 8: Indiana in 1816 ........................................................................................................77 Figure 9: Indiana Seminary Building ......................................................................................79 Figure 10: Task, Institutional and Cultural Environments in Alignment ...............................80 Figure 11: Religious Denominations in Indiana (1850) .........................................................81 Figure 12: Dominant Conflict: Denomination Control of Indiana University .......................85 Figure 13: Dominant Conflict: Indiana University as a Secular or Godly Force ...................93 Figure 14: Indiana Cultural Environment Circa 1850 ..........................................................100 Figure 15: Cultural Environment Influences Technical Activities .......................................101 Figure 16: Technical Core Shifts Toward Institutional Environment ...................................103 Figure 17: Dominant Conflict Absorbed and Redefined ......................................................105 Figure 18: Managerial Activities Buffer the Technical Core ................................................105 ix Figure 19: The Evolving Technical Core ..............................................................................108 Figure 20: Degrees Conferred at Indiana University: 1830 - 1900 .......................................113 Figure 21: Conflict Between Vocational Education and Elite Academics ............................114 Figure 22: Dominant Conflict: Cultural Environment vs. Institutional Environment ...........121 Figure 23: Technical Core Shifts Further ..............................................................................124 Figure 24: Conflicts Redefined and Absorbed ......................................................................126 Figure 25: Managerial Activities Buffer the Technical Core ................................................127