sign in sign up
<<
Home , Systems theory

Using to Understand the Identity of Academic Advising: A Case Study

Sean Bridgen, Penn State New Kensington

For decades, advising practitioners and scholars normative from a reductionist perspective. have worked toward developing an identity for provides a new alternative to advising as a unique field of scholarly inquiry scientific for understanding academic and practice. To date, the identity crisis in advising (Banathy, 1996b; Checkland, 1981). advising remains. This study presents an exam- Researchers of advising have borrowed ideas ination and description of the function, purpose, from the social and student development and identity of a university advising theory (Hagen, 2005; Schulenberg & Lindhorst, through comparisons of ideals espoused by 2010). Since the late 1990s, advisors have pushed advisors and administrators with practice. Based to engage in scholarship with the purpose of on systems theory as a framework, this study developing a ‘‘professional, academic identity’’ shows that the identity of academic advising can (Schulenberg & Lindhorst, 2010, p. 24). As a be misunderstood because of systemic issues. result, a few dominant have emerged Addressing systemic flaws may help clarify the and shaped current theory and practice; however, identity of academic advising within a specific these frameworks also contributed to an indistinct system and possibly the field as a whole. identity of advising programs at institutions of [doi:10.12930/NACADA-15-038] higher education (Schulenberg & Lindhorst, 2008). For example, in his landmark study, Crookston KEY WORDS: academic advising, systems (1972/2009) drew a distinction between develop- theory mental and prescriptive advising. He described developmental advising as concerned with the Despite ongoing efforts to define academic intellectual, psychosocial, and moral development advising, the field continues to lack a distinctive of a student whereas prescriptive advising amounts identity (Schulenberg & Lindhorst, 2010). When to form signing and paper pushing. In the examined from a systems perspective, identity is significant aspect of his work, Crookston argued defined by emergent functions or purposes. that advising can and should serve as an important Although scholars and practitioners attempt to educative enterprise. Despite the long-term domi- define advising theory, , and policy to nance as the advising in higher educa- explain the way advising ought to be practiced, the tion, the developmental advising model has drawn purposes and identity of a system is best considerable criticism from the advising commu- understood by system behavior, ‘‘not from rhetoric nity. or stated goals’’ (Meadows, 2008, p. 11). Through In the late 1990s and early 2000s, researchers a systems perspective, I examine and describe the began publishing questions about the developmen- functions, purposes, and identity of a university tal model as an adequate description of good or advising system in which the ideals are espoused ideal advising practice is and should be (Hagen, by advisors and administrators who practice at a 2005; Hemwall &Trachte, 2005, Lowenstein, satellite campus of a large, public, multicampus 2005). In particular, Lowenstein (2005) argued university. for learning-centered advising (p. 71) primarily Examination from the perspective of systems concerned with student learning, and he also theory provides a holistic view of advising. suggested that excellent advising looks much like Understanding a particular system in this way excellent teaching. This notable challenge shifted illuminates the strengths and weaknesses of the the paradigm from developmental advising to system as related to the mission and goals put forth teaching and signaled the of other by the advising community. This study contributes thought leaders in the field. to the understanding of advising because it reveals Hagen (2005) observed that academic advising about the way advising functions. To research need not be solely based on positivist date, all published accounts of advising theory, . He explained that the way that philosophy, and research described construction of scientists come to know and make meaning of

NACADA Journal Volume 37(2) 2017 9 Sean Bridgen phenomena does not encompass all ways to make Theoretical Framework knowledge claims about advising; rather, advising The theoretical framework of this study is based scholars also employ hermeneutics (the study of on systems theory, which is an area of inquiry interpretation), rhetoric, philosophy, narrative the- through which one attempts to understand the ory, and other ways of knowing. Hagen (2005) wholeness of scientific and social problems. It encouraged practitioners to renew their thinking speaks to ‘‘a constant yearning for understanding about advising: ‘‘Once the metaphorical leap is the wholeness of the human ’’ through- made to view the student before you as a ‘text,’ out human history (Banathy & Jenlink, 2004, p. then all of the truth claims of hermeneutics become 40). In Western , the quest to understand available for your use’’ (p. 5). The literature wholeness began as early as , continued suggested that advisors, who come from a wide through the Enlightenment, and persists today. range of academic disciplines, tap into the wisdom The systems movement has been the driving force gained from their own fields and to in understanding the wholeness of scientific build theories unique to academic advising (Hagen, inquiry since the 1950s (Checkland, 2000). 2005; Lowenstein, 1999, 2005; Schulenberg & Scholars of systems theory maintain that all Lindhorst, 2008). Musser (2006) offered an problems in the sciences (physical and social) are example of a new approach in her description of fundamentally systemic in (Hutchins, 1996; the used-systems theory as a construct to extend Meadows, 2008, Wheatley, 2006). Systems theory the understanding of academic advising. is used to explain problems holistically, which Musser (2006) established a foundational un- differs from the way in which Western science is derstanding of the ways systems thinking applies to traditionally applied. To wit, Banathy (2006b) advising. However, little else appears in the asserted that, because science became so special- literature about advising in this context. Further ized since the Scientific Revolution of the 17th study of college advising systems may reveal century, many investigators are ‘‘encapsulated in emergent in higher education systems. In their private universe’’ (2006, para. 5). Since advocating for a systems examination, Banathy Descartes, scientists have solved scientific prob- (1996a) suggested that lems by breaking them apart and continually reducing them into increasingly smaller pieces. people . . . cannot give direction to their The scientific method and the practice of isolating , they cannot forge their destiny, they and manipulating variables in controlled environ- cannot take charge of their future unless they ments compose the essence of traditional scientific also develop competence to take part directly inquiry. and authentically in the design of the This cornerstone of scientific inquiry, the systems in which they live and work, and assumption that problems can be broken into parts, reclaim their right to do so (p. vii). causes practitioners of the method to overlook the interactions and relationships between the parts; In her keynote address at the NACADA Region 2 that is, they do not consider wholeness. Checkland Conference, Schulenberg (2010) challenged ad- (1981) argued that ‘‘systems thinking . . . starts visors to take the lead in such reflection. Musser’s from noticing the unquestioned Cartesian assump- work was an important first step in using systems tion: namely that a component part is the same theory to understand advising; this study contin- when separated out as when it is part of the whole’’ ued this investigation. (p. 12). Furthermore, systems theory does not exclude the method and practice of traditional Research Questions science, but builds upon it. Systems theory shows RQ1. How do administrators, faculty mem- the scientific method as valid but incomplete. bers, students, and staff perceive the Systems theory complements, rather than ex- purposes and functions of the advis- cludes, traditional science. To use an , if ing system at a specific university? scientific inquiry is used to examine phenomena RQ2. What discrepancies, if any, character- under a microscope, those employing systems ize the espoused objectives, policies, theory apply a wide-angle lens to see them. procedures, and processes related to Systems theory offers researchers a means to advising and the ways they are understand phenomena in a fundamentally differ- enacted on a satellite campus of a ent way than does scientific inquiry; the former is large, multicampus university? based on philosophical assumptions that differ

10 NACADA Journal Volume 37(2) 2017 Systems Theory significantly from those that underpin traditional relatively open, delays in may take science. decades. Because of these large response times, Two tenets of systems theory prove particularly changes made in a system can lead to counterin- relevant to clearing up any confusion about the tuitive consequences. purpose and identity of academic advising. First, complex social systems do not serve a single Research Methodology purpose (Hutchins, 1996). According to Hutchins I used a case study strategy to collect qualitative (1996), ideas on the purpose of a system data. According to Yin (2003), a case study can be differ such that a meaningful purpose cannot be used to better understand ‘‘contextual conditions— attached to it. Furthermore, systems usually believing that they may be highly pertinent to your accommodate more than one purpose. Currently, phenomenon of study’’ (p. 13) Because one can the purpose of a college degree can vary depending only understand systems in context, the case study on the point-of-view of the person asked about it. methodology proved an appropriate approach. I For instance, a business leader might believe that a triangulated four data sources to increase reliability college education prepares students for the work- and transparency, and I (a) reviewed extant force, a professor might think that it represents the documents from Mid-Atlantic University (MAU) process of people learning to think critically to (pseudonym), (b) conducted semi-structured inter- avoid being manipulated by power brokers (e.g., views with selected staff and administrators business leaders). Many universities were founded associated with advising, (c) facilitated one focus to carry out research, economic, service, or other group with a retention committee at the satellite functions. In any case, the observer of the system campus, and (d) facilitated another focus group defines the purposes of it. with undergraduates at the satellite campus. The The second principle of systems theory, that one data were analyzed using an inductive approach must understand the ways the purposes of a system and interpreted through the lens of systems theory. are realized to understand the system, also applies This study was conducted primarily at a satellite to advising. Of course, these realizations are based campus of MAU, a large public university with on the subjective definitions of the purposes. In more than 90,000 students and over a dozen addition, the underlying purpose of any living campuses distributed across one state. All of the system, including a , is survival. One locations, including the main campus, operate must acknowledge these assumptions when iden- under the same advising policies and procedures. tifying purposes and determining the way they are However, the in one centralized unit, achieved within a system. the School of General Studies (SGS) oversees System purposes are achieved through control academic administration of the campuses. MAU’s mechanisms commonly called balancing or rein- foundational advising documents, such as the forcing feedback loops. A balancing loop maintains Advising Handbook and Faculty Congress policy stability in a system, and a reinforcing loop either papers, were intended to ground practice at MAU increases or decreases the effect of incoming regardless of advisor location; however, leadership information. A thermostat in a heating system acts in each place enjoys independence to operate as a balancing loop because it keeps the temper- within the established advising policies and takes ature of an area within a preset range. An electric responsibility to implement advising under the amplifier, such as used for a guitar, amplifies umbrella MAU policy. The geographic distribution sound, so it acts as reinforcing loop, but a damper of the campuses creates mini-laboratories where is used to attenuate vibrations of the strings and the espoused ideals of academic advising have thus acts as a negative reinforcing loop. These same been adapted to practice at each satellite campus. feedback loops apply for modifying behaviors. Data were collected in two phases. Phase 1 These control mechanisms do not produce goals primarily included building rapport, gaining immediate effects on systems; that is, responses permission, gathering documents for analysis, and may be delayed. For example, when a thermostat identifying participants for the study. Creswell on a home heating system is set at 68 degrees, the (2007) emphasized the importance of building furnace often continues to run such that the rapport with gatekeepers at research sites, espe- temperature overshoots the setting by a few degrees cially prior to case study research. Phase 2 before the furnace shuts down. In most physical or included specific data collection and analysis. relatively closed systems, feedback delays can be During Phase 1, I gathered and analyzed data relatively short, but in social systems, which are from the MAU academic advising policy, web sites

NACADA Journal Volume 37(2) 2017 11 Sean Bridgen of the Academic Advising Board, and the Council addition to the Director of Advising, the other of Deans to determine the objectives, policies, and focus group consisted of staff from the offices of procedures of the advising system. Residence , Financial Aid, Athletics, Bursar, Phase 2 of data collection consisted of 16 semi- and Learning Support. structured one-on-one interviews and two focus To identify the stated objectives and policies groups. Participants from both the main and related to academic advising, I read, summarized, satellite campuses were interviewed. At the satellite and paraphrased the policies to protect the identity campus, the interviewees included of the institution. To identify similarities and differences between data from the participants  5 faculty advisors; and the way that advising is defined in policy, I  3 administrators, the Campus Dean, the compared the summarized policies to the data Associate Dean of Academics, the Asso- collected from the interviews and focus groups. I ciate Dean of Admissions; interpreted the data through the lens of systems  3 professional staff, the Registrar, the Director of Financial Aid, the Director of theory using Hutchins’s (1996) principles of Advising; and systems theory.  1 support staff member. Reliability and Validity In positivist research, investigators measure The interviews at the main campus were con- reliability to determine whether a repeated study ducted with the is expected to yield the same results as found the  Current Dean of Advising, first time it was conducted. According to Merriam  Retired Dean of Advising, (1988), ‘‘Reliability in the traditional sense seems  Associate Dean of Advising, and to be something of a misfit when applied to  Administrative Director of the School of qualitative research. . . . That is, rather than General Studies (who oversees all aca- demanding that outsiders get the same results, one demic programming at the satellite cam- wishes to concur that, given the data collected, the puses). results make sense—they are consistent and dependable’’ (p. 170). Because the purpose of The first focus group consisted of students at a qualitative research is to ‘‘describe and explain the satellite campus. To maximize variability of world as those in the world interpret it’’ and students in the focus group, I obtained a list of ‘‘reliability and validity are inextricably linked,’’ 200 randomly selected students from the Campus qualitative researchers can establish reliability by Registrar. I subsequently contacted each by e-mail. establishing internal validity (Merriam, 1988, p. One student responded, and he was ultimately 171). For qualitative research, one can use one of unable to participate. As a result of this difficulty in recruitment, I invited students via social media and several methods to establish internal validity, and asked students in the campus dining hall to for this study, I used data triangulation and member participate; from these efforts, 4 students agreed checking. to an interview. Two students were advised by Through member checking, I attempted to faculty members who only advise students intend- confirm the interpretations of the data with those ing to complete degrees at the main campus. One from whom the data were gathered. Member student was advised by a professional advisor. One checking can help clarify meaning and minimize participant was advised by a faculty member who misunderstanding between a researcher and a teaches in the satellite campus 4-year program in participant. The researcher engages in ongoing which the student was enrolled. Thus, a total of 4 member checking throughout the data collection students participated in the focus group. phase of the study (Merriam, 1988). During the course of the data collection process, To ensure reliability for case study designs, a I learned of a campus committee created to help researcher not associated with the initial study increase retention rates. Participants suggested that must be able to undertake the same case study and the people from this committee might offer obtain similar results to the original research. To appropriate data for this study. Staff from through- ensure that the original and any follow-up studies out the campus served on this committee, and they remain identical and accurate, errors and biases all interacted with the academic advising system must be minimized in the first investigation (Yin, because of the nature of their work. Therefore, in 2003). To meet these goals for reliability, the

12 NACADA Journal Volume 37(2) 2017 Systems Theory researcher must carefully document the procedures the cooperation of administrators, the participants and develop a case study protocol. may have responded differently than they would with interviewers they did not know. To control for Data Analysis this potential of participants to answer guardedly or Data collection and analysis in descriptive case incompletely, researchers must build trust with the study research are conducted simultaneously and participants and create a safe, nonjudgmental continuously; that is, the data collection and for honest sharing. analysis phases are undertaken at the same time Other limitations relate to participant response. and build on each other. During the course of data Only four students volunteered to participate. In collection and analysis, research questions are addition, every faculty advisor who participated commonly refined, and data collection strategies reported that they value academic advising. are often changed during the study as new Participation from faculty advisors who do not information emerges. In this study, the research value advising may have added other dimensions to questions did not need to be refined. the data. According to Yin (2009), four strategies can be employed in analyzing case study data. In the most Findings appropriate strategy for this study, ‘‘developing a The data collected in this study suggest case description’’ (p. 131), the researcher describes discrepancies between the way that the MAU the findings within the context of a specific advising system is designed to work, as articulated theoretical framework. Yin (2009) advocated for in documented policies, and the way in which it this approach when ‘‘the original and explicit functions as reported by participants. Faculty purpose of the case study [is] a descriptive one’’ (p. members, students, staff, and administrators indi- 131). cated that they perceive a misunderstanding among All one-on-one and focus group interviews were those in the campus community about the purposes recorded with a digital audio recording device. A and functions of academic advising. The sole transcription service transcribed the audio record- professional advisor at the satellite campus and ings. Using Nvivo 10 (QSR International, 2014), advising administrators at the main campus all interview data were coded using a two-step expressed a shared understanding of the purposes process. During the first step, I coded data to of advising and the way that the advising system correspond to the research questions for this study. was designed to function, and they acknowledged Then, I used open coding to identify themes and that the system does not function the way it was subthemes that emerged within the data. intended. The categories established were purposes of The university-wide academic advising policy advising and function of advising. The categories was passed by the MAU Faculty Congress in the were divided into the components of Hutchins’s 1970s, and it has been revised several times. Part of (1996)frameworkforsystemstheoryto(a) the policy defines the purposes of academic describe the aspects of the advising system, (b) advising. Section 1 states the purposes of academic explain the way components of the system interact, advising: (c) determine whether the system is effective and the reasons for it working as intended, and (d)  help students to set and achieve academic identify the extent to which the system functions in goals, practice compared to the ideal as articulated in  promote intellectual development and archival documents. learning in and out of the classroom, and  encourage independent learning and aca- Limitations of the Study demic decisions. Because of the qualitative nature of this study, the findings are not generalizable, which makes up These purposes suggest that the university leans the primary limitation of the research. In addition, toward using a developmental or learning-cen- because of time and financial resource restrictions, tered approach to academic advising rather than a only one satellite campus and specific offices on predominantly prescriptive model. the main campus were studied. Also, I had Among the participants, academic advisors and professional relationships with some participants advising administrators expressed the deepest at both sites, and although these connections understanding of the purposes of academic advis- enabled me to gain access to the sites and obtain ing, and their reported of the purposes

NACADA Journal Volume 37(2) 2017 13 Sean Bridgen of advising most closely aligned with the stated between what we do with an individual who MAU goals and those reflected in the advising can say, ‘‘I learned these things and this is literature. For example, they spoke frequently what’s important to me and this is why my about the of advising in a student’s higher education was valuable.’’ Regardless educational experience and the ways that advising of the job they have or whatever, if they can help students make connections between could say ‘‘this is why this was valuable,’’ courses and across the curriculum, which are then they raise kids in a different way. And associated, in general, with a learning-centered or they make voting decisions in a different developmental advising model. Although faculty way. And we can change the rhetoric of what advisors, nonadvising administrators, and other it is to have an educated citizenry. But, one staff also acknowledged that advising entails more person at a time. Seeing the meaning in what than scheduling, their views became evident only they did, but it wasn’t just jumping through in response to probing questions about it. Themes hoops and checking things off a list. that emerged from their immediate responses were keeping students on track to graduate on time, The Director of Advising at the satellite campus retention, and career advising. All participants had a view of academic advising similar to that of were concerned about the low retention rates at the administrator at the main campus, and she MAU. The Director of Advising stated that ‘‘it all identified the primary purpose of advising as comes back to enrollment.’’ The budget is based on teaching. She emphasized that academic advisors total enrollment, so when enrollment is down, play a key role in helping students engage in their administrators feel pressure to increase retention educational endeavors. Although she explicitly rates. stated that the purposes of advising are teaching Professional advisors and advising administra- and student engagement, during her elaboration, tors also discussed the importance of the role of the Director consistently stated that retention was advisors with regard to retention and degree ultimately a function of academic advising at the completion, but their responses were nuanced. campus. The following quotes from the Director of They spoke of the importance of those issues as Advising capture this sentiment: well as concerns about student debt with regard to time to completion. However, advisors considered ‘‘The more engaged we know our students these functions as byproducts of good advising are, the more likely we are to retain them.’’ rather than as the primary purposes of advising. ‘‘I think if that engagement from the advisor One main campus advising administrator put it this was effective with every student in that, it way: would certainly help with retention.’’

In my view, I think the purpose of academic Concluding her thoughts about the purposes of advising is to facilitate students’ planning advising on campus, the Director of Advising and executing a meaningful education. And admitted that retention remained the primary goal, that’s it. Underneath that a whole bunch of reflecting the position of the nonadvising staff and other very complex things. But fundamen- administrators at the satellite campus. Although the tally, it’s about students being intentional Director of Advising understood the ideals of about their education and being aware of the advising as professed by policy and advising opportunities and making decisions that administrators at the main campus, the pressures mean something to them. That’s really it. of enrollment and retention resulted in advising being viewed primarily as a retention tool at the satellite. I spent a lot of time thinking about what it is Similar to the verbiage from the Director of we’re supposed to be accomplishing, how we Advising, faculty advisors at the satellite campus change students’ lives, how we could, over discussed the importance of advising for encour- the long-term, by changing individual stu- aging students to engage and to make meaning of dents’ lives have an impact on our higher their curriculum; the message comported with that education institutions, on and other from main campus advising administrators and things like that. I actually think it sounds advising policy. However, the advisors placed ridiculous maybe, but I see a connection greater emphasis on advising as a retention tool

14 NACADA Journal Volume 37(2) 2017 Systems Theory than on the stated policy. One faculty advisor’s students that’s all that matters to them. In the view encapsulated the sentiments of the others. He degree [I advise for] we do have 12 credits of described advising as a two-sided coin, with one what’s called consultation with advisor that side being mechanical and the other side being are courses; I call it kind of a mini minor, philosophical. He explained that the mechanical courses that enhance the degree but aren’t side shows concern for timely completion of required for the degree. I try to get them to degree requirements and course scheduling and consider content. What kind of courses fit that the philosophical side shows concern for together in that picture, but for a lot of helping students connect their course selections to students they’re just not interested in that. their academic and career goals, as articulated in MAU statements. Crookston (1972/2009) and Because of their other responsibilities, most others delineated these sides as prescriptive versus faculty advisors cannot take the time or expend the developmental versus learning-centered advising to turn students away with instructions to (Crookston 1972/2009; Hagen & Jordan, 2008; come back after they have prepared for the Lowenstein, 2005). Despite the admitted impor- meeting. The time crunch, coupled with students’ tance of the philosophical side, the mechanical little interest in discussing the philosophical side of (prescriptive) side remains the focus of the advising, results in advising appointments that advising practice at MAU. As the faculty advisor almost always focus on the mechanical aspects of summarized: ‘‘So I think the theoretical and the advising. philosophical stuff is more important, but we don’t Of the four students who participated in the focus on it.’’ focus group, three were planning to finish their When asked the reason that he was unable to degrees at the main campus, and one planned to focus on the philosophical aspect of advising, the complete his degree at the satellite campus. These faculty advisor stated that students come to students also worked with different types of advising appointments unprepared; that is, he advisors. One student was advised by the Director claimed that they typically expect the advisor to of Advising; the student intending to graduate from tell them the classes they need to graduate and to the satellite campus was advised by a faculty build their course schedules. Furthermore, he noted member who teaches in the student’s declared that, in most cases, students do not want to have program; and two students were advised by faculty more philosophical discussions. Another academic members responsible for advising students who advisor expressed similar concerns and frustrations intend to complete degrees at the main campus. with the advising process: These students were enrolled in different majors, and therefore, had different advisors. The student advised by the Director of Advising Well, I see advising as to help lead students, very vocally spoke about the high quality of but I think students see it as doing it for advising she received. Her advisor was very them. That’s something, especially because I helpful in a number of ways, including in have so many advisees that I do get interpreting academic policy, in understanding her frustrated with. I think a lot of the times own strengths, and by suggesting courses to help the students could do a lot of this on their enhance her education. The student enrolled in the own, and they just need confirmation that satellite campus degree program had a similar they’re going about it the right way, but experience with his program faculty advisor. He many of the students, for whatever reason, stated, ‘‘I don’t think I’ve asked a question that she just come in and expect you to do it for them. didn’t . . . she wasn’t able to find the answer or give That’s something I’ve been working with, me the right direction or anything like that.’’ trying to give them more ownership over One of the students who planned to complete their degree. his degree on the main campus described a very different experience than the advisees of the Director of Advising and the program faculty For a lot of students it’s very mechanical: member. He explained the reasons for displeasure ‘‘What are the courses that I need to with his interaction with his assigned advisor: ‘‘I graduate? Who teaches it? What time is it haven’t had much advising experience. Recently I at? What days are they at? Do I have friends had to drop a class and add another one, but my who are in that course?’’ I think for a lot of advisor had like zero answers. I e-mailed her, and

NACADA Journal Volume 37(2) 2017 15 Sean Bridgen she was just like, ‘I don’t know what to do; go talk eight-semester , and the university catalog), to this person,’ and that was pretty much the base students should be relatively certain about the of my advising.’’ courses they need to take, how to schedule them, and those that satisfy specific requirements. Discussion Ironically, these tools were developed and The two tenets of systems theory provide a provided to students so that advisors would have useful framework for helping understand the more time to discuss philosophical issues. identity of a system. The first tenet addresses the The system glitch for professional and faculty multiple purposes of complex social systems advisors stems from keeping a busy schedule and (Hutchins, 1996), which are defined by the thus not turning away inadequately prepared subjective interpretation of the people in the students and insisting they return only after system. preparing for the meeting. In addition, the pressure to retain students seems to result in a Purposes of Advising as Reported by customer-service mentality through which the Professionals advisors feel discomfort in holding students The nonstudent participants interviewed for accountable. Advisors reported that, in some this study reported multiple purposes for the cases, students do not demonstrate the ability to advising system. They mentioned sustaining complete basic tasks, such as keeping a day retention, enrolling students in proper courses at planner. One advisor reported that she spends the correct time, teaching life skills, career significant time teaching students basic skills. advising, and helping students with course While such training tangentially relates to the selection and making the most of their education. purpose of helping students to engage in their Despite espousing similar purposes for advis- education, efforts dedicated to tutoring on ing, professional advisors and nonadvising staff practical tasks prevent advisors from helping and administrators expressed very different views students develop intellectually, stated as a very about the purposes of academic advising. Profes- important part of advising in the literature and sional advisors see course selection, major university policy. choice, and keeping students on track as by- Misperceptions about advising held by satellite products of advising. Administrators and the campus administrators and nonadvising staff can professional advisor at the satellite campus did contribute to student misperceptions. For exam- not mention retention as a purpose of advising; ple, a student who receives a class-selection or however, when asked about the purposes of scheduling referral from an authority figure who advising, the administrators and nonadvising staff views scheduling as a prescriptive advising at the satellite campus clearly prioritized retention exercise might expect to receive only a list of and keeping students on track to reach their goals. appropriate courses from the advisor. As a result Professional advisors never mentioned career of erroneous presumptions about advising by advising as a purpose of the advising system, those making the referrals, students might neither but faculty advisors, nonadvising staff, and anticipate nor engage in the kind of reflective administrators reported it. process with an advisor that leads to the best The faculty advisors interviewed reported a possible course-related decisions. This can result desire to address more philosophical issues in the student having unfulfilled expectations and related to advising and to spend less time on leaving an advising appointment feeling that the advising mechanical in nature. The advising advisor was not helpful. Furthermore, these literature characterizes the mechanical and phil- misunderstandings result in primarily prescrip- osophical goals as prescriptive and developmental tive, rather than developmental or learning- advising, respectively (Crookston, 1972/2009). If centered, advising contrary to MAU policy. they could prioritize philosophical aspects, advi- The faculty advisors, administrators, and non- sor practice would align more closely with the advising staff showed no familiarity with the advising goals as stated in MAU policy. Because advising literature and demonstrated little under- students typically do not prepare for appoint- standing of the deep learning that the advising ments, the advising sessions are dominated by policy advances. This lack of information stems mechanical issues, such as checking degree from dearth of formal training about the theory requirements and building semester schedules. and philosophy of advising. More problematic, With the electronic tools available (degree audits, nonadvisors and campus administrators reported

16 NACADA Journal Volume 37(2) 2017 Systems Theory advising purposes as more related to other have more time to do your research . . . in some functional areas, such as career services and way you’re being rewarded because you do not learning support, than as helping students to set want to advise.’’ The tenure-track faculty mem- academic goals, achieve intellectual development bers teach three courses per semester so that they and learning, or engage in independent learning can dedicate more time to conduct research. The and academic decision making. faculty members who do not enjoy advising are In one of the most common responses, thus incentivized to practice less-than-excellent advisors expressed the need to help students advising because students will seek out others think about careers and choose majors that lead to deemed better, thereby allowing the uninterested certain careers. The participants mentioned pur- advisors more time to research. These two poses more consistent with learning-centered or reinforcing loops, the positive one in which developmental advising only when they were student access is increased and the negative one directly asked about these purposes. In response through which research faculty members avoid to the inquiry, the advisors agreed to the some advising responsibilities, characterize the importance of learning-centered or developmental means by which the advising system operates. advising, but never offered goals of these Because of multiple demands on faculty practices as purposes for advising despite ele- advisors, the increased time spent on advising ments of these approaches embodied in the by good advisors counters their ability to discuss published MAU advising policy. the philosophical topics encouraged by advising policy. Compounding that dynamic, as explained Effect of Reinforcing Loops on Advising by faculty advisors, many students arrive to Musser (2006) explained Hutchins’s eighth appointments expecting their advisors to tell principle of systems theory: ‘‘Understanding how them the classes to take, keep track of their a system achieves its purpose(s) is essential to degree completion, and build schedules suitable understanding the system of interest’’ (p. 101). to them. Advising purposes are achieved because some advisors enjoy working toward the related goals. Retention as the Primary Goal of Advising Faculty members at the satellite campus who do The emphasis on retention and keeping not enjoy working on these priorities do not need students on track for graduation overrides advis- to advise or advise well because they are ing topics identified in the MAU policy, and evaluated only on the number of advisees hence, persistence often becomes the only subject assigned to them. discussed during an appointment. All study As confirmed by one of the student partici- participants voiced concern about low retention pants and the Campus Dean, students learn the rates at the campus because enrollments affect the identity of good advisors via word of mouth. budget. The campus Director of Advising con- They seek the help of these good advisors rather cluded that ‘‘it all comes back to enrollment.’’ than those to whom they are assigned. This Advising issues that bubble up to the admin- student behavior results in the effective advisors istration typically originate when a student seeing more students than the advisors to whom perceives that the advisor has made a mistake students were assigned. According to one faculty regarding course selection (despite a policy that advisor, she has 70 advisees officially assigned to clearly states students take responsibility for her but she advises close to 120 students. In course selection). Because administrators get systems theory, this is called a reinforcing loop; in involved with advising only when complaints the reality of this overloaded advisor, it is called surface, the message that the purpose of advising ‘‘good advising equals more advising’’ as stated primarily involves keeping students on track for by the Director of Advising. graduation—retention—is reinforced. This rein- Another reinforcing loop from the system forcing loop keeps the focus on retention over dynamic of self-selecting good advisors means other important purposes. that weak advisors to do less advising than Ironically, the university invests considerable expected. This negative reinforcing loop reinforc- resources to provide students with the tools they es nonadvising priorities. For instance, formal need to ensure that they complete their educa- incentives for the faculty are based on research, tional plans to graduation. Academic advisors so as one faculty advisor noted, ‘‘[If] you are not from the Advising College took the responsibility, advising you are [doing less work], and then you with encouragement from the Academic Advising

NACADA Journal Volume 37(2) 2017 17 Sean Bridgen

Board, to build 4-year semester plans for each of well, with not able to respond the 160 majors at the university. In addition, the to the ‘‘human needs’’ components of student includes a degree advising, academic advising finds itself audit function, which generates a report of a surviving within an environment of dimin- student’s academic record compared against any ishing student resources . . . and ironically, degree that he or she has expressed interest in with greater student demands for contact. completing. Furthermore, the university has (pp. 16–17) dedicated much time and great attention to develop and maintain various web sites with With rising tuition, low employment rates for advising information for students and advisors recent college graduates, and disinvestment of alike. The advising policy clearly states that public higher education, the need for advisors is students must take ultimate responsibility for increasing. White and Schulenberg (2012) scheduling the proper courses and checking their stressed the importance of advising assessment own educational progress; the tools described to demonstrate to administrators that advising is were created to aid in their self-management. If worth the investment. A rigorous assessment students were truly held responsible for their own program must be included as a crucial component progress such that they came prepared for in any advising system for determining whether appointments, then advisors could spend more advising goals are accomplished. time discussing the philosophical issues that can To reach academic advising goals, all personnel make advising the rich educational endeavor that associated with an advising system must be the policy and advising literature define as the educated about the theory and philosophy of purposes advising. advising so that they can understand the critical Because advising is not formally evaluated or purposes of advising. If the people who interact assessed, advisors receive feedback about advis- with the system do not deeply internalize the goals ing only when a student complains, which of the system, they will unlikely act in accordance reinforces any anxiety about making mistakes. with the goals. Academic advisors must take Because of all of the dynamics in the advising responsibility for the way that they practice system, the primary purpose of advising at the advising. The necessary self-assessment and im- satellite campus has emerged as prescriptive provement rely on measurable outcomes and advising such that it effectively serves as the proper training so advisors can be held accountable primary function of advising for many faculty for outcomes that are defined and explained; members, staff, and students. expectations for advising outcomes without proper training or explanation would prove untenable. Implications of the Study Moreover, in this advising system study, According to higher education researchers, advisors deemed ‘‘good’’ by students see more academic advising makes up an essential compo- advisees than advisors without a positive reputation nent for undergraduate education and student for advising. The two themes related to this, ‘‘good success (Kuh, 1997, 2010; Light, 2001; Low- advising equals more advising’’ and ‘‘advising enstein, 2005; Schulenberg, 2010; Schulenberg & enables the weak to avoid advising’’ create Lindhorst, 2010; White & Schulenberg, 2012). particularly problematic reinforcing loops because White and Schulenberg (2012) explained: they reward unwanted behavior by enabling poor advisors to see fewer students while earning the Contemporary higher education faces in- same credit for advising as those who are deemed creasing pressure from external sources to effective, who often receive overwhelming in- demonstrate accountability. As support for creased advising workloads. higher education dwindles at public institu- This unfair situation for good advisors also tions, and as every program, service depart- harms students. As one student stated, ‘‘I think if I ment and unit may be asked to justify its had a helpful advisor like that I’d feel comfortable existence; the activity of academic advising going to them to help me schedule, but after what is not exempt from these pressures. With no happened the first semester, like, I know I one (or thing) to replace the staff academic scheduled my second semester all by myself.’’ In advisor, with faculty advisors stretched to other words, this student has decided to stop their limits not only with advisees but with seeking the help of his advisor because of his teaching and research responsibilities as experience with an advisor who did not want to

18 NACADA Journal Volume 37(2) 2017 Systems Theory advise. Faculty members, staff, and administrators lofty, ideals might benefit from using systems demonstrated keen of these issues, yet theory to determine the ways current advising they persist, and likely these dynamics affect other systems behave in practice. Because the behavior universities as well. If university leadership of a system determines the identity of the system, seriously wishes to provide high quality advising, understanding of advising system behaviors at then policies, assessment strategies, and incentives multiple institutions would significantly improve must be closely examined to ensure that the the efforts of those in academic advising who are advising system is designed to facilitate practice working to establish a unique identity. consistent with policy. References Summary Banathy, B. H. (1996a). Designing social systems More than 40 years after Crookston (1972/ in a changing world. New York, NY: Plenum. 2009) penned his seminal article, which was the Banathy, B. H. (1996b). The of systems first to suggest that advising consists of more than inquiry. The First International Electronic prescriptive tasks, those dedicated to the field of Seminar on Wholeness. Retrieved from Inter- academic advising still struggle to establish a national Society of Systems Sciences web site: distinct identity. The quest for normative advising http://www.isss.org/primer/evolve1.htm theory may prove of limited utility in practice Banathy, B. H., & Jenlink, P. M. (2004). Systems because the context of the university determines inquiry and its application in education. In D. the true identity of advising at any specific H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for institution. Prescribing ideal functions, purposes, educational and technology or goals of advising, although noble endeavors, (pp. 37–58). Bloomington, IN: Association for must be designed by universities such that the Educational Communications and Technology. goals can be realized within the systems in place. Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems MAU proved an excellent example of the practice. New York, NY: Wiley. mismatch between policy and practice. Advising Checkland, P. (2000). : scholars and practitioners generally agree on the A thirty year retrospective. Systems research superiority of a developmental or learning-centered and behavioral sciences, 17, S11–S58. advising model over predominately prescriptive Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and paradigms (Lowenstein, 1999, 2005; White & research design: Choosing among five ap- Schulenberg, 2012). MAU has committed tremen- proaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: dous human and financial resources to not only Sage. advocate for academic advising that goes beyond Crookston, B. B. (2009). A developmental view prescriptive functions but also to support the of academic advising as teaching. NACADA scholarship of advising by encouraging staff to Journal, 29(1), 78–82. (Reprinted from Jour- write about advising, attend conferences, and nal of College Student Personnel, 13 [1972], publish in a refereed advising journal. However, 5–9) at the satellite campus studied, prescriptive advis- Hagen, P. L. (2005). Theory building in academic ing dominates the advising enterprise. advising. NACADA Journal, 25(2), 3–8. Ultimately, the lack of identity or confusion Hagen, P. L., & Jordan, P. (2008). Theoretical about advising at MAU is not caused by lack of foundations of academic advising. In V. N. scholarship on normative theory or unarticulated Gordon, W. R. Habley, & T. J. Grites (Eds.), goals and objectives, but rather systemic issues that Academic advising: A comprehensive hand- perpetuate and exacerbate a culture of prescriptive book (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- advising. Although this study is not generalizable Bass. to other campuses, the methods used here, as well Hemwall, M. K., & Trachte, K. C. (2005). as those described in Musser (2006), could help to Academic advising as learning: 10 organizing uncover similar issues at other postsecondary principles. NACADA Journal, 25(2), 74–83. institutions. Continued study of advising systems Hutchins, L. C. (1996). Systems thinking: Solving may reveal the underlying causes for the lack of complex problems. Saint Louis, MO: Profes- identity lamented in the advising literature. sional Devlopment Systems. University leadership interested in creating Kuh, G. D. (1997). The student learning agenda: advising systems that support student engagement, Implications for academic advisors. NACADA intellectual development, and other worthy, but Journal, 17(2), 7–12.

NACADA Journal Volume 37(2) 2017 19 Sean Bridgen

Kuh, G. D. (2010). What educators and admin- practice and scholarship of academic advising. istrators need to know about college student NACADA Journal, 28(1), 43–53. engagement. In S. R. Harper & J. F. L. Jackson Schulenberg, J., & Lindhorst, M. (2010). The (Eds.), Introduction to American Higher historical foundations and scholarly future of Education. New York, NY: Routledge. academic advising. In P. Hagen, T. L. Kuhn, & Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college. G. Padak (Eds.), Scholarly inquiry in academ- Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ic advising (pp. 17–27). San Francisco, CA: Lowenstein, M. (1999, November 22). An alternative to the developmental theory of Jossey-Bass. advising. The Mentor: An Academic Advising Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new Journal. Retrieved from http://dus.psu.edu/ science: Discovering order in a chaotic world mentor/old/articles/991122ml.htm (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler. Lowenstein, M. (2005). If advising is teaching, White, E., & Schulenberg, J. (2012). Academic what do advisors teach? NACADA Journal, advising: A focus on learning. About Campus, 25(2), 65–73. 16(6), 11–17. Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Green. Sage Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Musser, T. K. (2006). A case study: Examining an and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: academic advising system at a large institution Sage. using systems theory constructs. Retrieved from the Penn State University web site: https:// search.proquest.com/docview/305282974 Author’s Note QSR International. (2014). Nvivo for Mac Sean T. Bridgen is the Associate Director for (Version 10) [ software]. Retrieved Academic Advising at Penn State New Ken- from http://www.qsrinternational.com sington. He holds a doctorate in Administration Schulenberg, J. (2010, October). Reinforcing the and Leadership Studies from Indiana Univer- foundation: Learning from the past to strengthen our future. Paper presented at the sity of Pennsylvania. Dr. Bridgen also teaches National Academic Advising Association Re- graduate courses in the foundations of aca- gion 2 Conference, Atlantic City, NJ. demic advising and student development theory. Schulenberg, J. K., & Lindhorst, M. J. (2008) This study is based on his doctoral dissertation. Advising is advising: Toward defining the He can be reached at [email protected].

20 NACADA Journal Volume 37(2) 2017