University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Departure from the student affairs profession: a study of professionals who left the field

(USC Thesis Other)

Departure from the student affairs profession: a study of professionals who left the field

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION:
A STUDY OF PROFESSIONALS WHO LEFT THE FIELD
by

Lily Parker

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2022

Copyright 2022 Lily Parker
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my son, Mason and my daughter, Bodhi. I had often
contemplated not finishing my dissertation to be more present for the two of you and realized
that the most important reason to complete this work was to be a role model for you both. To my
Mason, I hope you will forever be the sweet, wise, and intelligent human being. You are the
reason I chose to leave the student affairs profession. As an older parent and after many years of
hoping for you, I chose to be available and accessible and have no regrets about my decision to
leave. To my feisty and funny Bodhi, your name means enlightenment and awakening and you
have been exactly that in my life; so much more than you can ever imaging during a time when I
needed it most. I hope you will always be strong, brave and insightful. Thank you, both, for
choosing me as your mom.

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Time spent working on a dissertation comes without sacrifices from family, friends, and
freedom. To my husband and life partner, Martin Parker. I thank you for all your support and
encouragement throughout this process. You did your best to distract the kids to allow me the
time to research and write. I appreciate all the times you had to cook for the kids and take care of
the house as I worked on the computer.
To my parents, I can’t imagine going through this process without your support
especially when the kids were born. You have made yourselves available to babysit when needed
so that I can pursue my education. I am thankful that the kids have such loving grandparents in
their life and I’m thankful for your willingness to drive an hour and a half to help raise them.
To my close network of friends, I’ve never been great about staying connected especially
while working in student affairs and throughout my dissertation. But you all have been
wonderful about connecting with me and including me. A special thank you to Dr. Mary Ho for
your constant follow-ups and texts to see where I’m at in this dissertation process. From the time
I was a student and throughout my professional career, I have looked up to you as a friend,
mentor, confidant, and, more importantly, what I aspired to be while in the profession. A special
thank you to Dr. Angela Chen for guiding and cheering me on through this time. You were one
of the first in our group to earn your doctorate in higher education. I remember attending your
graduation and how incredibly proud and happy I was for you. I never imagined I may be on my
way to graduation as well. Thank you for talking through the challenges you experienced, for
guiding me on this path to completion, and for celebrating my accomplishments with me.
To Dr. Tracy Tambascia, a huge thank you for agreeing to be my dissertation chair and
for the many years spent guiding, encouraging, and supporting me through this process. You
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
iv
believed in me when I didn’t believe in myself. You have been so supportive of my decision to
move forward with this topic. Even before entering the doctoral program, you have been a source
of wisdom and guidance regarding professional and personal life challenges. I can’t thank you
enough for talking me off the ledge at times, for your honest perspective of my work, for the
many edits you have made to my writing and for this opportunity you have given me. It is
because of you that the opportunity for me to complete my dissertation and earn a doctorate
degree exists.
To my committee members Dr. Lynette Merriman and Dr. Patricia Tobey, I am so
thankful that you both agreed to be a part of my committee. I can’t think of two better
individuals with the knowledge and expertise in student affairs to help me through this process.
You both have been a source of inspiration to me over the years and the ideal of what I aspired to
be while in the student affairs profession. Although I am no longer a part of the profession, I
continue to model your leadership to the best of my ability. I’m very much an observer and while
you may not have realized, I took note of your leadership styles, how you worked with students
and staff with so much heart and empathy, how you both addressed difficult situations with such
professionalism and ease, and how you both are examples of hard work and dedication to the
student experience.
To the participants of this study, thank you for your thoughtfulness, vulnerability,
courage and strength. I value and appreciate taking the time for someone you don’t know and the
many words of encouragement that helped me complete this work.
A special thank you to Dr. Guadalupe Montano for reviewing and helping with edits. You
have opened my eyes to the writing errors of my past and have inspired me to be a better writer
in the future.
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...............................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................................2
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................................3
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................................4
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................................5
Definition of Terms ......................................................................................................................6
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................7
Chapter Two: Literature Review .....................................................................................................8
A Brief History of Student Affairs ...............................................................................................9
Pursuing a Career in Student Affairs ..........................................................................................15
Research on Attrition .................................................................................................................20
Realities and Challenges to the Profession ................................................................................24
Self-Authorship ..........................................................................................................................32
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................40
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................41
Research Questions ....................................................................................................................41
Qualitative Research Methods ...................................................................................................42
Instrumentation ...........................................................................................................................45
Data Collection ...........................................................................................................................48
Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................50
Trustworthiness ..........................................................................................................................52
Role of Researcher .....................................................................................................................52
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................53
Chapter Four: Presentation of Data and Findings ..........................................................................54
Participant Overview and Profiles ..............................................................................................54
Emerging Themes ......................................................................................................................63
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................90
Chapter Five: Discussion, Recommendations and Implications ....................................................91
Discussion of Findings ...............................................................................................................92
Self-Authorship ..........................................................................................................................99
Recommendations ....................................................................................................................101
Implications ..............................................................................................................................105
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
vi
Future Research ........................................................................................................................106
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................108
References ....................................................................................................................................110
Appendices ...................................................................................................................................118
Appendix A Self-Authorship ...........................................................................................118
Appendix B Recruitment Letter .......................................................................................119
Appendix C Survey Protocol ...........................................................................................120
Appendix D Interview Protocol .......................................................................................127
Appendix E Information Sheet ........................................................................................130

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Participant Demographics: Overview 56
Table 2: Participant Demographics: Last Position Held With Institution Size, Region and Type 57
Table 3: Survey Demographics of Current Professionals 79
Table 4: Survey Demographics of Former Professionals 81
Table 5: Future Plans to Remain in the Profession 82
Table 6: Satisfaction of Professional Position and Life Outside of Work 84
Table 7: Opinions of the Profession 87

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Self-Authorship. Diagram of the Three Dimensions, four Phases, and Three
Elements 33
Figure 2: Future Plans to Remain in the Profession Graph 82
Figure 3: Satisfaction of Professional Position and Life Outside of Work Graph 85
Figure 4: Opinions of the Profession Graph 88
Figure 5: Net Promotor Score: Percentage Breakdown by Former and Current Student Affairs
Professionals 89
Figure 6: Net Promotor Score of Former and Current Student Affairs Professionals 90

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
ix
ABSTRACT
This qualitative study sought to understand the experiences that contributed to departure from the
student affairs profession from individuals who were no longer a part of the field. The study
focused on one main research question: What are the experiences of student affairs professionals
that contribute to their decision to leave the profession? Three subsequent questions provided
insight into personal and professional experiences that contribute to that decision as well as into
the type of opportunities professionals were leaving the field to pursue. Baxter Magolda’s (2001)
theory of self-authorship was used as a theoretical framework to better understand participants’
experiences and decision-making process. A survey of current and former student affairs
professionals as well as interviews with former student affairs professionals were conducted to
answer the research question. The study found that a progression of experiences like
unsustainable expectations of the profession, a combination of multiple negative experiences
leading to a decline of self-efficacy, the desire to prioritize one’s self and the limitation of
professional advancement options contributed to departure from student affairs for study
participants. In addition, participants of this study described a feeling of isolation from
supervisors and others within the institution that accelerated their desire to leave the profession.
Recommendations relate to improving the experiences of new and mid-level student affairs
professionals to increase support initiatives and provide knowledge and skill development as the
profession evolves. Finally, future research opportunities are suggested to gain a holistic
understanding of this problem to decrease attrition in the student affairs profession.
Keywords: Student affairs, attrition in student affairs, departure from student affairs,
former student affairs professionals
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The practice of student affairs has a long history in American higher education, although
it was not formally recognized as a profession until the early 20th century (Long, 2012; Thelin &
Gasman, 2017). World events, the changing student population, and government and local
politics influenced the evolution of student affairs work (Dalton & Crosby, 2011; Long, 2012).
During the early years, these professionals were often disciplinarians and parental figures for
students (Long, 2012; Thelin & Gasman, 2017). Today, student affairs professionals contribute
to students’ success in higher education by addressing their social, emotional, and co-curricular
needs outside of classroom instruction (Dalton & Crosby, 2011; Long, 2012). Student affairs
professionals serve as mentors, counselors, and educators and help to develop students by
providing them with skills in leadership, sociocultural understanding, civic engagement and
service, and other basic life skills (Long, 2012). The rewarding opportunity to work with
students and to help shape their personal and professional success are some of the reasons people
are drawn to this profession (Taub & McEwen, 2006).
Positions in student affairs typically require a master’s degree or higher as professionals
are expected to possess competencies and skillsets to manage the needs of a constantly changing
student population (Dalton & Crosby, 2011; Long, 2012; Renn & Jessup-Anger, 2008; Rosser &
Javinar, 2003; Taub & McEwen, 2006; Tull et al., 2011). Participation in graduate programs is
also an investment of time devoted to learning and money that can be costly to the individual
(Mertz et al., 2012; Tull et al., 2011). A search for programs in the National Association of
Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) graduate program directory found more than 250
records of master’s preparation programs in higher education, student affairs, and other related
careers. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) a little over 4,000
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
2
master’s degrees in student affairs and other related services were conferred in 2015–16. While a
number of programs were developed to prepare professionals in this field and thousands graduate
from these programs, 60% of student affairs professionals leave the field within the first 10 years
in the profession (Holmes et al., 1983; Lorden, 1998; Marshall et al., 2016).
Statement of the Problem
Research indicated high rates of attrition among new professionals in the field for less
than 5 years and mid-level professionals in roles below senior-level positions and having at least
one direct report (Lorden, 1998; Marshall et al., 2016; Renn & Hodges, 2007; Rosser & Javinar,
2003; Wilson et al., 2016). Early research on job satisfaction in student affairs by Bender in the
1980s uncovered that new and mid-level professionals were among the most dissatisfied with
their careers. A little less than 3 decades after the first study was published, Bender (2009)
discovered that new and mid-level professionals continued to be more dissatisfied with their
careers. Approximately 60% of new and mid-level student affairs professionals were estimated
to depart from the profession within the first 10 years of their professional careers (Holmes et al.,
1983; Lorden, 1998; Marshall et al., 2016).
Turnover in student affairs can present challenges to university employers as well as to
students. Replacing an employee in any professional position can be costly to the employer as it
involves recruitment, hiring, onboarding, and training (Dube et al., 2010). Turnovers result in a
loss of knowledge and investment within student affairs as well as the functional area the
individual served (Rosser & Javinar, 2003). Departures also impact the ability of university
departments to preserve the continuity and quality of services delivered to students, ultimately
affecting their ability to contribute to the institution’s mission (Lorden, 1998; Rosser & Javinar,
2003).
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
3
Available research included a number of studies relating to why people enter the field,
graduate preparation programs, why people stay in the field, and requisite skills for success
(Anderson et al., 2000; Herdlein et al., 2013; Renn & Jessup-Anger, 2008; Taub & McEwen,
2006). However, research on those who left the field and why is limited (Marshall et al., 2016).
In addition, research on attrition and other statistics relating to their departure is from 20 to 30
years ago (Evans, 1988; Holmes et al., 1983; Lorden, 1998). Published literature focused more
on the challenges professionals face in the field, job satisfaction, intent to leave, and turnover
from one higher education institution to another (Bender, 2009; Forney et al., 1982; Jo, 2008).
There is a dearth of literature on individuals’ roles in student affairs and their departure from the
profession.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore experiences that contribute to student affairs
professionals’ decision to leave the field. The research focused on individuals who graduated
from a master’s preparation program, worked in a student affairs position for at least a year, and
left within 10 years of completing their graduate work. The 10-year timeframe was an
appropriate range to identify new professionals who have been in the field for less than 5 years,
and mid-level professionals having one direct report. Those in senior-level positions were not the
focus but were included in this study. Baxter Magolda’s (2001) theory of self-authorship was
used as a lens to better understand individuals’ experiences and decision-making processes.
Researching experiences of individuals who are no longer in the student affairs profession
provides a better understanding of why people leave the field. This study also explored the types
of personal and professional experiences that contribute to the decision to leave. In addition, the
study examined the types of opportunities individuals left the profession to pursue.
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
4
Research Questions
1. What are the experiences of student affairs professionals that contribute to their decision
to leave the profession?
a. How do personal experiences contribute to the decision to depart from the student
affairs profession?
b. How do professional experiences contribute to the decision to depart from the
student affairs profession?
c. What other opportunities are these professionals leaving the field to pursue?
Significance of the Study
Following the study’s completion, the results and implications for practice can be used to
inform college and university leaders, leadership within student affairs, and graduate preparation
programs. They also add to the existing literature. According to Dalton and Crosby (2011),
student affairs departments encompass a multitude of functions and services that create
challenges to identify and define the profession as well as their specific role within the
university. Senior university leadership can benefit from understanding the complexities of
student affairs professionals’ duties. A better understanding of the profession may also help to
engage and retain student affairs professionals at the university and in the field. According to
Marshall et al. (2016), work in student affairs may involve long hours, low pay, and emotional
taxation when addressing student crisis, which are some of the experiences that contribute to
individuals’ departure. Therefore, the results from this study may serve as a reminder to student
affairs leadership regarding the experience new and mid-level professionals encounter in their
work. The study may also be useful for student affairs graduate programs, as they introduce the
profession and are the initial stages of socialization into the profession (Tull et al., 2011).
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
5
Reviewing aspects of why people leave student affairs may help emerging professionals gain a
sense of what to expect and how best to navigate their professional experience. Finally,
following the completion of this study, the results will contribute to the limited body of literature
on attrition in the student affairs profession.
Limitations and Delimitations
There were two main limitations to this study. First, the number of research participants
was contingent on identifying individuals who no longer were a part of the student affairs
profession. The individuals who left the field may no longer be connected with student affairs
networks or other association groups. Thus, identifying potential participants was challenging.
Although the focus of this study were professionals who have worked in student affairs for up to
10 years, individuals who had been in the field for up to 15 years were considered due to the
difficulty in identifying possible participants.
The second limitation involved the researcher’s connection to the subject matter. The
researcher served in a mid-level position before leaving the student affairs profession and needed
to be conscious of bias that may have influenced the research (Maxwell, 2013). The researcher
critically reflected on personal experiences to ensure that the methodology and results were
determined with the utmost integrity (Merriam, 2009).
This study did not include individuals who left the field for a time and returned. Only
those who, at the time of the study, left a student affairs role at an institution of higher education
were considered. The study only included those who had worked in a student affairs position as
opposed to an academic affairs/academic advising, auxiliary services, or other university
teaching or service position. The study focused only on those with a shared experience in student
affairs. The interview portion of this study did not include professionals who left the field after
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
6
serving in a senior-level role. Although, senior-level professionals and former professionals were
surveyed, only individuals who left the field after serving in entry and mid-level positions were
considered as research subjects.
Definition of Terms
Attrition: People who left the student affairs profession (Marshall et al., 2016).
Departure: Departure from the student affairs profession refers to leaving a position in
pursuit of “career and/or personal goals” and is used interchangeably with attrition in this study
(Kortegast & Hamrick, 2009, p. 187).
Functional areas of student affairs: Departments or centers housed under student affairs
(Long, 2012). This included departments such as student activities, orientation programs,
leadership development, residential education, recreational sports, disability services, counseling
services, career services, fraternity and sorority life, and judicial and case management (Dalton
& Crosby, 2011; Long, 2012). For this study, student affairs functional areas did not include
academic advising, admissions, financial aid, athletics, development, faculty or auxiliary
services.
Graduate preparation program: Master’s programs that educate and prepare individuals
for work in student affairs (Renn & Jessup-Anger, 2008).
Mid-level professional: Student affairs professionals in positions below a senior-level
administrator and having at least one direct report (Wilson et al., 2016).
New professional: A full-time professional in a student affairs position for less than 5
years (Renn & Hodges, 2007).
Student affairs: A profession that focused on the student’s social, emotional, and
academic needs and is also known as serving the whole student (American Council on
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
7
Education, 1937; Keeling, 2004). A function of the university that provides service and
education to students outside of the classroom (Long, 2012).
Student affairs practitioner or practitioner: A person who engaged in the professional
practice of student affairs (Kupo, 2014). Used interchangeably with student affairs professional
in this study.
Conclusion
More than half of people entering graduate preparation programs in student affairs will
leave the field within the first 10 years of entering the profession (Holmes et al., 1983; Lorden,
1998; Marshall et al., 2016). The next chapter provides a review of literature in order to better
understand why people choose to depart from the student affairs profession. An overview of the
history and background of the profession and the process of pursuing a career in this field is
examined. The review of literature also includes related research on departure from the
profession, attrition statistics, and the theoretical framework for this study.

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
8
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Within higher education institutions, work in student affairs is often associated with
student engagement as a complement to the classroom experience (Long, 2012). The ultimate
objective of the profession was to work in concert with academic departments to advance the
institution’s mission by focusing on the personal and professional development of the total
student, also referred to as the holistic development of the student (Keeling, 2004). Dalton and
Crosby (2011) identified four broad concepts that describe the purpose of student affairs: student
services, student development, student learning, and student success. Student services was the
first concept that described the purpose of student affairs and was explained as any college
student service or need. For the second concept, Dalton and Crosby (2011) identified student
development as central to the profession and involving the students’ social and emotional
development. Student learning was the third concept that connects classroom teachings with
practical experience. The final concept that described the profession was student success,
involving programs that contribute to students’ personal and academic persistence.
Departments or divisions of student affairs can consist of a number of functional areas,
including advising, student activities, orientation programs, leadership development, residential
education, recreational sports, disability services, counseling services, and career services
(Dalton & Crosby, 2011; Long, 2012; Wilson, 2017). Differing roles and responsibilities, along
with the constantly changing demands of each functional area, made it difficult to classify the
work of student affairs professionals (Dalton & Crosby, 2011). In addition, the organization of
these departments or divisions differs by institution, based on ideology, mission, and need, to
best serve their students (Wilson, 2017). To better understand the field’s complexities, it is
important to begin with the profession’s historical context and development.
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
9
A Brief History of Student Affairs
The emergence of the student affairs field was relatively new in the historical
development of higher education in the United States (Dalton & Crosby, 2011; Long, 2012).
American higher education began with Harvard as the first college established in 1636 (Rudolph
& Thelin, 1990). In the early years, higher education focused on educating the elite as clergy or
statesmen, and religion was at the foundation of these institutions. Differing and competing
religious ideals prompted the creation of colleges in the colonial era (Thelin & Gasman, 2017).
Discontentment with facilities, curriculum, and stringent rules plagued the colonial colleges and
often resulted in disruptive student behavior. Within these colleges, faculty performed a
multitude of duties serving in loco parentis as educators, care-takers, and disciplinarians to
students (Schwartz & Stewart, 2017; Thelin & Gasman, 2017).
During the early years of higher education, the homogeneous student population
consisted of wealthy, White males. Enrollment of women and people of color began towards the
end of the Civil War in the 1860s (Schwartz & Stewart, 2017). In 1862, the United States
government passed the Morrill Land Grant Act, designating land and funding to develop colleges
for agricultural and mechanical education and training (Rudolph & Thelin, 1990). In 1890,
funding was extended to Black colleges with the second Land Grant Act (Thelin & Gasman,
2017). As a result, state colleges emerged and access to higher education, as well as enrollment,
increased. The student population began to change to include men, women, and people of color
(Schwartz & Stewart, 2017). An increase in higher education students during the mid to late
1800s, along with the emergence of coeducation, required colleges to bring on administrators to
oversee their students (Hevel, 2016; Schwartz & Stewart, 2017). These administrators were the
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
10
first examples of student affairs professionals hired to address students’ needs and concerns,
specifically to oversee women enrolled at their institution.
Early Professionals and Associations
While there were discrepancies regarding the first student affairs professionals, early
administrators more closely connected to student affairs were positioned as deans of women and
deans of men (Hevel, 2016; Schwartz & Stewart, 2017). In 1892, Alice Freeman Palmer became
the first person to hold the position of dean of women at the University of Chicago. Three years
after her appointment, Palmer resigned, and her assistant, Marion Talbot, assumed the role
(Schwartz & Stewart, 2017). Considered a pioneer in the student affairs profession, Talbot
organized many gatherings for other deans of women to discuss challenges and best practices. In
1916, the National Association of Deans of Women was formed as the first professional
association for women in this field. Around this time, Columbia University’s Teachers College
in New York created the first graduate program with a curriculum focusing on this profession.
Not long after, the first studies directly relating to the work of deans of women were published.
In response to students’ growing demands, colleges began employing deans of men to
assist with the male students (Hevel, 2016; Schwartz & Stewart, 2017). At the University of
Illinois, Thomas Arkle Clark became the first dean of men in 1909, approximately 17 years after
the first dean of women. Similar to the deans of women, deans of men convened to share insight
and common concerns in their workplaces and, in 1918, formed their own professional
association called the National Association of Deans of Men. The founding men appointed Clark
as the first association president (Schwartz & Stewart, 2017).

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
11
Student Personnel
A shift towards student personnel occurred in the 1920s after Walter Dill Scott assumed
the presidency of Northwestern University (Schwartz & Stewart, 2017). Scott utilized his
psychology background to restructure the services provided to students. He eliminated the deans
of women and men positions and created an office for personnel services. The personnel office
staff assisted students’ development in their journey through college, from enrollment to job
placement. The personnel office staff assisted students by utilizing elements of psychology and
individualized student plans of action.
In the mid-1930s, the American Council on Education (ACE) developed a committee to
study and better understand the higher education student population. The results from its study
were to be used to inform college presidents and administrators on how to best work with
students (ACE, 1937). The committee utilized Scott’s psychological method of working with
students as a foundation for their research, and in 1936, their findings were summited to ACE for
review. Based on the council’s recommendations, the committee convened in 1937 to further
explain the work of personnel services. In the same year, its report, Student Personnel Point of
View, was adopted. The report focused on recognizing students’ individual needs in the college
environment, also known as distinguishing the student as a whole (ACE, 1937), which involves
taking into account personal and emotional factors, along with academics, that contribute to the
student’s overall success. While the purpose of this committee was to better understand students,
the final report helped to exemplify the importance of student personnel administrators and the
value of their work in developing the whole student.
The Student Personnel Point of View was the foundational framework of today’s student
affairs profession (Schwartz & Stewart, 2017). The report outlined the work of student personnel
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
12
administrators and the need for such personnel. The report identified examples of services
provided by student personnel administrators and recommended partnerships with entities on and
off campus, such as faculty and professional associations. In addition, the framework recognized
the need to advance this profession through research, assessment, and handbooks.
The Changing Student Population
From the 1940s, internal and external factors directly influenced how student affairs
served the country’s changing student population. Following the end of the Great Depression in
1939 and WWII in 1941, the government introduced the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944
in an effort to maintain a stable economy and avoid veterans inundating the limited job market
(Schwartz & Stewart, 2017). Also known as the GI Bill, this act supported funding for veterans
to go to school, adding to the dynamics of the campus student population. The aftermath of the
Civil Rights movement of the mid-1950s to late 1960s led to campus activism and protests in the
1960s and 1970s. As a result, cultural centers emerged, designating physical safe spaces and
support for African American students (Patton, 2011). The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 created
opportunities for access to education for students with disabilities and prompted the development
of an office that specializes in services for those students (Schwartz & Stewart, 2017). In 1974,
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, also called the Buckley Amendment, gave
students ownership over their educational records and their education as a whole; it ended the
vacillating relationship of the institution serving in loco parentis. In the 1970s, the Higher
Education Act Amendment provided federal aid for lower-income students and created
opportunities for access. As a result, student affairs professionals were tasked with serving
students from a variety of backgrounds and with very different needs.

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
13
Guiding Doctrines of the Profession Today
As the Student Personnel Point of View of 1937 and 1949 serve as a foundation for
student affairs work, several publications and reports were developed to further define and
advance the profession. Some of the work produced was CAS Standards, Learning Reconsidered
and sets of competencies for professionals. These findings serve to excel the profession by
helping practitioners create programs with intention and with the ultimate purpose of serving the
student as a whole.
The Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS), formerly
called the Council for the Advancement of Standards for Student Services/Development
Programs, was developed in 1979 to enhance student services by establishing guidelines for what
programs and departments should achieve (CAS, n.d.). In 1986, CAS created a set of criteria for
practitioners to assess programs and their departments. At the time, these guidelines were
applicable to 16 areas. Today, there are 45 standards available for areas such as campus
activities, auxiliary services, and master’s preparation programs.
To emphasize the importance of implementing change regarding student learning,
NASPA and the American College Personnel Association (ACPA) published Learning
Reconsidered: A Campus-Wide Focus on the Student Experience (Keeling, 2004). The focus of
this publication was to reevaluate the concept of learning by making learning central to the
student experience. It explained that learning that happens inside the classroom was not separate
from learning that happens as a student develops and grows while in college. Instead, a student’s
social and emotional development, co-curricular experience, and academic learning are
interconnected (Keeling, 2004). Learning reconsidered 2: A practical guide to implementing a
campus-wide focus on the student experience (Keeling, 2006) builds on the original publication
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
14
(Keeling, 2004) by outlining practical applications to enhance and assess learning. This, too, was
a joint publication and included five additional professional student affairs associations. It
explained how to infuse learning outcomes into student affairs programming to help practitioners
identify objectives they want students to achieve. It also included how to craft assessment
questions that correlate with learning outcomes. By assessing students following the program’s
conclusion, practitioners could determine whether the program was successful and provide
measures for accountability.
In 2015, the ACPA/NASPA Professional Competency Areas for Student Affairs
Educators were adopted (ACPA and NASPA Joint Task Force, 2015). The document included
10 skills that student affairs students should acquire. In addition, there are three levels of
proficiency that can be developed. These competencies were used to help practitioners set goals
for professional development, establish standards for possible new hires, determine outcomes for
master’s preparation programs, and inform professional associations regarding educational
programs.
While the guiding doctrines only included a few of the publications available, it showed
the vast amount of work and consideration applied to programming and to student development.
In addition, these documents highlight the need for student affairs educators to be at the forefront
of their own professional development to be successful in this field.
Throughout the history of higher education, influences such as religion, government
funding, federal mandates, and local and world events contributed to the student experience and
the student population. As a result, higher education institutions are required to be proactive to
best address students’ changing needs. To serve students successfully, student affairs
professionals require preparation and training in addition to understanding their students’
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
15
characteristics, anticipating their changing needs, and continuous education on best practices and
current research.
Pursuing a Career in Student Affairs
To better understand the reasons that contribute to leaving the field, it was important to
recognize the process of entering the profession. Although there are multiple pathways into
student affairs, research provided insight regarding how many individuals enter the profession,
participate in a post-secondary graduate program or equivalent, and transition into a professional
role (Mertz et al., 2012; Taub & McEwen, 2006; Tull et al., 2011). The process often includes
discovering the field and realizing the possibility of fulfillment of the field, enrolling in a student
affairs master’s degree program, navigating a transition period from graduate studies to full-time
employment, and further professional skill development for success in student affairs.
Discovery and Perceived Fulfillment
The student affairs profession was seen as a hidden profession where even the most
involved student leaders do not realize it is a possible career opportunity (Richmond & Sherman,
1991). Once realized, individuals intentionally sought to learn more about the profession through
others with experience in the field. Confirmation of their intent to pursue a career in this field
occurs as individuals commit to a student affairs graduate preparation program.
The intent to pursue a career in student affairs often began with a process of discovering
the profession and the possibility of having a future career in this field (Mertz et al., 2012; Taub
& McEwen, 2006). Research by Mertz et al. (2012) sought to understand the reasons why
individuals pursued graduate degrees in student affairs or college personnel. After interviewing
52 master’s students at two separate graduate schools, Mertz et al. found that while 83% of
participants were actively involved in campus life, 70% did not know the profession existed prior
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
16
to their decision to pursue their graduate studies. Of the total participants, 73% identified an
influential student affairs professional that attributed to their process of discovering the
profession. These influential professionals served as a valuable source of information to define
and help the individual better understand the profession as well as help them navigate the
graduate school process.
Taub and McEwen (2006) studied 300 master’s students and the factors that led them to
enter into the student affairs profession. The research provided an in-depth understanding of the
process of commitment to pursue a career in this field. The factors discussed in this study
included awareness, an influencing practitioner, confidence in their pursuit, and attraction.
Similar to the discovery process that Mertz et al. (2012) described, respondents in this study
confirmed experiencing the discovery of the student affairs profession, and respondents were
highly involved in campus life. Taub and McEwen referred to this process as awareness that
occurred later in a student’s college experience and, for some, after graduation. Awareness
included learning about the profession, seeing the possibility of being in it, and learning about
graduate programs as the next step.
In both studies, an influencing practitioner was a vital part of the decision-making
process, as 80.3% of respondents from Taub and McEwen’s (2006) study reported a significant
person or people who provided encouragement and information. Taub and McEwen also
captured the results of what attracted people to the profession and how confident they felt about
pursuing a career in this field. The ability to work on a college campus (72.7%) and the
opportunity to do work that was perceived to be fulfilling (72%) are two more common reasons
that drew people to the profession. In addition, the study revealed that respondents felt confident
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
17
in their decision to pursue student affairs as a career and that they would remain in the profession
for a long duration.
Student affairs was not a common profession that young people immediately aspired to
pursue. It required some exploration, an influencing practitioner, and some degree of
commitment to enter into this field. After making the commitment, individuals were likely to
express a high level of confidence in their decision as well as intent to remain in the field.
Participation in a Student Affairs Master’s Program
Participation in graduate studies in student affairs prepared students for this profession
and placed the individual in a better position for mid-level positions or other leadership roles
(Linder & Simmons, 2015; Mertz et al., 2012; Tull et al., 2011). Tull et al. (2011) described
graduate programs as the first process of socialization into the student affairs career that enabled
individuals to develop skills and competencies and had been the point where they begin to build
a professional identity. Graduate programs provided a foundation for a successful career
trajectory. Graduate education can also be costly and require time devoted to studies.
Identifying and committing to a program of study requires much consideration.
According to Mertz et al. (2012), factors considered during the process of entering a graduate
program include finances, type of institution, location, ability to find graduate opportunities, and
familial support. These factors were salient for students in programs at both private and public
institutions. The cost of attendance was particularly important when committing to a program.
Familial support proved to be an obstacle to the participant’s pursuit of student affairs, as many
families did not understand the profession’s purpose. While this study provided an interesting
insight into factors that led to the choice of master’s programs, the participant pool lacked
diversity, with the majority identifying as White.
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
18
In a study of how students of color select graduate programs, Linder and Simmons (2015)
reported similar findings previously identified, with some variation. Participants in this study
reported placing greater importance on the type of institution as well as proximity to family.
Students of color identified programs with an emphasis on diversity and social justice as a factor
in their choice. In addition, family obligations strongly influenced their decision to complete
graduate studies.
Both studies identified the reasons for individuals to select a graduate preparation
program in student affairs. Participation in a program involved more than applying and
completing the courses. Consideration of the cost of attendance and time away from family
obligations were two among many of the other reasons listed that were important when pursuing
graduate work and a career in student affairs.
Transition from Graduate Studies to Full-Time Professional
Transitioning from graduate studies to full-time work can impact attrition from student
affairs (Renn & Jessup-Anger, 2008). Renn and Jessup-Anger (2008) conducted a nationwide,
longitudinal study on 90 new student affairs professionals over 10 months. The study uncovered
four themes that new professionals faced as they transitioned into full-time work. The first theme
involved defining a professional identity while transitioning from a paraprofessional role to a
full-time position. Some reasons individuals find difficulty in developing a professional identity
are the inability to define work-life balance, a misunderstanding of expectations of the position,
inability to apply concepts and theories from graduate courses, and challenges of maintaining a
professional demeanor. The second theme identified in the study, called navigating a culture
adjustment, referred to adjusting to the cultural norms of the office, the student community, the
institution, and the profession. The third theme required the new professional to be critically
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
19
observant and motivated to be a perpetual learner. The final theme stressed the importance of
identifying a mentor on the campus. As an influencing practitioner was valuable prior to
graduate work, a mentor can help navigate the internal bureaucracy, make connections, and
ultimately ease the transition process.
While the four themes in Renn and Jessup-Anger’s (2008) research helped to identify
ways to successfully transition into work in student affairs, analysis of literature by Cooper et al.
(2016) pinpointed specific skills that new professionals lacked. The research identified seven
skills perceived by employers as deficient among new professionals. Those skills included
research, assessment, and evaluation; legal knowledge and standards; budgeting and financial
management; institutional and campus politics; supervision; technological competence; and
strategic planning. More education and development of these seven skills can help new
professionals transition into entry-level work and be effective in the field.
The findings from the studies reflect the complexities of being a new professional in
student affairs and the additional knowledge and skills required in an entry-level position.
Successfully transitioning from a graduate program into full-time work and better understanding
the skills necessary to be effective in the field can help increase retention (Cooper et al., 2016;
Herdlein et al., 2013; Renn & Jessup-Anger, 2008).
Many student affairs professionals began their commitment to the profession with the
purpose of developing and creating better opportunities for college students. They believed that a
career in this field would be fulfilling and were confident about remaining in the field for a long
time. Professionals devoted time and money to master’s programs while further development
happened in the transition to full-time employment. Taking into account the amount of effort that
goes into this career, entering it can be a challenging and lengthy process. Yet, many still leave.
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
20
Research on Attrition
While the process to enter the student affairs profession requires much thought, time,
commitment, and resources, more than 60% will depart from the field within 10 years (Holmes
et al., 1983; Lorden, 1998; Marshall et al., 2016). The intention to leave and the experiences that
contribute to the decision to leave differ depending on where the individual is in their career
(Rosser & Javinar, 2003; Silver & Jakeman, 2014; Tull, 2006). For example, new professionals
may experience challenges that are different from those of mid-level professionals, and the
process by which they decide to leave can be different. Decisions to leave can also differ by
gender (Blackhurst, 2000). Women face different challenges than men, such as negotiating
family obligations and perceptions of sex discrimination (Blackhurst, 2000; Nobbe & Manning,
1997). Although race should not be excluded as a factor influencing attrition, research on race
and attrition was limited.
Early Research on Attrition in Student Affairs
Attrition in student affairs has been an interest of research since the late 1970s (Evans,
1988). Early research on attrition included Burns’ (1982) research on career trajectories of
students who graduated from master’s programs and Bender’s (1980) study on job satisfaction.
Burns’ (1982) study consisted of 182 participants and provided insight into attrition rates,
demographic profiles of those who left, and reasons. The study found that 39% of the
participants left the field, and 61% were women. Two of the top reasons for leaving the field are
moving away from the institution and advancing their education.
Bender (1980) focused on a population of 145 NASPA Region II members in one of the
first studies to assess satisfaction with the profession. Bender’s was one of the earliest studies to
highlight intention to leave the profession. The quantitative study reported that 66% of
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
21
participants were generally satisfied in their positions, 18% were not satisfied, and 16% were
neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. While participants were highly satisfied in their roles, 36%
expressed interest in remaining in the profession for the duration of their career, and 25% did
not. The study also revealed that new professionals and women were among the most
dissatisfied, which is still the case today (Bender, 1980, 2009; Blackhurst, 2000; Lorden, 1998;
Tull, 2006). Although this study provided insight into job satisfaction and interest in the student
affairs career, the study did not provide a deeper understanding of why some felt dissatisfaction
or whether they had other intentions for their career paths.
Attrition by Career Level
Research on attrition in student affairs can differ by career level (Rosser & Javinar, 2003;
Silver & Jakeman, 2014; Tull, 2006). While research on graduate students primarily focus on
intention to leave the profession, limited attrition data can be found for new and mid-level
professionals.
Graduate Student
Graduate studies for preparing, training, and educating student affairs professionals
served as a valuable initiation process into the field (Tull et al., 2011). They provided the
foundation for professionals to begin their careers by giving them the knowledge, skills, and
tools to work effectively with students and navigate challenges (Renn & Jessup-Anger, 2008).
However, the decision to depart from the field can begin in these graduate programs (Silver &
Jakeman, 2014). Examining graduate students and their future plans, Silver and Jakeman (2014)
discovered 50% of the students interviewed expressed that their commitment to the field
wavered as they began to learn more about the profession, which contributed to their intention to
leave.
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
22
New Professionals
New professionals in the field for 5 years or less are approximately 20% of practitioners
in student affairs (Clinte et al., 2006; Renn & Jessup-Anger, 2008). New professionals are among
the most dissatisfied and leave the field at higher rates than those at other professional levels
(Bender, 2009; Lorden, 1998; Tull, 2006). The rate of departure for new professionals was
estimated at 32% in the 1980s and 1990s (Lorden, 1998; Wood et al., 1985). Although there are
few to no additional studies on overall attrition rates among new professionals, the results from
the study by Marshall et al. (2016) were that 45% of their participants left the profession within 5
years. For new professionals, the reasons that contributed to departure included the inability to
build meaningful work relationships with supervisors or mentors, incongruence between
personal values and campus culture, burnout, and inadequate compensation (Blackhurst, 2000;
Renn & Hodges, 2007; Renn & Jessup-Anger, 2008)
Mid-Level Professionals
By the time professionals reach a mid-level role or have worked in the field between 6
and 10 years, more than 60% will have left the field (Holmes et al., 1983; Lorden, 1998;
Marshall et al., 2016). Holmes et al. (1983) estimated the rate of attrition within 6 years to be as
high as 61%. Similar to new professionals, research is limited on national attrition rates of mid-
level student affairs practitioners. Nevertheless, the more recent study by Marshall et al. (2016),
revealed that about 60% of mid-level participants left within 10 years.
The findings also suggest that mid-level professionals left the field due to family
obligations, lack of recognition for work completed, and lack of opportunities for advancement
(Marshall et al., 2016; Rosser & Javinar, 2003). Marshall et al. (2016) reported that 57% of
people who left were mid-level practitioners between the ages of 30 and 39. This age range
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
23
reflects the time when some begin family planning. Mid-level professionals also experience
challenges when looking to advance their career, as opportunities for senior-level positions in the
field are less available.
Attrition and Gender Differentiation
Women in the student affairs profession expressed more dissatisfaction in the field and
left at higher rates than men (Bender, 1980, 2009; Blackhurst, 2000; Burns, 1982). In Bender’s
(1980, 2009) studies, 26% of men were very satisfied with their jobs while 12% of women
reported the same. Regarding opportunities for advancement, 48% of men were satisfied
compared to 23% of women. When responding to questions relating to the ability to contribute to
decisions in student affairs, 70% of men were satisfied, while 53% of women reported
satisfaction. When asked about contributions to decision making at the institution level, 43% of
men reported satisfaction as compared to 33% of women. The study also asked participants
about their intention to remain in the field. About 43% of men reported persistence in the field
compared to 28% of women. In all aspects of this study, men reported higher levels of
satisfaction than women. They were more satisfied in their roles, with opportunities for
advancement, and with regard to decision making. Men were also more likely to persist in the
field.
Blackhurst’s (2000) research on women’s career satisfaction and perceptions of sex
discrimination found higher levels of satisfaction among women in student affairs in contrast to
Bender’s (1980) study. About 70% of the women in Blackhurst’s study reported satisfaction in
their positions, while 60% of women in Bender’s study indicated similar satisfaction. However,
in Blackhurst’s study, the women who reported satisfaction were senior-level administrators.
Senior-level administrators are generally more satisfied with their roles than entry and mid-level
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
24
professionals (Bender, 1980, 2009; Blackhurst, 2000). Some additional examples of challenges
reported by women that influence their decision to depart from the field were work and family
life balance, perceptions of sex discrimination, and lack of advancement opportunities
(Blackhurst, 2000; Jo, 2008; Marshall et al., 2016).
Realities and Challenges to the Profession
Research has found that the intention and decision to depart from or remain in student
affairs strongly correlated with job satisfaction (Bender, 2009; Lorden, 1998; Tull, 2006).
However, many aspects of work and personal life can contribute to satisfaction (Bender, 2009).
In this section, elements of satisfaction are divided into professional and personal realities and
challenges. Professional realities and challenges include expectations of the profession,
supervision and mentorship support, career mobility, and burnout. Personal realities and
challenges include financial realities, family obligations, and work-life balance. It was also
important to note that experiences differ among graduate students, new professionals, and mid-
level managers.
Expectations of the Profession
Those who entered into the profession of student affairs tend to learn about the field
unintentionally and more commonly through their undergraduate experiences (Renn & Hodges,
2007; Silver & Jakeman, 2014). For some, the positive experiences they had as undergraduates
may not translate into the same positive experiences as professionals in the field. The expectation
they had about the profession may conflict with the reality of what the field required of them.
This often was reflected among graduate students in paraprofessional roles and new
professionals in the field (Renn & Hodges, 2007; Silver & Jakeman, 2014; Tull, 2006).
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
25
In a qualitative study of 20 full-time master’s students examining intent to leave student
affairs, all participants in Silver and Jakeman’s (2014) study reported selecting this career path
because of positive experiences they had as undergraduates. After learning more about the field
while in their master’s program, as well as working in a graduate paraprofessional role on
campus, they began to reconsider their intent to remain in the field. The findings suggested that
their expectations of the profession were incongruent with what they experienced during their
program. Those who expressed their intent to leave the field had strong concerns about their
finances, the value of the work they performed, the increasing emotional toll of supporting
students, and the ability to balance professional and personal life.
Renn and Jessup-Anger (2008) discovered that although new professionals understood
the nuances of student affairs work, navigating the field and campus life remained a challenge
and made some reconsider their career choice. With limited opportunities to select from, new
professionals often try to fit into their first job instead of choosing a position that best fits them
(Renn & Hodges, 2007; Renn & Jessup-Anger, 2008). In addition, new professionals face issues
such as low pay, long hours, focusing more of their personal time helping students, and dealing
with campus policies and politics (Marshall et al., 2016).
Supervisor, Mentorship, and Collegial Support
Having a supportive supervisor, mentor, and other impactful relationships in the
workplace proved valuable when employees were uncertain of their commitment in their position
(Bender, 2009; Marshall et al., 2016; Renn & Hodges, 2007; Tull, 2006). These types of work-
related and, at times, emotional support can positively impact satisfaction for professionals at all
levels, contributing to their retention (Bender, 2009; Nobbe & Manning, 1997; Renn & Hodges,
2007; Rosser & Javinar, 2003; Tull, 2006). Support can also be found in interdepartmental and
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
26
external relationships (Rosser & Javinar, 2003). This includes positive working relationships
with colleagues at the institution as well as relationships with peers and mentors outside of it.
In a longitudinal study by Renn and Hodges (2007) of 10 new professionals, supervisor
and mentorship support, categorized as relationships, was an important theme throughout the
individual’s initial phases of new employment. New professionals expressed excitement over
building new connections with colleagues. The results also uncovered challenges of having to
seek out and identify mentors outside of their position because they did not find support from
their supervisors. The inability to immediately identify mentorship connections from either their
supervisors or an outside source contributed to dissatisfaction as they were adjusting to their
positions.
In Jo’s (2008) study of 30 mid-level women in higher education, 50% attributed the
reason for leaving their position to the lack of support from their supervisors. The women chose
to leave the university altogether as opposed to looking for a position in a different area of the
university. While this study focused on turnover in functional university areas beyond student
affairs and did not explain whether these women left higher education completely, it echoed the
idea that lack of support can lead to departure. A unique phenomenon experienced by the mid-
level managers in this study was that high turnover and instability among their supervisors also
increased their motivation to leave.
Career Mobility
Career mobility was one of the top challenges to persistence in the profession (Jo, 2008;
Johnsrud et al., 2000; Lorden, 1998; Marshall et al., 2016; Rosser & Javinar, 2003). Career
mobility refers to the ability to move up the ranks or advance through promotions or
opportunities. While the more common practice of career advancement had been through
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
27
promotions, these are not easily achievable (Jo, 2008; Johnsrud et al., 2000). In contrast to the
process by which faculty are promoted, there is no institutional structure that clearly outlines the
process for promotion in administrative positions (Jo, 2008).
Opportunities are limited in student affairs both within institutions and regionally and can
also contribute to the decision to leave the field (Blackhurst, 2000; Marshall et al., 2016). Bender
(2009) found that lack of opportunities contributed to dissatisfaction among 50% of new
professionals. In a study on attrition among mid-level managers, Jo (2008) reported that 30% of
respondents left their position due to the lack of advancement opportunities. Practitioners
considered alternatives such as changing positions, finding employment at a different institution
and in a different region, or redirecting their efforts towards professional development (Johnsrud
et al., 2000; Rosser & Javinar, 2003). The inability to move up contributes negatively to morale,
leading to dissatisfaction in the workplace.
Burnout
Burnout was universally experienced in the student affairs profession and can contribute
to dissatisfaction or departure (Blackhurst, 2000; Lorden, 1998; Silver & Jakeman, 2014).
Burnout was defined as physical and mental exhaustion that negatively affects motivation and
performance in the workplace (Forney et al., 1982; Lorden, 1998; Mullen et al., 2018). It was
one of the most common reasons for attrition in student affairs (Blackhurst, 2000; Lorden, 1998).
In a qualitative study of 290 female professionals in student affairs, burnout was identified as the
top reason (28%) that would propel practitioners to leave the field (Blackhurst, 2000).
As a profession that caters to students, practitioners need to be available when students
are available, and as a result, programming happens in the evening or on weekends. In a recent
national study on people who left student affairs, 70% of respondents endured high volumes of
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
28
night and weekend commitments (Marshall et al., 2016). In addition, 63% of respondents
experienced high levels of stress, and more than 50% did not feel that they had enough time to
finish their work. Budgetary constraints add to the challenges of working in this field as demands
of the individual’s role increase (Lorden, 1998).
Student affairs professionals also provide support for academic as well as personal issues
students may experience. The combination of some or all of the challenges that professionals
face, such as extended work hours or working with difficult issues, can be physically and
emotionally exhausting, leading to burnout (Marshall et al., 2016). Silver and Jakeman’s (2014)
study revealed that graduate students experience emotional burdens while in their graduate
employment or assistantship. Taking on the role of student advocate and providing support for
students in crisis was often taxing. The study found that those who intended to leave were able to
address students’ concerns but felt ill-equipped to appropriately manage their own feelings of
mental fatigue.
Financial Realities
Many describe student affairs as a field that can provide personal fulfillment but does not
pay well (Lorden, 1998; Silver & Jakeman, 2014). Those who commit to this field anticipate
earning a low salary (Lorden, 1998). Regardless of this expectation, there was still a concern
over the inability to achieve financial stability (Silver & Jakeman, 2014). In Silver and
Jakeman’s (2014) research on graduate students, those who intended to leave the field reported
inadequate compensation in relation to the intensity of work. These graduate students were
concerned about the ability to pay off student loans in addition to supporting themselves and
their families. The respondents in the research by Marshall et al. (2016) also felt that
compensation was inadequate in relation to the level of education required.
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
29
Approximately 30% of respondents in Blackhurst’s (2000) study mentioned low salary as
an indicator for their decision to leave the field. In contrast, adequate compensation can prove
valuable to retention. From a nationwide study of mid-level managers, Rosser and Javinar (2003)
discovered that student affairs administrators expressed less intent to leave when they perceived
they were highly compensated, even when they indicated having low morale.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics and the College and University Professional Association
for Human Resources (CUPA-HR) provide examples of salary ranges in student affairs.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018), the median salary for postsecondary
education administrators was estimated at $94,340, with 10% earning less than $54,680. This
amount includes all levels of administration, from entry to senior level, as well as all areas of
work in postsecondary education. The CUPA-HR analyzed salary in relation to the level and
position of employment even further in their nationwide study of 1,110 higher education
institutions, identifying approximately 219,000 professional salaries and 193,000 staff salaries in
2017–2018 (HigherEdJobs, n.d.). The median salary for student services coordinators, an entry-
level position, in 2017–2018 was approximately $36,906. Other examples of entry to mid-level
positions are campus recreation/intramural coordinator ($43,241), student activities officer
($44,713) and student housing/residence life officer ($49,000). The CUPA-HR study estimates
the median salary for mid-level professionals ranges from $51,358 for a position as the deputy
head of student activities to $68,000 as the head of campus recreation/intramurals.
In addition to the salary dissatisfaction, the process for salary increases has been a source
of dissatisfaction (Bender, 2009; Jo, 2008). In a national survey measuring satisfaction in student
affairs, out of 145 current professionals, job satisfaction was reported among 66% of
respondents, although 47% were not satisfied with the process of merit increases (Bender, 2009).
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
30
In Jo’s (2008) study on turnover of women administrators, the dissatisfaction of the merit
increase process was described as arbitrary, confusing, and lacking structure (Jo, 2008).
Family Obligations and Work-life Balance
Long hours and evening and weekend commitments are characteristic of the student
affairs profession, and personal time becomes limited (Jo, 2008; Marshall et al., 2016; Nobbe &
Manning, 1997). Practitioners have to negotiate time spent at work and time spent away from it.
Blackhurst (2000) discovered that devoting more time to family was listed as the top five factors
that would contribute to departure from student affairs. In a study of practitioners who actually
left the field, 69% of respondents felt that work and life were seen more in opposition to each
other, and 59% noted the lack of time to spend with people outside of work was a reason for
leaving the field (Marshall et al., 2016). In addition, 12% of the practitioners left to raise
children.
Having children, for both men and women, can change the dynamic of work-life balance
(Marshall et al., 2016; Nobbe & Manning, 1997). In most heteronormative relationships, women
bear the responsibility of providing care for their children and, as a result, depart from the field at
higher rates (Blackhurst, 2000; Nobbe & Manning, 1997). Nobbe and Manning (1997)
conducted a qualitative study interviewing 10 women student affairs professionals with children.
The study included only those who remained in the field and not any who left their position or
field due to having children. Although the study was conducted over 2 decades ago, it was one of
the few studies that directly focused on the complexity of having children and working in student
affairs.
While the women in this study remained in the field, they experienced difficulty in
managing both work and family and expressed that supervisor support was key to their
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
31
persistence as they returned to the workforce (Nobbe & Manning, 1997). The participants also
explained that family became their priority, and work was no longer the focal point of their life.
Those with children had to reevaluate their career trajectory, did not consider opportunities out
of state, or put their professional life on hold until they felt a sense of consistency within their
family life. They also refrained from taking on more responsibilities or advancing their
education.
Negotiating flexibility in work schedules proved valuable for those with families, and the
inability to do so can influence departure (Jo, 2008; Marshall et al., 2016). One participant from
the study by Marshall et al. (2016) explained their reason for leaving student affairs was directly
related to the lack of support for family life and the inability to work out time that would be both
beneficial to her family and her workplace (Marshall et al., 2016). Jo’s (2008) study echoed
similar challenges as women faced no other opportunity than to leave.
Other Career Opportunities
Another aspect to consider when exploring why one would choose to depart from the
field is other career opportunities. Marshall et al.’s (2016) research on attrition in student affairs
found that 43% of respondents left the field for better opportunities that included more money,
no commitments beyond regular work hours, career mobility, and a chance to learn a different
set of skills. Departure from the field had not always been attributed to dissatisfaction in one or
more areas listed previously but may be due to finding a more lucrative opportunity outside of
higher education (Lorden, 1998; Marshall et al., 2016). Lorden (1998) further explained that
student affairs professionals required education and training to develop the skills and
competencies necessary to address the needs of the students they serve. As a result, the acquired
knowledge and skills could be utilized in other employment opportunities or careers paths.
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
32
Self-Authorship
Baxter Magolda’s (2001) theory of self-authorship was used as a lens to better understand
the experiences and the thought processes behind the decision to depart from the student affairs
career path. This section provides a brief overview of self-authorship and highlights Baxter
Magolda’s longitudinal research that led to the formation of this theory. Defined in this section
are the main components of the theory: three dimensions, four phases, and the elements of self-
authorship. Other research on career decisions that utilize self-authorship as a framework has
also been examined. Finally, further explanation regarding why this theory was selected and how
it fits into the decision-making process when transitioning careers has been included.
Baxter Magolda’s Theory of Self-Authorship
Baxter Magolda’s (2001) work on self-authorship focused on discovering self,
understanding self in relation to others, and directing future actions. Baxter Magolda built on
Kegan’s (1994) research on the development of consciousness through various life stages, or
what Kegan called orders, and described the next stage following order of consciousness (Patton
et al., 2016). Similar to Kegan’s (1994) work, self-authorship was categorized as a constructivist
theory where developing understanding and finding meaning based on life experiences was the
central focus (Patton et al., 2016).
The theory of self-authorship was derived from Baxter Magolda’s longitudinal study of
students at the Miami University in Ohio (Baxter Magolda, 2001; Patton et al., 2016). Beginning
with interviews in 1986, the study initially followed 101 students through graduation. At the time
of this study, Baxter Magolda’s study spanned over 2 decades and had followed 30 participants
well into their 30s. While the initial study was meant to understand development as it related to
students in college, the findings revealed that formulating and establishing self-authorship
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
33
happened much later after graduation and, for some, well into their careers (Patton et al., 2016).
Self-authorship is comprised of three dimensions and four phases of development. As the
longitudinal study progressed, three elements were included to describe how self-authorship
evolved when participants were in their 20s and 30s. Figure 1 illustrates the three dimensions,
four phases, and three elements of self-authorship in a diagram developed from Baxter
Magolda’s (2001) study.
Figure 1
Self-Authorship. Diagram of the Three Dimensions, four Phases, and Three Elements

Phases &
Dimensions
Phase 1: Following
formulas
Phase 2:
Crossroads
Phase 3:
Becoming an
author of one’s
life
Phase 4: Internal
foundation
Three
Elements (30s
& 40s)
Dimension 1:
Epistemological
“How do I know? “
Believe authority’s
plan; how “you”
know
Questions plans;
See need for own
vision
Choose own
belief’s; how I
know
Grounded in
internal belief
system
Trusting the
internal voice
Dimension 2:
Intrapersonal “Who
am I?”
Define self through
external others
Realize dilemma of
external definitions;
see need for
internal identity
Choose own
values, identity
in context of
external forces
Grounded in
internal
coherent sense
of self
Building an
internal
foundation
Dimension 3:
Interpersonal
“What relationships
do I want with
others?”
Act in relationships
to acquire approval
Realize dilemma of
focusing on external
approval
Act in
relationships to
be true to self
Grounded in
mutuality
Securing
internal
commitments
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
34
Three Dimensions of Self-Authorship
As individuals move towards developing self-authorship, they navigate through three
dimensions that help them formulate understanding and awareness of themselves (Baxter
Magolda, 2001). The three dimensions are epistemological, intrapersonal, and interpersonal. The
epistemological dimension relates to the question “How do I know?” and involves a negotiation
of the individual’s current knowledge with new experiences and learnings (Baxter Magolda,
2001, p. 15). The intrapersonal dimension addresses the question “Who am I?” (Baxter Magolda,
2001, p. 15). This dimension refers to the individual’s sense of self, beliefs, and values. The
interpersonal dimension connects to the question “How do I want to construct relationships with
others?” (p. 15). This dimension of self-authorship takes into account how relationships factor in
to the individual’s understanding of self. According to Baxter Magolda, these three dimensions
are “intertwined,” and the process of answering the related questions leads to awareness of self
and how they make decisions based on their new understanding (p. 15). As individuals develop
self-authorship, they begin to take control or ownership over their future decisions and
experiences. The three dimensions of self-authorship have been a valuable component to this
study. Prior knowledge development, beliefs, and values, as well as where an individual fits in
relation to others, was an important part of understanding the experiences that contributed to
deciding to leave student affairs.
Four Phases in Self-Authorship
The theory of self-authorship has been divided into four phases (Baxter Magolda, 2001):
following external formulas, crossroads, becoming an author of one’s life, and internal
foundation. Interwoven within each of the phases are the epistemological, intrapersonal, and
interpersonal dimensions.
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
35
The first phase of self-authorship was following external formulas. In this phase, actions
and decisions are shaped by the values and beliefs of other important people, such as parents and
mentors (Baxter Magolda, 2001; Patton et al., 2016). Much of what we do and how we present
ourselves comes from what we were taught to do (Baxter Magolda, 2001). Affirmation from
others is important to the individual when a solid understanding of self is lacking (Patton et al.,
2016). Patton et al. (2016) explained that, at times, the external formulas are in opposition with
one another. The example of conflicting formulas provided was having a relationship and
dedicating one’s time to a career at the same time (Patton et al., 2016). For this study,
understanding how external formulas shaped participants’ actions and views provided a deeper
understanding of how they made meaning of their decision to leave the field. In addition, some
participants may have experienced times when external formulas were in opposition and, as a
result, moved them into the next phase of self-authorship.
The second phase of Baxter Magolda’s (2001) self-authorship theory is the crossroads.
Dissatisfaction with prescriptive external formulas and interest in establishing a renewed sense of
self are characteristic of this phase (Patton et al., 2016). Baxter Magolda (2001) explained that
every person experiences the crossroads phase, although severity and type may differ.
Individuals experience conflicts regarding what they want to do versus what others think they
should do (Baxter Magolda, 2001). Many of the participants in Baxter Magolda’s longitudinal
study reconsidered their career decision during this phase (Patton et al., 2016). Towards the end
of this phase, individuals developed confidence in themselves and their career direction. For this
study, the crossroads phase was important, as many experienced conflicts that resulted in their
departure from the field.
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
36
The third phase of self-authorship, becoming the author of one’s life, includes
establishing personal beliefs and values that became solidified through introspection and
connections with others (Baxter Magolda, 2001). The connections and relationship building that
happen in this phase differ from other phases, as interactions are a form of information gathering
versus blindly following others (Baxter Magolda, 2001; Patton et al., 2016). As personal sense of
self and beliefs are developed, external formulas and other preexisting influences are reevaluated
(Patton et al., 2016). Individuals begin to reconstruct their own identities, values and beliefs to
their renewed understanding of self (Baxter Magolda, 2001). Participants in this phase may have
a renewed understanding of themselves as it relates to their personal and professional identity.
The fourth phase of Baxter Magolda’s theory of self-authorship is internal foundation.
Personal sense of self, identity, and beliefs become firmly planted in this phase (Baxter Magolda,
2001; Patton et al., 2016). According to Baxter Magolda (2001), “The solidifying of the internal
self, belief system, and approach to relationships created both a solid foundation and openness to
ambiguity and change” (p. 155). As individuals demonstrate acceptance and contentment with
themselves, they also become more open and comfortable with the unknown. Future actions and
decisions are now centered on their newly established foundation. Patton et al. (2016) suggested
that life changes, developing meaningful relationships, and new career decisions are a result of
this transformation. With a new career and life direction, participants in this study would begin
to redefine their personal and professional identity as well as sense of self.
The four phases of self-authorship provide a lens to better understand the decision-
making process regarding leaving the student affairs profession. According to Baxter Magolda
(2008) and Patton et al. (2016), there had not been a direct path to follow to achieve self-
authorship. While the structure of the theory offers organization to understand self-authorship,
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
37
achieving it may require movement through multiple phases and back or jumping from Phase 1
to Phase 3. This aspect of self-authorship will be important to the study as individuals make
meaning of their decision to leave the field. Some may experience all four phases of the theory,
others may experience one or two, and the decision to leave the field can occur during any of the
four phases.
Elements of Self-Authorship
Baxter Magolda (2008) continued her longitudinal study, researching the same
participants for a couple of decades. Beginning with 101 students in 1986, 30 participants
continued the study into their 30s. After interviewing the 30 participants, Baxter Magolda
discovered that self-authorship progressed in adulthood and interesting insights into self-
authorship emerged. Baxter Magolda (2008) called these insights elements of self-authorship:
trusting the internal voice, building an internal foundation, and securing internal commitments.
The first element, trusting the internal voice, emerged when confidence of self solidified
during challenging times (Baxter Magolda, 2008). Patton et al. (2016) explained that as
participants faced barriers in their path and could not remove those barriers, trusting the internal
voice meant having the self-confidence to know what was required of them to move around
those barriers. This included how the person acted, reacted, and felt about those barriers (Baxter
Magolda, 2008; Patton et al., 2016). Trusting the internal voice happens not only in sense of self
but also in all areas of life, including relationships and career (Baxter Magolda, 2008; Patton et
al., 2016).
The second element, building an internal foundation, developed as participants became
more confident in their internal voice. This element was comprised of the continuous
establishment and reestablishment of beliefs and values to form the core of the individual (Baxter
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
38
Magolda, 2008, p. 280). This element also involved the epistemological, intrapersonal, and
interpersonal dimensions working together.
Securing internal commitments was the third element and happened when a shift from
establishing internal foundations to actually living them occurs (Baxter Magolda, 2008, p. 281).
This shift meant that being able to live out beliefs led to more confidence and acceptance of self
and the ability to navigate adversity successfully.
Examples of Self-Authorship in Other Research
Researchers have used the theory of self-authorship as the theoretical framework in a
number of other studies to explore how people make meaning in various situations. There are
three examples of research related to career decisions and making meaning of career choices.
The three are Creamer and Laughlin’s (2005) examination of college women’s career decisions,
Collay and Cooper’s (2008) study on women in graduate teaching programs and their leadership
development, and Bennett and Hennekam’s (2018) research on career decision making by people
in creative industries.
Creamer and Laughlin (2005) conducted a mixed-methods study to explore how self-
authorship contributed to decision making, particularly relating to career decisions of women in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. Although the quantitative portion of
the study yielded 467 responses and the qualitative position included 119 interviews with people
in high school, community colleges, and colleges, the authors presented only the results from 40
interviews of women in college (Creamer & Laughlin, 2005). Creamer and Laughlin also
discovered that the participants did not achieve self-authorship. Instead, they remained in the
first phase, following external formulas, and did not proceed to the subsequent phases. Bennett
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
39
and Hennekam (2018) considered Creamer and Laughlin’s research to be one of the early studies
to connect self-authorship with career decision making.
Collay and Cooper (2008) examined written reflections from 29 women at two separate
graduate teaching programs. In this study, the development of self-authorship was the prevailing
theme as participants renewed their understanding of self in leadership roles. Specifically, the
participants redefined their leadership narrative by becoming more aware of how they
understood themselves in relation to others (Collay & Cooper, 2008).
Bennett and Hennekam (2018) expanded upon Creamer and Laughlin’s (2005) research
connecting self-authorship to career decision making. Bennett and Hennekam (2018) conducted
their study in Australia and the Netherlands to better understand decision making of people in
creative careers, such as writing, design, arts, and performance. Self-authorship theory was
central to the research question, mixed-methods design, and theoretical framework. The study
revealed that people vacillate through the first three phases of self-authorship. For example,
participants in the study may have experienced following formulas, moving into crossroads and
self-authorship, yet they moved back into the crossroads phase because of a positive or negative
experience within their workplace.
While these three studies connected self-authorship with career decision making, each
utilized self-authorship to frame their research in different ways. In addition, the results from
each study provided three different perspectives of how self-authorship was developed among
participants.
Using Self-Authorship to Examine Career Transition
The theory of self-authorship was used as a theoretical framework in this study. The three
dimensions, four phases, and three elements were used as a lens to understand the decision-
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
40
making process and make meaning of the experiences that contribute to departure from the
student affairs profession. According to Baxter Magolda (2014), while in college, students tend
to follow external factors and, at times, through to their first employment opportunity. Using
self-authorship at this stage of life and career was appropriate, considering it is said to be
achieved after college and as individuals begin and change careers (Baxter Magolda, 2001, 2014;
Patton et al., 2016).
Conclusion
This chapter provided the necessary background to better understand the student affairs
profession and the work that has been required of new and mid-level practitioners. The review of
literature included the background and evolution of the student affairs profession, the traditional
process for one to enter the field, statistics on attrition, and the personal and professional
challenges that some experienced during their time in the field. The theoretical framework
provided a lens to better understand how individuals make meaning of their experiences while in
the field as well as their ultimate decision to leave the profession. The following chapter will
detail the methodology that was used to conduct the study.

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
41
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
An estimated 60% of new to mid-level student affairs professionals will depart from the
profession within the first 10 years following completion from their graduate program (Holmes
et al., 1983; Lorden, 1998; & Marshall et al., 2016). After spending substantial time and money
to work in student affairs, individuals continue to leave the field by more than half. Studies such
as one by Marshall et al. (2016) provided some insight into why they leave. However, due to the
challenge of locating individuals who departed from the profession, research has been limited in
this area.
The purpose of this study was to explore experiences that contributed to the decision for
student affairs professionals to leave the field. This study examined how personal and
professional experiences affect the decision to exit the field and the types of opportunities former
professionals have pursued.
Research Questions
The research question that guided this study was:
1. What are the experiences of student affairs professionals that contribute to their decision
to leave the profession?
The three emerging questions for this study included:
1. How do personal experiences contribute to the decision to depart from the student affairs
profession?
2. How do professional experiences contribute to the decision to depart from the student
affairs profession?
3. What other opportunities are these professionals leaving the field to pursue?

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
42
Qualitative Research Methods
A qualitative case study using a constructivist approach was conducted for this research.
According to Merriam (2009), this study was considered qualitative due to four characteristics
defined for its focus on understanding or making meaning; the researcher served as the “primary
instrument;” the research was inductive as it “build concepts, hypothesis, and theories;” and
“rich description” from interviews and analysis were used to present the results of the study
(Merriam, 2009, p. 15).
A case study approach was appropriate for this research as this study sought to explore
the experiences of people leaving the student affairs profession (Merriam, 2009). A constructivist
approach was used to understand “how people make sense of their world and the experiences
they have in the world” (Merriam, 2009, p. 13). As a result of this approach, the study attempted
to make sense of the decision-making that contributed to departure from the student affairs
profession.
Population and Sample
The study was limited to individuals who left the field following their last position as a
new or mid-level professional. According to Maxwell (2013), addressing the specified research
question requires intentional identification of participants, also known as “purposive sampling”
(Maxwell, 2013, p. 97). Maxwell defined five goals of purposive sampling used to define the
population of this study. The first goal was to select participants who appropriately characterized
the population relative to the study. Second, the number and type of participants selected should
be broad enough to gather a variety of viewpoints. The third goal was to select participants who
were specific to the study and able to address the research question. For the fourth goal, the
research should be replicable in a different setting. The final goal of purposive sampling was to
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
43
establish a relationship between the researcher and the participants. This specific goal was
achieved through proper instrumentation and data collection as defined in the next sections.
To achieve the first two goals defined by Maxwell (2013), 14 participants were selected.
Interviewing 14 participants resulted in alternative perspectives of leaving the field. The final
number depended on the ability to reach data saturation and determine when the information
became repetitive (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). The final number also depended on the
ability to identify individuals who were no longer in student affairs, as information on this
population has not been typically captured.
The third goal of purposive sampling was identifying individuals ideal to the study to
inform and better understand the decision-making process from people who left the field
(Maxwell, 2013). The third goal was achieved by selecting participants who served in a
professional student affairs role for at least a year and had departed from the profession between
1 and 10 after completing their master’s program. The study focused on interviewing individuals
who worked in the field for 10 years or less. However, due to participants’ availability,
individuals who worked in the field up to 16 years were considered. In addition, participants
selected had worked at a 4-year, non-profit higher education institution. Implementing this
requirement was due to the differences student affairs professionals in 2-year and for-profit
institutions experienced. Using these specific conditions not only added to the third goal of
purposive sampling, but it also increased the opportunity for this study to be replicated and,
therefore, contributed to the fourth goal.
Student Affairs Professionals
The study specifically looked at the experiences of student affairs professionals as
opposed to academic affairs or other divisions in higher education. Examples of student affairs
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
44
departments are student activities, leadership programs, volunteer programs, residential
education, orientation programs, student organizations, recreational sports, fraternity and sorority
life, and judicial and case management (Dalton & Crosby, 2011; Long, 2012). This study did not
include participants from areas such as academic advising and auxiliary services because student
affairs practitioners experience similarities in their work as opposed to other areas of higher
education (Dalton & Crosby, 2011; Long, 2012).
New and Mid-level Practitioners
Only new and mid-level professionals who left the field were interviewed, as research
shows that 60% will depart from the profession before they reach higher level administration
(Holmes et al., 1983; Lorden, 1998; Marshall et al., 2016). In addition, the experiences and
satisfaction levels of senior-level administrators differ greatly from those of new and mid-level
professionals (Bender, 2009; Blackhurst, 2000). One to 10 years of work experience in student
affairs following completion of graduate studies was considered appropriate to identify new and
mid-level professionals. Due to challenges in identifying former professionals, extending the
range to 15 years of experience prior to departure from the field was required.
Former Student Affairs Practitioners
As the goal was to understand the experiences of those who left the profession, the
participants worked in student affairs for some time before departing. Based on other research on
attrition, finding individuals who were no longer connected to a community would have been
challenging. Therefore, snowball sampling was used to help identify additional potential
participants (Merriam, 2009).
Current Practitioners
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
45
While the primary focus of the study was on individuals who left the field, a qualitative
survey was administered to people who still worked in student affairs for the purposes of
triangulation. The intention to use a qualitative survey was to provide a deeper understating of a
person’s reasons for disassociating from their intended field (Fink, 2003). Criteria for current
practitioners included working in an entry or mid-level student affairs role for at least a year.
Four-Year Public or Private Nonprofit Institution
Participants worked or had been working at a 4-year public or private nonprofit degree-
granting institution, as defined by the NCES (2019). The purpose of including these criteria was
to maintain some consistency of experiences for those in student affairs. According to NCES
(2019), the academic mission and focus of instruction of 2-year institutions differ from those of
4-year. Also, the types of services, expenses, and campus life among public and private nonprofit
institutions may be different from those offered by for-profit institutions (NCES, 2019).
Instrumentation
According to Patton (2002), guides are beneficial to ensuring maximum productivity was
achieved during the limited time. They keep the researcher organized and help to address
specific questions directed to the research (Patton, 2002). The level of detail and structure of the
guides depended on the researcher’s comfort (Merriam, 2009). For this study, guides were used
for surveys and interviews. These guides, also called protocols, and the predetermined questions
were reviewed and tested by colleagues to establish the flow of delivery and determine needed
changes (Maxwell, 2013).
An interview protocol was used during the interviews. While the order of questions
differed, the interviews followed the same general format. Interviews were semi-structured with
a list of predetermined questions to help guide the conversation (Merriam, 2009). A semi-
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
46
structured approach was selected to ensure that the predetermined questions incorporated the
theoretical framework of self-authorship as well as addressed the research question (Baxter
Magolda, 2001; Merriam, 2009). In addition, allowing for flexibility created more opportunities
to fully explore participants’ experiences that were not a part of the original questions (Merriam,
2009).
Interview questions utilized Patton’s (2002) six types of questions relating to background,
behavior, feelings, sensory, and opinions. The interview questions were divided into three
sections and seven topics. The three sections were derived from Baxter Magolda’s (2001) first
three phases of self-authorship. In Section 1, the questions explored the phase of following
external formulas. The topics in Section 1 included background questions to learn more about
how the participant began their career in student affairs and feelings regarding their preparation
for the work. Section 2 explored the second phase of self-authorship: crossroads. The topics in
this section examined the journey through work in student affairs as well as the last position the
participant held. The section concluded with questions about the defining experience that
contributed to the decision to leave the field. The crossroads section was important because it
directly pertained to addressing the main research question. The third section focused on phase
three of self-authorship: becoming the author of one’s life. The topics in this section explored
personal and professional life after student affairs as well as how the participant made meaning
of their experience of leaving the profession. The interview questions in all three sections were
designed to be exploratory and open-ended (Merriam, 2009).
A qualitative survey was used in this research. While surveying tends to be related to
quantitative research, qualitative surveys were designed to examine emotions and experiences
that used a more inductive process (Fink, 2003; Jansen, 2010). A pre-survey was used to gather
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
47
demographic data such as gender, race, and how long it had been since the individual graduated
from their master’s program. The pre-survey was also used to screen for individuals who still
worked in student affairs as well as individuals who left. A total of eight questions were used in
the pre-survey.
Following completion of the pre-survey, those still in the profession were directed to the
qualitative survey. Those who left the profession were directed to a separate qualitative survey
and received a request to be selected for interviews. A qualitative survey was conducted to better
understand the experiences of practitioners working in student affairs for the purposes of
triangulation. Using this population to explore what might cause them to leave the field provided
additional data to better understand the experiences that contributed to leaving.
Sampling in qualitative surveys differs among researchers. Fink (2003) explained that the
sample in qualitative surveys should be able to provide “depth” to the research question as
opposed to representation (p. 68). However, Jansen (2010) considered diversity and
representativeness of the population to be the goal. Jansen acknowledged that research on a
smaller scale may provide enough information to achieve saturation. The qualitative survey
yielded results from 87 individuals used in this study. Forty-eight were former professionals and
39 were current professionals in the field. Fourteen out of the 48 former professional were
interviewed for this study. The qualitative survey consisted of section consisted of 11 additional
questions for former student affairs professionals and 12 additional questions for current
professionals. The survey included a mix of Likert-scale questions and opened-ended questions
to assess participants’ feelings and opinions (Fink, 2003). Many of the questions were designed
to be similar for both populations for the purpose of comparing results. The survey questions for
current professionals also explored what would cause them to leave the field, current level of
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
48
satisfaction with the profession, intent to remain in the field, and whether or not they would
recommend the field to others. These questions were included to provide greater insight to better
understand possible considerations related to leaving the student affairs profession.
Data Collection
Data collection included surveying current and former student affairs professionals and
interviewing former professionals. This study was conducted a few months prior to the start of
the pandemic in the United States. Data collected from this study reflected perspectives and
experiences from individuals who left the profession as well as survey results from current
professionals without the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic-related challenges.
Survey
A recruitment letter and link to Qualtrics, an online survey application, was posted on
various student affairs social media groups, such as on Facebook, and through networks of
professionals in the field. Participants who clicked on the survey link were sent to an
introduction page that described an overview of the study, a review of criteria for participant
selection, and a brief set of instructions for the survey. The pre-survey section consisted of no
more than 10 questions on gender, race, age range, level of education, number of years in student
affairs, and whether they were still working at a higher education institution. The pre-survey
identified individuals who were still a part of the profession and those who were not. Individuals
who were no longer in the profession were directed to a set of questions to screen for potential
interview candidates. Individuals who were currently in the profession were directed to a set of
qualitative survey questions for triangulation. All participants who completed the survey were
entered into a drawing to win a $50 Amazon gift card.
Interviews
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
49
From the pre-survey, a goal of 15 to 20 people no longer in the student affairs profession
were to be selected to participate in the interviews. The selected participants were notified via
email to set up an interview date and time. Once confirmed, a reminder email was sent to all
participants with their scheduled interview and a preview of the interview questions. Interviews
were scheduled over a 2- to 3-week period and conducted online using the Zoom meeting
platform. Online interviews were recorded using the online meeting platform’s audio-recording
option. As audio-recordings do not capture visual and non-verbal behaviors, notes regarding
behaviors and other aspects observed were handwritten and typed out following each interview
(Merriam, 2009).
On the day of the interviews, an interview protocol was used to keep the researcher
organized and focused on the objective of the study (Maxwell, 2013). The interview began with
introductions, and an initial thank you for taking the time to participate in the study. An overview
of the research was explained as a reminder to the participant, and the information sheet was
reviewed. Emphasis was placed on the confidentiality of the participant and the discussion to
ensure that the data collected did not “violate confidentiality or privacy or be potentially
damaging to particular individuals or groups” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 87). Before proceeding with
the interview, the participant was asked to choose a pseudonym.
A brief overview of the interview process was shared with the participant as well as an
explanation of what they should expect (Merriam, 2009). At that time, the participant was
informed that they could opt out of answering any of the questions or stop the interview at any
time. While the interview included a set number of questions, depending on the direction of the
answers, subsequent questions were repositioned and/or follow-up and clarifying questions were
asked. Throughout the interview, notetaking was done by hand to add but not distract from focus.
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
50
If needed, the researcher reconnected with the participants via email or online meeting platform
to review collected and analyzed data. All interviewed participants received a $25 Amazon.com
gift card as compensation for their time and contribution.
Data Security
All data were stored on Dropbox, a secure password-protected cloud storage service
application. The researcher was the only person with log-in access to the storage file. Names and
other confidential information were omitted from the interview protocol, documents, and the data
matrix. A separate code key was developed as a way to keep track of participants. The key was
created in Excel, and the worksheet was password protected as an additional security measure.
The spreadsheet key was also stored in the cloud storage services and separate from the data.
Data Analysis
Merriam (2009) noted that data collection and analysis is a continuous and simultaneous
process. In addition, the analysis should happen from the start of collection (Merriam, 2009).
Maxwell (2013) also encouraged continuous analysis following data collection to remain
connected to the research. Data analysis for both interviews and qualitative survey results were
conducted simultaneously following collection of data and continuously throughout the course of
the study.
Immediately following each interview, initial thoughts and summary of highlights as well
as lessons learned were typed out. At the end of the interview day, video footage and/or audio
recording were reviewed. While reviewing the recordings, additional notes were added, and the
initial phase of identifying categories and selecting coding options began (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam, 2009).
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
51
After each day of interviews, recordings were sent out to be professionally transcribed.
Once the transcriptions were returned, a final system of codes was developed and assigned to the
completed work (Maxwell, 2013). Coding proved valuable to this study as it was the “main
categorizing strategy in qualitative research” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 107). Coding helps to highlight
topics that surface during the individual interviews as well as across multiple interviews
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). It was also a purposeful way to keep data organized (Merriam,
2009).
As qualitative research involves an inductive process, categories were developed from the
data and codes (Merriam, 2009). Categories defined by Merriam (2009) were “responsive to the
research question,” sensitive and easily definable to the reader, exhaustive in that the theme is
far-reaching, mutually exclusive where data should not fit in more than one category, and
conceptually congruent and on the same level (Merriam, 2009, p. 186).
The categories or themes were used to make meaning of the data (Merriam, 2009).
Prominent categories/themes were clustered in a data matrix to help organize and sort the
content. An example of a data matrix can be found in Maxwell’s (2013) work with quotes sorted
in rows and themes in columns. The number of themes depended on the outcome of the data
collected (Maxwell, 2013). All interviews followed the same process of analysis.
The qualitative survey results were analyzed using Jansen’s (2010) three-level approach
of unidimensional description, multidimensional description, and explanation. Unidimensional
description involves a process of coding data and identifying results as objects, dimensions, and
categories (Jansen, 2010). A multidimensional description includes analyzing the relationship or
connection of the categories. Explanation adds context to the connections or made. A data matrix
was used to compile the codes and analysis from the survey.
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
52
Trustworthiness
Merriam (2009) outlined five strategies to achieve trustworthiness and reliability of the
data that were adopted in this study. Triangulation was the first strategy and attained by
collecting data from a variety of sources (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). For this study, data
were collected through interviews with individuals who left student affairs and results from a
qualitative survey from people who were currently in the field. The second strategy, “member
checks,” involved checking back with participants to correct and clarify any discrepancies with
the data collected and interpreted responses (Merriam, 2009, p. 217). Data saturation was the
third strategy and identified when themes and concepts became constant and repetitive (Merriam,
2009). Fourteen participants were interviewed to reach data saturation. The fourth strategy
focused on the researcher as the primary instrument in qualitative research (Merriam, 2009). To
understand how the research may be interpreted, qualifications, experience, and biases were
examined and included in the next section. Finally, Merriam (2009) explained that the fifth
strategy was a peer review of the study by a committee. Prior to participant sourcing, a review
and approval of the research proposal was conducted by a committee. Following the data
collection and analysis, the committee conducted the final review and a defense of the research.
Role of Researcher
Maxwell (2013) outlined researcher bias and reactivity or “influence from the researcher”
as threats to validity (p. 124). To ensure this study’s trustworthiness, the role of the researcher
was examined (Merriam, 2009). Examining the background and position of the researcher
provided a better understanding of how this study was explored and interpreted (Merriam, 2009).
The researcher in this study had a 13-year career in student affairs and oversaw various
areas of student life before leaving the field. The researcher experienced a crossroads moment, as
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
53
defined by Baxter Magolda (2001) that was influenced by new family obligations coupled with
dissatisfaction with the field. In an attempt to define a new path, the researcher departed from the
profession. Baxter Magolda (2001) refers to this phase as becoming the author of one’s life.
The researcher understood that personal experience of leaving the field might influence
the direction of the study. The researcher was aware of biases of being closely connected to the
student affairs field and the experience of making a drastic career decision. To alleviate some of
these pitfalls, the researcher kept a journal throughout data collection and analysis. These
personal reflections served as a reminder of the researcher’s biases in an attempt to keep them
separate from the study.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this chapter outlined the methodology used to address the research
question regarding the experiences of individuals who departed from the student affairs
profession. This case study required sourcing participants using a pre-survey that directed them
to either the qualitative survey or the semi-structured interviews. This chapter also explained the
process for data analysis, strategies to achieve trustworthiness, and the role of the researcher.
Baxter Magolda’s (2001) theory of self-authorship provided a lens to guide the interview
questions and data analysis.

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
54
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF DATA AND FINDINGS
This chapter presents data and findings on the experiences of individuals who departed
from the profession of student affairs. An overview of the survey participants, consisting of
people who are still in the profession and some who are not, as well as a brief overview of the
interview participant selection process, is also included. A summary of interview participants,
along with a profile and description of each person, is provided. In addition, interview data were
analyzed and categorized into four themes: unsustainable expectations of the profession, a
decline in self-efficacy, prioritizing self, and limited options. Finally, additional findings from
the survey results are discussed.
The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences of professionals who have
departed the field of student affairs and to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the experiences of student affairs professionals that contribute to their decision
to leave the profession?
a. How do personal experiences contribute to the decision to depart from the student
affairs profession?
b. How do professional experiences contribute to the decision to depart from the
student affairs profession?
c. What other opportunities are these professionals leaving the field to pursue?
Participant Overview and Profiles
Calls for survey and interview participants were distributed through Facebook. Personal
connections, as well as posts on the student affairs professionals and expatriates of student affairs
groups, helped to generate participation. From the Facebook announcements, 228 attempted the
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
55
survey, with 159 people completing it. The survey yielded 135 possible participants. Of the 135
surveys, 71 were still working in student affairs, while 64 were not.
Interview Participants
From the survey, a total of 48 acceptable interview candidates were identified, with 45
willing to interview. Twenty-six possible interview participants were selected based on
demographic information provided to achieve a diverse pool of experiences. After emailing
them, 18 responded, and 16 individuals scheduled interviews. From the 16, 14 interviews were
conducted, with two canceling twice without rescheduling following the second and third
contact. Table 1 lists participants’ demographics in terms of race, age range, level of education,
self-identified career level, years working student affairs, and the number of years out of the
profession. Table 2 illustrates the last position held, along with the institution size, location, and
type. Former titles and departments from the last position held in student affairs were generalized
to ensure anonymity.

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
56
Table 1
Participant Demographics: Overview
Name Gender Race
Age
range
Career level
Years
in SA
Years
out
Betsy Female White 26–30 Mid-level 5 < 1
Book Female
Asian or Asian American
31–35 Mid-level 6 1
Colleen Female
Black or African American,
White
31–35 Mid-level 10 1
George Male White 31–35 Mid-level 9 4
Jessica Female White 31–35 New 8 2
Joe Male
Asian or Asian American
31–35 New 5 < 1
John Male White 31–35 Mid-level 9 1
Karen Female White 36- 40 Mid-level 12 2
May Female White 41- 45 Mid-level 16 1
Rose Female White 31–35 Mid-level 8 2
Ryan Male White 31–35 New 2 6
Sam Female
Asian or Asian American
26- 30 New 4 1
Simone Female White 36- 40 Mid-level 10 < 1
Sophia Female
Hispanic or Latinx
26- 30 New 2 < 1

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
57
Table 2
Participant Demographics: Last Position Held With Institution Size, Region and Type
Name
Title last
position held
Student affairs
department
Institution size
Institution location
(region & division)
Institution
type
Betsy
Assistant
director
Residential
education
Large:
10,000+
West: Mountain/Pacific Public
Book
Assistant
director
Residential
education
Medium:
3,000–9,999
Northeast: New
England/Mid-Atlantic
Private
Colleen
Assistant
director
Leadership &
development
Large:
10,000+
Midwest: East North
Central/West North
Central
Private
George
Program
coordinator
Residential
education
Large:
10,000+
West: Mountain/Pacific Public
Jessica
Program
coordinator
Civic engagement
or volunteer
programs
Large:
10,000+
Northeast: New
England/Mid-Atlantic
Public
Joe
Program
coordinator
Residential
education
Large:
10,000+
West: Mountain/Pacific Public
John
Assistant
director
Student activities
Medium:
3,000–9,999
Northeast: New
England/Mid-Atlantic
Private
Karen
Assistant
director
Residential
Education
Medium:
3,000–9,999
Northeast: New
England/Mid-Atlantic
Public
May
Program
coordinator
Cultural or
advocacy center
Large:
10,000+
Midwest: East North
Central/West North
Central
Public
Rose
Assistant
director
Leadership &
development
Small: 1,000–
2,999
Midwest: East North
Central/West North
Central
Private
Ryan
Program
manager
Leadership &
development
Large:
10,000+
South: South
Atlantic/East South
Central/West South
Central
Public
Sam
Program
coordinator
Cultural or
advocacy center
Large:
10,000+
South: South
Atlantic/East South
Central/West South
Central
Public
Simone
Assistant
dean
Cultural or
advocacy center
Small: 1,000–
2,999
West: Mountain/Pacific Private
Sophia
Program
coordinator
Student activities
Large:
10,000+
Northeast: New
England/Mid-Atlantic
Public

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
58
Interview Participant Profiles
Betsy held a master’s degree and had worked in student affairs for 5 years. In her last
position, she served as an assistant director in residential education or equivalent. She came from
a family of student affairs practitioners, primarily in residential education. Due to stressors of
what she described as a “toxic work environment,” Betsy developed physical ailments and left
the profession to take care of her physical well-being. Following departure from the field, she
decided to take some time off before searching for new employment. At the time of the
interview, she had been out of the profession for less than a year.
Book held a master’s degree and worked in student affairs for 6 years. In her last
position, she served as an assistant director in residential education or equivalent. Assuming
multiple responsibilities during her last year in the profession, she was passed over for an open
position for which she had already been doing the work. After confiding in colleagues, she
discovered that she was not hired due to vocalizing challenges and changes needed to improve
the department as well as improve opportunities for students. Following departure from the field,
she found employment with a nonprofit organization slightly related to student affairs, although
the individuals she works with are 21 to 35 years old. At the time of the interview, she had been
out of the profession for about a year.
Colleen held a master’s degree and worked in student affairs for 10 years. In her last
position, she served as an assistant director in leadership and development or equivalent. While
in the field, she felt stressed out, overworked, and, at times, made to feel unworthy of any
success. In addition, she felt that advancement in student affairs required people advocating on
her behalf. With few people advocating for her and few opportunities at her institution, in
addition to limited opportunities in the surrounding area, she looked for advancement
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
59
opportunities outside the profession. Following departure from the field, she found employment
in human resources with a private company not related to student affairs or higher education. At
the time of the interview, she had been out of the profession for about a year.
George held a master’s degree and worked in student affairs for 9 years. In his last
position, he served as a program coordinator in residential education or equivalent. George found
dissatisfaction in having to address the same student concerns year after year, limited
opportunities to branch out of residential education, and, ultimately, felt that there was nothing
pulling him to remain in the field. Following his departure, he found employment with a global
private company not related to student affairs or higher education. At the time of the interview,
he had been out of the profession for about 4 years.
Jessica held a master’s degree and worked in student affairs for 8 years. In her last
position, she served as a program coordinator in civic engagement/volunteer programs or
equivalent. During her last position, coordinating service learning programs, her position was
moved from one department to being programmatically housed in another department. In the
process, she asked for an opportunity to advance her career and move into a more administrative
role. Although initially denied, she remained in the position for 5 years. Exasperated by the lack
of support and feeling constantly denied of opportunities to move her career forward, Jessica
longed for work-life balance and left the profession. She initially found employment with a
professional organization related to student affairs and higher education. At the time of the
interviews, she was employed in human resources at a private company and had been out of the
profession for 2 years.
Joe held a master’s degree and worked in student affairs for 5 years. In his last position,
he served as a program coordinator in residential education or equivalent. After being denied
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
60
time off during a slow time in the academic year, he discovered that his supervisor was ill-
equipped to address time off for couples serving in the same department. He discovered that she
actively sabotaged his vacation plans by coercing his partner to recall his request for time off.
During this time, he had a realization regarding the direction he wanted for his life and how this
direction was no longer congruent with the profession. After leaving the field, he found a couple
of opportunities not related to student affairs or higher education. He worked as an intern for a
start-up technology company that was able to front-load his intern pay, and he also worked part-
time at a fitness company. At the time of the interview, he had been out of the profession for less
than a year.
John held a master’s degree and worked in student affairs for 9 years. In his last position,
he served as an assistant director in student activities or equivalent. Similar to Book’s
experience, he assumed the duties of his supervisor, who left a year prior, in addition to his own
responsibilities. At odds with the leadership, the department eventually hired a new director who
opposed feedback from the remaining staff. Following his departure, he found employment with
a private tech start-up not related to student affairs or higher education. At the time of the
interview, he had been out of the profession for about a year.
Karen held a master’s degree and worked in student affairs for 12 years. In her last
position, she served as an assistant director in residential education or equivalent. Seeking to be
closer to ailing family, she, along with her husband and child, moved back home. During that
time, she unsuccessfully sought opportunities for a position in student affairs closer to her new
residence. After being a finalist for a position three times and being offered an interim position
that fell through, she was left with finding an opportunity outside the field. She eventually found
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
61
employment with the local government not related to student affairs or higher education. At the
time of the interview, she had been out of the profession for 2 years.
May held a master’s degree and worked in student affairs. Although she listed in the
exploratory survey that she had been in the student affairs profession for 16 years before leaving,
she spent 10 of those years in a full-time professional role. In her last position, she served as a
program coordinator in a cultural/advocacy center or equivalent. She was drawn to the profession
and wanted to remain in her position after she saw the impact the political atmosphere and the
nation had on her students. However, as resources began to diminish, she saw instability increase
within student affairs. As a result, she began searching for opportunities outside the profession.
Following departure from the field, she found employment with a private company not related to
student affairs or higher education. At the time of the interview, she had been out of the
profession for about a year.
Rose held a master’s degree and worked in student affairs for 8 years. In her last position,
she served as an assistant director in leadership and development or equivalent. Rose
experienced long hours and high stress due to the possible litigious nature of her work.
Following departure from the field, she found employment as a corporate trainer at a large
private company not related to student affairs or higher education. At the time of the interview,
she had been out of the profession for 2 years.
Ryan held a master’s degree and worked in student affairs for 2 years. In his last student
affairs position, he served as a program manager in leadership and development or equivalent.
Following changes in the department and feeling a growing apathy for the lack of impact he was
making in his role as well as seeking personal and professional change, Ryan discovered more
opportunities outside of the profession that better suited the lifestyle he wanted. Ryan found
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
62
employment with a private company closely related to higher education. At the time of the
interview, he had been out of the profession for 6 years.
Sam held a master’s degree and worked in student affairs for 4 years. In her last position,
she served as a program coordinator in a cultural/advocacy center or equivalent. Sam was passed
up for an open position although she had already been doing the work for that role. She
encountered consistent negative experiences with her supervisor, who did not support her growth
in the profession and often restricted her professional development opportunities. Feeling
undervalued, burned out, and working until early morning hours to prepare programs for
students, she encountered an experience that made her question her capacity to effectively serve
students. Following departure from the field, she found employment with a private company not
related to student affairs or higher education, although the role required training and teaching
similar to that of the profession. At the time of the interview, she had been out of the profession
for about a year.
Simone held a master’s degree and worked in student affairs for 10 years. In her last
position, she served as the assistant dean in a cultural/advocacy center or equivalent. At odds
with the leadership of the institution, Simone described often feeling disregarded and
disrespected in her role, and as a result, made to question her effectiveness at the institution.
Following departure from the field, she found employment overseeing a private start-up that
provided college counseling with an emphasis on serving underserved and marginalized
communities. At the time of the interview, she had been out of the profession for less than a year.
Sophia held a master’s degree and worked in student affairs for 2 years. In her last
position, she served as a program coordinator in student activities or equivalent. With a
considerable amount of student loan debt, she had been living and working in a high-cost
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
63
location, and was required to supplement her income through part-time positions outside of her
full-time work. To minimize her expenses, she eventually moved home and in the process, found
employment at a nonprofit outside of the field, although related to higher education. At the time
of the interview, she had been out of the profession for less than a year.
Emerging Themes
Four main themes emerged from the interview data analysis. A brief definition of each
theme as well as examples of experiences reported by the participants are included in this
section. The themes are (a) unsustainable expectations of the profession, (b) decline of self-
efficacy, (c) prioritizing self, and (d) limited options. Also, additional findings from the survey
results have been included to support the study.
Theme 1: Unsustainable Expectations of the Profession
Research has found that student affairs professionals expected little pay compared to the
scope of duties performed, anticipated working extended hours that required nights and
weekends, and understood the challenges of politics within the institution (Marshall et al., 2016;
Renn & Jessup-Anger, 2008). However, while in various positions, 11 out of 14 participants
specifically discussed their assumptions of the field were inaccurate, and the work was much
more demanding and damaging in reality. The complexities of their position and of the
profession were no longer sustainable in the long term and eventually contributed to their
decision to leave the field.
For one participant, extended work hours meant having to manage a student crisis after
midnight and the expectation of being present and available for her students as well as her team
the following day. Book explained,
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
64
The standard of care at that institution is you respond in person unless absolutely not
necessary. So, even though I didn’t live on campus, if something happened, I was going
to campus in the middle of the night. I might deal with an issue from like midnight to
5 a.m. The expectation was that you were at work the next morning and that you were
there all day. And, so, there was no chance as a person to recover from what you might
have dealt with, like a major mental health situation or an assault. I didn’t have a chance
to decompress, but I was supposed to be expected to be at work and then deal with
students or issues or a process all day long. Until I felt like I was never cared for as a
person. And that was one of the major reasons I think that prompted me to leave.
Similar to Book, Rose discussed the challenges of extended work hours and working with high-
stress situations that caused her to feel burned out. These challenges contributed to her reasons to
leave the profession. Rose said,
I think that the ultimate reason is burnout. It was to the point where just working
incredibly long hours and then being available all the time. I would be getting emails at
10:00 p.m. that there were allegations of hazing at a sorority event. And it was just the
stress of having to deal with that much. I mean, that’s high risk. I was working with
organizations that I could be sued for if I knew about an event and didn’t take the correct
action. So, it was really high risk and high stress and just low returns. Yeah. If I had to
boil it down, it’s really just burnout and not feeling appreciated.
Rose also discussed her experience with compensation among student affairs professionals:
And I think the other thing with compensation because everyone goes into student affairs
like, “I’m doing this not for the money. I’m doing it for the students.” But there comes a
point where money does matter. And also, it was really hard to kind of swallow my pride
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
65
every time. I was meeting with a fraternity president, who’s a senior, who’s telling me,
“Oh, I just got hired into this full-time role, and I’m going to be making $80,000, and I
just bought a house,” and I’m like, “Here you are; I’m teaching you and making pennies.”
That was hard to swallow.
Sophia explained having to take on additional jobs to supplement her income as a full-time
employee in student affairs and the negative effects of that experience:
I think what really made it the most challenging was I was living in [a] metropolitan area
at the time. Cost of living is expensive, first of all. Second of all, I have a stupid amount
of debt from my undergrad. I had to work a second job on top of student activities. So,
for about a year, I worked at a TJ Maxx in addition to my student activities role, which
was just a very special slice of hell. And then after my TJ Maxx year, because that just
was not what I was wanting it to be, I got a job at Trader Joe’s. And I worked there for
about a year and a half as well, which is a very physically demanding job on top of a
student activities role. So, I think just like putting in my 40 to 50 hours a week in my full-
time student activities job and then an additional anywhere from 10 to 20 hours a week in
a second job. The burnout was very fast, I think, in that regard.
Sophia further discussed the combination of having to take on part-time positions and an
unsupportive work environment as contributing to her leaving the student affairs profession. She
said,
I would say the lack of support and trying something new/different with those learning
outcomes I just talked about, in addition to dislike the salary that I was making at the
time. Just at that point, there was no way I would stay in student affairs without moving
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
66
up in responsibility or moving up in a role thus moving up in a salary bracket kind of
thing. So, those were really the two biggest reasons of why I left.
While individuals who begin their careers in the student affairs profession have a general
understanding of the challenges of being in the field, such as low pay and long hours, the data
reflect that, in reality, these challenges significantly affected participants’ interest in persisting in
the field.
Theme 2: Decline of Self-Efficacy
Interview participants reported feeling overstretched, underprepared to deal with crisis
situations, not supported or respected by supervisors as well as those above them, and a general
disregard for their hard work. For those individuals, these experiences contributed to declines in
their self-confidence and self-worth, ability to be effective, and interest in continued work in the
profession.
Simone described a lack of respect from her supervisors as well as those in higher
administrative positions. She expressed feeling isolated to the point where her satisfaction in her
role and of the profession were impacted. She explained,
By the time I left, I had gone from being a pretty respected leader on campus to being in
pretty direct conflict with our vice president and just feeling more and more
professionally disrespected and just so isolated in my work. I love, even at the time that I
left, I don’t think I’d lost my satisfaction in the content of what I was doing. I loved
working with the students. They were amazing. I loved working on complex projects,
problem solving, and thinking about strategically how to move certain issues forward and
change the institution. And I loved the blend of the relational work with more of the
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
67
complex strategic planning and visioning. But I think the constant undermining and the
constant disrespect just took the joy and satisfaction out of it.
Simone described the lack of autonomy and constant scrutiny of her ability to manage and lead
her department as the experiences that led her to question her performance and her future
trajectory in the profession. Simone said,
I think that one of the particular areas where I was really, really torn down in the last year
at my job was around management and leadership. I had always received feedback that I
was a very supportive and strong manager and have always had positive relationships
with the people who work for me and with my last student relationships even after they
move on. And I think because I manage in a way that’s disrupting the norms of
Whiteness and White supremacy in the workplace, and especially in this last year as a
White woman supervising two young queer women of color. The dynamics of our
relationship, I think, were very different than what the typical management relationship
looked like within my division. And I started receiving just so much undercutting and
negative feedback about my performance as a manager, about not controlling my staff,
about not keeping them in line, just all these really harmful toxic things that I started to
internalize. I started to really doubt and question myself of maybe I’m just not cut out to
be a supervisor. Maybe I just need to be in an independent role, and maybe I’m not cut
out for this.
John described his challenges after a supportive supervisor left, and he was tasked with taking on
his position as well as the duties of his former supervisor. After almost a year, a replacement was
hired to fill the supervisor’s role. Unfortunately, this added to the challenges he was already
experiencing. He explained,
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
68
I wasn’t respected for the work that I was doing. I was doing a lot. There are several
students who credited me personally for their retention and, you know, I was getting piled
on for work and being micromanaged when doing things in ways that were received
poorly. I mean, I was driven out when you get down to it.
Continuing to reflect on his time in student affairs after leaving the profession, John discussed
the mental trauma that had affected his self-worth. John said,
I’ve discovered that so much of my self-worth is no longer wrapped up in my job and my
performance in my job because for so many years that had been where I derived a lot of
my self-worth, and, therefore, when things started going poorly, that really had a negative
impact on my psyche, and I went through a lot of therapy. I’ve been in therapy anyway. I
have a generalized anxiety disorder. Part way through the last whole academic year that I
worked in higher ed, I went in for trauma therapy for [eye movement desensitization and
reprocessing] and that was necessary and helpful. To work every day was traumatic. And,
so, I don’t need that anymore. That’s nice.
For May, the challenges of working in the student affairs profession during a time when
resources were scarce contributed to increase stress and her diminished capacity to fully address
student issues. May explained,
I was definitely, the last few years, functioning. My stress level was high for lots of
reasons. We were understaffed in general in student affairs, so we were all doing that
thing where we’re trying to figure out how to make the most of less, while students’
mental health… And what I tried to figure out; is it my shifting capacity of not being able
to have as much for all of the stuff that was happening with students? Because it just felt
like their mental health was at an all-time low in those last couple of years.
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
69
Book described not feeling valued after being overlooked for an open position for which she had
already been doing the work for months. Book said,
How did I choose to leave? The thing that, more than anything, I knew it was, like, my
family told me all the time that I was unhappy. I don’t think I recognize it or how much I
was unhappy. But the thing that prompted me more than anything else. So, the associate
director who oversaw housing left about a year before I did, and I applied for that job,
and I didn’t even get an interview. And she had been gone for, by the time I applied for
the job and it was posted, I had been doing the job for about six months. I was entirely
running housing operations for 4,000 students, and I didn’t get an interview for a job.
And that said to me, “You’re not valued here at all.”
Finally, Sam described a progression of experiences that led to a breakdown of her self-efficacy
and forego her interest in pursuing other opportunities within the student affairs profession:
Ironically, during the exit interview that I had for this last role, they asked me when the
first time I thought about leaving. And I think it was when I had this multicultural
leadership summit. You know, 3:00 a.m., 4:00 a.m. in the morning just typing away,
creating assignments. I had this epiphany that I couldn’t do it, right? My supervisor had
left three months into my role. So, I had two supervisors, and I took on her
responsibilities when she left. And then I had this new man of color supervisor come in
who didn’t necessarily support me. And so that’s moment Number 1.
Second time would be I was supervising my graduate assistant and giving some
really critical feedback that I needed her to hear. And she never reacted really defensively
because I don’t think I was the best. I had given that feedback in a timely place and
manner, right? And I started crying. I started crying when I was just being very upfront
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
70
that there was nothing that I was reacting to. I was just being myself, and I couldn’t
handle it. I knew that my emotions, I was really shot. I was really burned out. And the
fact that I was crying when this was a really critical moment for me to hold space for her
and to really talk it through. Right? And then the situation became about, me and that’s
not necessarily how I wanted to guide that conversation. So, I think that was the second
epiphany. I didn’t have the emotional bandwidth to hold these conversations.
The data show that the breakdown of self-efficacy contributed to individuals’ departure from the
field. The primary purpose of the student affairs profession is to serve students (Schwartz &
Stewart, 2017; Thelin & Gasman, 2017; Wilson, 2017). However, a combination of negative
experiences such as institutional bureaucracy, insufficient resources, and lack of support from
higher up contributed to a decline of their sense of value, self-worth, and effectiveness when
providing service to students.
Theme 3: Prioritizing Self
Interview participants explained that they expected to make less and work long hours but
did not realize how much it actually mattered or the amount of impact it had on them. The lack
of pay and long hours, in addition to the other challenges experienced in the field, contributed to
issues with mental health and wellness as well as to the feeling of having lost time with friends
and family. At that point in their awareness, participants questioned whether student affairs was
worth the challenges since the actual demands of the profession were now incongruent with what
they wanted out of their life. In response, interview participants discussed prioritizing themselves
as a reason for leaving the field.
Betsy described the various challenges in her workplace that led to her developing
physical health issues. She explained,
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
71
Yeah, I went to the doctor for six or seven different physical symptoms that were all
manifestations of stress and a toxic environment. I said, “My body deserves better. I am
not going to ruin my body for a job.” So, yep, I was real sick and had to leave to take care
of my body.
After countless workplace challenges, Joe described a moment when he began to reevaluate what
he wanted and did not want out of his professional life:
I started thinking I tell my students to really think about yourself and your future, and so,
it was one of my students actually in RHA, the president. I would have one-on-ones, and
she wanted to work at a startup. And she actually works there now because of me,
actually. We actually talked about our visions and what we wanted for ourselves in May
of this last year, and I was applying for these things, and I just started thinking about
myself for once. I’m, like, think about myself as the students for one day. You know?
And think about yourself and the future, so I just started valuing my own professional
development and my own path and my own happiness. I was thinking about why don’t I
want Mondays to come? People always say that, and I started dreading Monday and
dreading every day except Friday. And even then, duty added to it. I told myself I don’t
want duty. I don’t want to care for someone else’s well-being because I don’t get paid
enough for that unless I go to grad school again and get my counseling degree, and I will
do it. And, so, I told myself let me do something else that’s going to give me the financial
stability that I need and is going to put me first with the organization I care about. So,
that’s where it all kind of aligned.
Feeling passed over for opportunities, unsupported, and burned out, Jessica explained that her
aspiration for work-life balance contributed to her departure from student affairs:
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
72
So, I just kind of felt like I wasn’t supported by the leadership in the division and I was
kind of burned out. I was just kind of done with being at work till nine o’clock 3 days a
week and having to come in on weekends, and having to plan my personal life around my
job and when I could hang out with my friends and spend time with my family and my
boyfriend. And, so, I just had a point where I was like, “I want to be home for dinner.”
So, I think it was that combination where the lack of support from the leadership and that
person, that desire for personal balance in my life.
George described the monotony of dealing with the same student issues over time as well as
having to address a few difficult student cases. After a particular incident, he began to question
his future in the profession and whether employment outside of it would generate the
professional outcome he longed for at the time. George explained,
I think it was just my last year at [a college] where I was meeting younger professionals
in the fields who were really gung-ho and excited for it and I was just like, ah, I’m not
really that excited anymore. And then I was dealing with student problems for the
thousandths time, and I was like, I’m just going to keep having these conversations,
aren’t I? And there was one or two pretty heavy student incidents where I was on call on
a Saturday talking to the dean of students office on a Sunday morning because of a sexual
assault or something. And my son’s floating around behind me. I can’t keep doing this. I
ended up moving out of housing. Just to get me some separation. And when I saw that
just moving out of housing was, like? I said to myself [advancing a career in this field
required] that much experience, a PhD, and tons of connections throughout the
university. I’m like, this isn’t even worth it. I could just go get a regular job and tick all
[my] boxes.
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
73
With organizational changes and the growing lack of appeal of his current role, Ryan was
seeking to make a personal and professional change outside of student affairs. Ryan explained,
The sort of way that leadership programs were beginning to get broken out and re-
imagined. That wasn’t an exciting endeavor to go down, and working with 150 students
at a school of 27,000 was not the sort of scale of impact that that was energizing to me.
And so, between that and knowing that I ultimately wanted to [move to the East Coast],
that was a large part in forming with that transition would look like.
Ryan further reflected about how his job search process was directed by prioritizing how he
wanted to see his future. He said,
I wouldn’t say there was a specific catalyzing event professionally. Personally, I was
going through a lot of change. And, so, that informed a lot of the timing and the why. So,
I think it’s probably the largest influencing reason. What the [job search] process look
like [for me]? I mean I knew I wanted to stay in education, and in higher ed, in general.
And [move to the East Coast], there were a couple of things that ended up in forming part
of what that search looked like. One of them was looking at what the cost of living was in
[this new location], and what would be required. Another was realizing that I had
residence life experience, and that would have maybe check the box for being able to
accommodate a move up to [this state on the East Coast] and being able to live. The
lifestyle of that did not seem particularly inviting. And because of the landscape of the
types of organizations that were based in [this state on the East Coast], it actually gave
me a lot of different options to look at. So, that in itself because the search started with
place and lifestyle. It then opened up a lot more thinking about what I might want to do
next. So, when I found a couple of organizations that were technology-based in higher
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
74
education, working with senior leaders, on both change management and a strategic
problem that was impacting the whole of higher ed, that was really compelling to me.
And, so, that’s part of the reason why I drove in that direction versus trying to go to
another campus in [this state on the East Coast] because, obviously, there were tons of
options. But I looked at the lifestyle that I had and thought about how that would translate
into a salary in [this state on the East Coast], and saw how it was translating, and realized
that there was no way that I was going to be paying student loans and making a
reasonable living while getting the lifestyle out of the community that I was looking for
in [the East Coast].
Participants described leaving the field after reevaluating what they felt was important to
them. Whether they chose to leave the field for health reasons, work/life balance, or a lifestyle,
each decided to prioritize their self-interests.
Theme 4: Limited Options
Finally, interview participants discussed a variety of experiences with regard to limited
options within the profession. While limited career opportunities were one aspect of this theme,
participants shared challenges regarding the lack of opportunities to advance in the field, low
availability of open positions, hiring process issues, and the limitations of being location-bound.
These experiences contributed to their departure from student affairs.
Colleen described wanting more in her professional life but finding few opportunities in
the field. These limited opportunities led her to search outside the field. Colleen explained,
The way I finally started looking at jobs outside of student affairs was when I realized
there was nowhere for me to go. I wasn’t getting support from my supervisor, and that
relationship started to really take a downturn. So, I knew I needed something. I had
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
75
applied for jobs outside of [the metropolitan area] in student affairs and didn’t really feel
much energy [for] them. The more I thought about pursuing that original dream of being
a director of student involvement, the more I didn’t care to do Greek Life, the more I
didn’t like the policy and politics of student organizations. I just really liked leadership,
and I really liked being able to have those a-ha moments with students.
Collen further explained that she was not able to see other opportunities for advancement while
at her institution. After time outside of the profession, she reflected on being in the field and
explained that she continued to have a difficult time identifying other possibilities to move up in
the profession:
I didn’t see an opportunity to advance at my current institution, and thinking about how I
might have a pathway to more responsibility, more pay, higher title. Even after I left the
university, I didn’t really see where that existed either. I mean, when I looked at it, there
are a handful of director of leadership centers in the country. Like, I’m waiting for a
handful of people to retire, and then I have to hope that I get that job. I can’t keep waiting
for that.
Similarly, George described the limited options in the field as well as other challenges that made
him realize there was nothing more that enticed him to stay. When asked if he had any
reservations when leaving the field, he explained,
I didn’t really have any [reservations], to be honest. That’s the one thing, especially, I felt
like I was kind of stuck in housing for a while because at the time I finished up my
degree, I was literally stopping housing for a while. There just wasn’t a lot of
opportunities anywhere. Hiring freezes pretty much across the state. But, when I was
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
76
looking for other jobs, I was thinking there’s nothing really holding you back to doing
this anymore.
Karen described the challenges of securing a position prior to and following her move out of
state that informed her decision to make the transition without a job. She explained,
It’s funny because how I actually got out of student affairs is we were living in [the
Northeast], my husband and my son, and we decided to move back home. Both of our
families are from [there], and my mom has had some health issues and stuff, and we were
like, we really need to move home. And I had been applying to positions close around
[the state] and where we wanted to live and had gotten some bites and things like that.
But then we just decided to set a date. I said, “It’s really hard for me to like travel back
and forth with these interviews. We just need to set a date and say we’re moving.” My
husband works from home, so we were very lucky in that we could do that, and he would
still have a job because he can work from anywhere. So, we just said, okay, this is our
date, if I don’t have a job by then, we’ll figure it out when we get there, we’re just going
to move because that’s the only thing that makes sense.
Karen further elaborated on her experience interviewing for a position in student affairs and
highlighted some of the internal and organizational complexities of the hiring process at an
institution. Karen explained that the institution conducted three separate hiring processes for the
same position. Within that time span, candidates were selected and eventually left before or
within a few months of hire. She said,
In the meantime, before we moved, I had had two interviews with the same school. It was
the school that I thought I really, really wanted to work with, so I interviewed for the
same position twice before we moved, and I got to either top three or top two candidates
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
77
that didn’t get hired. Through stalking, I realized, [the first time], they hired from within,
which makes sense. The [second] time, they hired somebody from outside. [I] got another
interview at this school, same position, same interview process. Literally, this is the third
time I’ve made it to the top, like, two or three candidates. Right? Didn’t get hired again.
They hired an internal person again and then the internal person, three months after they
hired them, left.
Karen was eventually offered the role on an interim basis. Willing to take the chance to
secure a permanent opportunity, Karen accepted verbally. However, after she followed up
several times with no response, she was informed that the position posted was earmarked for an
internal hire, and, as an outside candidate, she should not have been considered for that role. She
continued,
And they called me, and they were like, “Oh, would you be interested in taking on this
position as an interim position?” And I’m thinking, you know what, that’d be great to get
my foot in the door and then, when the position comes up again, at least then by then
they’ll know me and then maybe I’ll be a better chance to get hired in. And I’m like,
“Yeah, I’d be very interested.” And then I just got ghosted for like 2 weeks and didn’t
hear from them. And I was like, what the hell is going on? I get this call, they say they’re
going to call me back. Finally, I call. Left a message. Didn’t get a call back, call left
another message, finally get the director on the phone. She’s like, “Oh well, actually, we
found out from HR that because this is a union position that we can’t offer internally to
someone that’s not currently an employee of the college.” I’m like, “What?! Isn’t that
something you think you would have checked on before you called me and said would
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
78
you like the job? The whole thing was just such a bizarre experience. The fact that I
interviewed for the same position three times, get to the final part, it’s just really bizarre.
Data from the interviews suggested that individuals felt they had little availability of
options when describing their decision to leave the profession. For various reasons, they sought
work or were required to look for opportunities outside of the profession. Some, like Colleen, felt
it was the only option she had to advance her career. George discussed limited opportunities and
positions in his geographical location. Karen sought employment at a local institution following
a move to a different state did not attain a position in student affairs.
Additional Findings
Survey findings provided additional insight into considerations related to departure from
the student affairs field. Survey questions were divided into four topics: (a) future plans to
remain in the profession, (b) satisfaction with professional and personal life, (c) opinions of the
student affairs profession, and (d) whether individuals would recommend the profession to
others. The study yielded 39 results from current professionals. Three identified as senior-level,
27 were mid-level, and nine considered themselves new professionals, having been in the field
for less than 5 years. There were 48 completed surveys from former student affairs professionals:
three senior-level, 32 mid-level, and 13 new. Table 3 lists the demographic information of the 39
current professionals who completed the survey. Table 4 lists the demographic information of the
48 former professionals who completed the survey.

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
79
Table 3
Survey Demographics of Current Professionals
Current professionals Count Percent
Gender
Female 30 77%
Male 9 23%
Age Range
18–25 1 3%
26- 30 10 26%
31–35 18 46%
36- 40 6 15%
41- 45 2 5%
50+ 2 5%
Race
Asian or Asian American 5 13%
Black or African American 3 8%
Hispanic or Latina/o 1 3%
White 28 72%
American Indian or Alaska Native, Hispanic or Latina/o, White 1 3%
Asian or Asian American, White 1 3%
Highest degree attained
Master’s (MA, MS, MEd) 34 87%
Doctorate (PhD) 4 10%
Professional doctorate (MD, DDS, JD, EdD) 1 3%
Career level
New Professional (Less than 5 years in Student Affairs) 9 23%
Mid-level professional 27 69%
Senior-Level professional 3 8%
Institution Size
Very small: < 1,000 students 0 0%
Small: 1,000–2,999 9 23%
Medium: 3,000–9,999 8 21%
Large: 10,000+ 22 56%
Institution Region
Midwest: East North Central/West North Central 9 23%
Northeast: New England/Mid-Atlantic 7 18%
South: South Atlantic/East South Central/West South Central 9 23%
West: Mountain/Pacific 14 36%

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
80
Current professionals Count Percent
Current Student Affairs Functional Area
Career services 1 3%
Cultural and advocacy 1 3%
Orientation and new student programs 0 0%
Residential education 14 36%
Student activities/engagement 13 33%
Student conduct and support 3 8%
Other 7 18%

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
81
Table 4
Survey Demographics of Former Professionals
Former professionals Count Percent
Gender
Female 35 73%
Male 13 27%
Age Range
18–25 0 0%
26–30 8 17%
31–35 20 42%
36–40 12 25%
41–45 7 15%
50+ 1 2%
Race
Asian or Asian American 3 6%
Black or African American 2 4%
Hispanic or Latina/o 2 4%
White 38 79%
Asian or Asian American, Hispanic or Latina/o, White 1 2%
Black or African American, White 1 2%
Hispanic or Latina/o, White 1 2%
Highest degree attained
Master’s (MA, MS, MEd) 43 90%
Doctorate (PhD) 1 2%
Professional doctorate (MD, DDS, JD, EdD) 4 8%
Career level
New professional (Less than 5 years in Student Affairs) 13 27%
Mid-level professional 32 67%
Senior level professional 3 6%
Institution size
Very small: < 1,000 students 2 4%
Small: 1,000–2,999 7 15%
Medium: 3,000–9,999 14 29%
Large: 10,000+ 25 52%
Institution region
Midwest: East North Central/West North Central 11 23%
Northeast: New England/Mid-Atlantic 17 35%
South: South Atlantic/East South Central/West South Central 7 15%
West: Mountain/Pacific 13 27%
Previous student affairs functional area
Career services 0 0%
Cultural and advocacy 4 8%
Orientation and new student programs 2 4%
Residential education 19 40%
Student activities/engagement 17 35%
Student conduct and support 3 6%
Other 3 6%
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
82
Future Plans to Remain in the Profession
The survey asked current professionals, “Do you plan on working in student affairs for
the remainder of your career?” Table 5 shows the results. Figure 2 illustrates them in a bar graph.
Table 5
Future Plans to Remain in the Profession
Do you plan on working in student affairs for the remainder of your
career?
Yes No
Total
count
Yes
(%)
No
(%)
Senior-level professional
3 0 3 100% 0%
Mid-level professional
7 20 27 26% 74%
New professional (less than 5 years in student affairs)
2 7 9 22% 78%
Overall total and average of current professionals 12 27 39 31% 69%

Figure 2
Future Plans to Remain in the Profession Graph

Of the 39 respondents, all senior-level professionals answered “yes” that they would
remain in the field, while 74% of mid-level professionals and 78% of new ones said they do not
plan on working in the field for the remainder of their careers.
Satisfaction With the Profession
22.2
25.9
100.0
30.8
77.8
74.1
69.2
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
New Professional (< 5 years)
Mid-level Professional
Senior Level Professional
Total
Do you plan on working in student affairs for the remainder of your career?
Percent Yes Percent No
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
83
Current and former student affairs professionals were asked to rate their satisfaction on a
5-point Likert scale, from 1 being very dissatisfied to 5 being very satisfied. The two questions
asked respondents to rate their satisfaction with their current or former student affairs
professional role and their life outside of work while in the profession. Table 6 and Figure 3
present the results.

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
84
Table 6
Satisfaction of Professional Position and Life Outside of Work
Satisfaction of former professionals
Q1. Rate the satisfaction of your
student affairs professional
position.
Total
count
Very
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neither
satisfied
nor
dissatisfied
Satisfied
Very
satisfied
Total
All responses 48 20.8 33.3 12.5 31.3 2.1 100
Senior-level professional 3 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 0.0 100
Mid-level professional 32 18.8 34.4 12.5 31.3 3.1 100
New professional (< 5 Years) 13 23.1 30.8 7.7 38.5 0.0 100

Q2. Rate your satisfaction of
your life outside of work while
working in student affairs.
Total
count
Very
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neither
satisfied
nor
dissatisfied
Satisfied
Very
satisfied
Total
All Responses 48 14.6 41.7 12.5 27.1 4.2 100
Senior-level professional 3 0.0 33.3 0.0 66.7 0.0 100
Mid-level professional 32 15.6 43.8 15.6 21.9 3.1 100
New professional (< 5 Years) 13 15.4 38.5 7.7 30.8 7.7 100

Satisfaction of Current Professionals
Q1. Rate your satisfaction of
your professional position.
Total
count
Very
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neither
satisfied
nor
dissatisfied
Satisfied
Very
satisfied
Total
All Responses 39 17.9 38.5 15.4 23.1 5.1 100
Senior-level professional 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 100
Mid-level professional 27 18.5 40.7 14.8 22.2 3.7 100
New professional (< 5 Years) 9 22.2 44.4 22.2 11.1 0.0 100

Q2. Rate your satisfaction of
your life outside of work.
Total
count
Very
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neither
satisfied
nor
dissatisfied
Satisfied
Very
satisfied
Total
All Responses 39 15.4 15.4 10.3 43.6 15.4 100
Senior-level professional 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100
Mid-level professional 27 18.5 18.5 3.7 37.0 22.2 100
New professional (< 5 Years) 9 11.1 11.1 33.3 44.4 0.0 100

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
85
Figure 3
Satisfaction of Professional Position and Life Outside of Work Graph

Overall, both current and former student affairs professionals rated themselves on both
questions as neither satisfied nor dissatisfied in their professional position and life outside of
work. However, current senior-level professionals expressed slightly higher levels of satisfaction
than former professionals. Current and former mid-level professionals viewed their experiences
similarly. Interestingly, new professionals rated their experience with their professional position
as dissatisfied, while former professionals rated their experience as neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied.

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
86
Opinions of the Student Affairs Profession
Research has found that professionals expect to face a number of challenges in the
profession, such as low pay and long hours. In addition, some of the topics discussed in the
limited research on people who leave the profession include a lack of support from supervisors
and few career opportunities. Both current and former student affairs professionals were asked to
rate statements regarding career advancement, supervisor support, salary, merit increases, and
work/life balance. Table 7 lists their opinions. Figure 4 illustrates the results in a divergent bar
graph.

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
87
Table 7
Opinions of the Profession
Former professional
Total
count
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Total
1. There were opportunities for me to
advance my career.
48 35.4 31.3 10.4 22.9 0.0 100
2. My supervisor was supportive of my
professional growth.
48 18.8 20.8 16.7 31.3 12.5 100
3. My supervisor was supportive of my
personal obligations.
48 10.4 12.5 25.0 35.4 16.7 100
4. My salary was appropriate for my
position.
48 41.7 39.6 6.3 12.5 0.0 100
5. In my opinion, the merit increase
process was clearly defined.
48 70.8 10.4 8.3 10.4 0.0 100
6. In my opinion, the merit increase
process was fair.
48 50.0 31.3 14.6 4.2 0.0 100
7. This position enabled me to achieve a
sense of work/life balance.
48 41.7 39.6 10.4 8.3 0.0 100

Current professionals
Total
count
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Total
1. There are opportunities for me to
advance my career.
39 17.9 30.8 28.2 17.9 5.1 100
2. My supervisor is supportive of my
professional growth.
39 15.4 7.7 28.2 38.5 10.3 100
3. My supervisor is supportive of my
personal obligations.
39 12.8 17.9 17.9 28.2 23.1 100
4. My salary is appropriate for my
position.
39 30.8 35.9 12.8 12.8 7.7 100
5. In my opinion, the merit increase
process is clearly defined.
39 41.0 25.6 15.4 12.8 5.1 100
6. In my opinion, the merit increase
process is fair.
39 33.3 33.3 17.9 12.8 2.6 100
7. This position enables me to achieve a
sense of work/life balance.
39 28.2 28.2 23.1 15.4 5.1 100

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
88
Figure 4
Opinions of the Profession Graph

When asked the question regarding opportunities to advance in the profession, current
professionals leaned more towards neither agree nor disagree while former professionals
disagreed. Both former and current professionals stated they neither agreed nor disagreed with
the statement that their supervisor was or is supportive of their personal growth. For the
statement regarding appropriate salary, both respondent groups stated that they disagreed. For the
two statements regarding merit as being clearly defined and fair, participants currently and
formerly in the field disagreed. Finally, current and former professionals expressed disagreement
with the work/life balance statement. Much of the results from these statements are reflective in
the first theme identified in the interview data of having unsustainable expectations of the field,
as well as the fourth theme regarding limitation of options.

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
89
Recommend the Field to Others
The net promoter score is commonly utilized to rate consumer satisfaction with a product
and forecasts a company’s growth (NICE Systems, n.d.). In this case, the product is the student
affairs profession. Current and former professionals were asked to rate on a scale of 0 to 10 how
likely they would recommend the profession to others. Figure 5 represents the percentages of
detractors, passive, and promoters. Figure 6 represents the net promoter score.

Figure 5
Net Promotor Score: Percentage Breakdown by Former and Current Student Affairs
Professionals

85%
88%
15%
13%
Current
Former
Recommend the Student Affairs Profession to Others (NPS)
Detractor Passive
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
90
Figure 6
Net Promotor Score of Former and Current Student Affairs Professionals

The results indicate that neither the former nor current professionals in the field would
likely recommend the field to others. In fact, 88% of former professionals and 85% of current
ones are considered detractors, while no participants are considered promoters (NICE Systems,
n.d.).
Conclusion
The survey and interviews provided insight to better understand the experiences of
student affairs professionals who left the field. Fourteen participants were interviewed for this
study. Following the interviews, four themes were uncovered pertaining to the participants’
experiences of leaving the field. The themes were expectations of the field that had become
unsustainable, a decline in participants’ self-efficacy, a desire to prioritize self, and having only
the option of looking for opportunities outside the field. Additional findings from the survey
results were also included.
The next chapter will discuss the findings from this study, make connections to the
theoretical framework, present recommendations, and identify implications for practice as well
as future research.
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
91
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Research shows that approximately 60% of new and mid-level student affairs
professionals leave the profession within the first 10 years of their careers (Holmes et al., 1983;
Lorden, 1998; Marshall et al., 2016). Turnover and replacing professionals can be costly as
recruitment and hiring processes require time and money as well as contribute to a loss of
knowledge and investment for the department involved (Dube et al., 2010; Rosser & Javinar,
2003). In addition, turnover impacts continuity and quality of services delivered to students,
ultimately affecting the mission of the institution (Lorden, 1998; Rosser & Javinar, 2003). While
research on student affairs professionals focuses primarily on experiences from those who are
still a part of the profession, limited research has been conducted on professionals no longer in
the field (Bender, 2009; Forney et al., 1982; Jo, 2008; Marshall et al., 2016).
The purpose of this study was to better understand the experiences that contribute to
departure from the student affairs profession. Specifically, the study sought to understand the
experiences of individuals who are no longer a part of the profession. The study focused on one
main research question: What are the experiences of student affairs professionals that contribute
to their decision to leave the profession? Three subsequent questions provide insight into
personal and professional experiences that contribute to their decision as well as a better
understanding of the type of opportunities professionals are leaving the field to pursue.
A discussion of findings, as they relate to the research questions and the theoretical
framework of self-authorship, is included in this chapter. Three recommendations based on the
findings are revealed. Implications for practice that inform university senior leadership, graduate
programs, and other professionals in the field are also included. Finally, this chapter contains
additional recommendations for future research.
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
92
Discussion of Findings
The section includes findings from the survey of current and former student affairs
professionals and the interviews with individuals who left the field. This section also includes the
findings as it relates to the theoretical framework of self-authorship
Survey Results
According to research from Bender (2009), Lorden (1998), and Tull (2006), there was a
correlation between intention and decision to depart from or remain in student affairs and job
satisfaction. Bender’s (1980) earliest study on satisfaction in student affairs concluded that 66%
of professionals were generally satisfied in their positions, while 18% were not satisfied. The
results also showed that 25% of participants planned to leave the field (Bender, 1980).
While this study was not designed to replicate Bender’s (1980) study, examining similar
satisfaction results uncovered how much the student affairs profession and satisfaction with it
have changed over the past few decades. This study found that 28% of current professionals were
generally satisfied with their position, while 56% were dissatisfied overall. The survey also
revealed that 69% of participants planned to leave the field. When comparing these aspects of
Bender’s study, the percentage change in professionals satisfied with their position decreased
58%, professionals who expressed dissatisfaction increased by 211%, and professionals who
stated that they planned to leave the field increased by 176%.
Consistent with Bender’s (1980) study, this study also found that senior-level
professionals expressed greater satisfaction and intent to remain in the field than new and mid-
level professionals. While only three senior-level professionals completed the survey in this
research, all three answered favorably to the survey questions in almost every category. Senior-
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
93
level professionals tend to be more removed from the daily challenges and direct student
interactions experienced by new and mid-level professionals.
For some participants who expressed intent to remain in the field, the reason was a result
of their inability to identify or imagine opportunities outside of the profession. One anonymous
respondent who expressed interest in remaining stated,
I am curious about the possibility of working outside student affairs. I don’t know exactly
what that looks like at the moment. This is why my default is to say yes to staying in
student affairs, I don’t know what I would do outside of it.
Similarly, another respondent who intended to remain in the field said they answered yes
“because I legit cannot think of any other direction to go. I love my job but it is exhausting! I
imagine if I ever leave it, it will be for another position at the college.” Another survey
participant described the culture of student affairs as toxic at their institution and additional
challenges they endure, yet they were still committed to remaining in the field. This person
explained,
I am keenly aware that higher education is a mess. I started working in this field after
spending 10 years in healthcare. It is hard and often toxic. I think about quitting often.
My current institution has been in the news frequently for some pretty crappy reasons and
I don’t like being associated with it. The leadership is toxic, the student affairs VP is a
bully and a coward (I literally walk the other way if I see her in a hallway) and our
current president rules by bullying and twisting the truth to make himself look amazing.
He started 2 years ago and about 1/3 of our entire staff/faculty have either been fired
(some wrongfully so), forced to retire, or quit. I know too many mid-level staff who bully
and lie and cheat to get what they want and it makes me sick. My pay is horrible for my
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
94
years and education. Yet I love my students. I love watching them grow and learn and
become more other-aware. I love encouraging them to be kind and compassionate and
discover they as individuals are not the center of the universe. I have a unique
opportunity in my role in financial wellness to demand honesty from them, but to also
encourage them and give them resources to better themselves. I may still quit. I may walk
away one day and never look back. But for now, I love pouring into these kids. I am
starting my 10th year in higher education this fall and I cannot think of anywhere else I
would rather be than here.
In addition to understanding satisfaction with and interest in remaining in the field,
survey participants were also asked to rate their likelihood of recommending this field to others.
The results of the net promotor score showed that 88% of former professionals and 85% of
current ones were considered detractors. In other words, they would not recommend the field to
others. In addition, 13% of former and 15% of current professionals were considered passive. No
survey participants were identified as promotors. Although no follow-up comments were
included with this question, some added the topic of recommending the profession to others in
the final open comments section. All who commented regarding this topic expressed their
hesitation with recommending the profession after experiencing the challenges they endured, the
rigor of the work, and the low compensation received for the amount of effort required.
The net promoter score question was significant because research described student
affairs as a hidden profession that many did not realize existed (Richmond & Sherman, 1991).
Entrance into the profession was largely a result of an influencing practitioner (Taub & McEwen,
2006). Influencing practitioners were greatly involved in encouraging and informing individuals
of this career opportunity as well as helping individuals identify a path in it. With over 85%
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
95
detractors and no promoters identified in this study, the pipeline into this profession may be
impacted in the future.
Research Question
In response to the research question and sub-questions that sought to understand the
experiences that contribute to departure from the student affairs profession, the study found that
participants encountered a combination of personal and professional experiences in a
progression. The study also explored the types of opportunities participants pursued after leaving
the field. Finally, the findings examined an overarching feeling of isolation as one of the
challenges experienced in the profession.
Progression of Experiences
Consistent with research on satisfaction and attrition, participants discussed that lack of
support, burnout, low pay, challenges with career mobility, and the inability to create a work-life
balance as contributing to their departure from the profession (Bender, 2009; Blackhurst, 2000;
Lorden, 1998; Jo, 2008; Marshall et al., 2016; Renn & Hodges, 2007; Tull, 2006). However,
participants revealed that no single experience or event was the defining experience that
contributed to their departure. While explaining their process for leaving the field, all
participants discussed a combination of personal and professional experiences in a progression.
The experiences were categorized into four themes and outlined in the previous chapter: (a)
unsustainable expectations of the profession, (b) decline of self-efficacy, (c) prioritizing self, and
(d) limited options.
All four themes were experienced to some degree when participants discussed their
decision to leave the field. Participants explained that they understood the expectations of the
profession early in their careers and/or as a result of their master’s program experience. While in
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
96
the field, the reality of those expectations proved far more challenging to sustain in the long
term. In addition, they encountered a number of negative experiences that lowered their self-
efficacy and their ability to effectively serve students. Participants expressed wanting to actively
improve their current situation and well-being, and, as a result, they began to prioritize
themselves. Finally, in efforts to improve their current situation, participants found few to no
options within the field and ultimately decided to leave the profession. This progression through
the four themes was how participants experienced their departures from student affairs.
Opportunities Outside of Student Affairs
This study also sought to understand the types of opportunities people are leaving the
field to pursue. Research on attrition in student affairs by Lorden (1998) and Marshall et al.
(2016) revealed that not all professionals who leave were dissatisfied with the profession.
Instead, individuals pursued more appealing opportunities outside of the field. While the findings
support the research, this study found that 93% of interviewees experienced dissatisfaction with
the profession in some capacity that led them to seek opportunities outside institutions of higher
education. Some left the field completely without an employment opportunity. Participants
described actively looking for a different opportunity because they were unhappy with their
current circumstances and felt disenfranchised by their institution. Two left without having
another opportunity because they felt they needed to leave their situation immediately. There was
only one person who, following a move, had not been able to secure employment in student
affairs at local institutions and had no choice but to find employment elsewhere.
The types of employment opportunities most participants pursued following their
departure include higher-education-adjacent positions, working with traditional-aged recent
college graduates, and working in training and development at private companies. These are
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
97
positions that have a close and, at times, direct connection to the type of work student affairs
professionals have knowledge of and may have experienced as a part of their duties. About 65%
of participants sought work in these areas. Five found higher-education-adjacent positions
immediately after their last position in student affairs. For the purposes of this study, higher-
education-adjacent positions are defined as having a direct connection to colleges and
universities. For example, one participant took on a position at a nonprofit that provides college
counseling services, and another worked for a higher education professional association. These
positions require individuals to have a good understanding and knowledge of colleges and
universities and often continue the work of helping students be successful in college. The
remaining participants found positions with private companies as corporate trainers, diversity
trainers, or in learning and development positions. Positions such as these tend to be associated
with human resources or talent management departments at private companies. For many student
affairs professionals, teaching and training students is a common job responsibility. Seeking
employment with opportunities that are familiar and that closely align with their experience
makes for an easier transition outside of the profession.
Approximately 14% of the participants found employment unrelated to student affairs.
Although their new roles outside of student affairs differed drastically from their time in the
field, all discussed utilizing transferable skills acquired in their positions. Specifically, they
discussed utilizing learning from their graduate program as well as skills gained in their time in
student affairs for their new roles. Examples of the work pursued are helping a large corporation
expand its brand internationally and serving as a product support analyst for a tech start-up.

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
98
Isolation in the Profession
Participants consistently spoke about feeling disregarded, underappreciated, and
unsupported while in student affairs. The findings support the research on persistence and
satisfaction in the field. The impact of supervisors, leaders, mentors, and other campus partners
can greatly influence the decision to remain or leave the profession (Bender, 2009; Jo, 2008;
Marshall et al., 2016; Renn & Hodges, 2007; Tull, 2006). Research conducted by Bender (2009),
Nobbe and Manning (1997), Renn and Hodges (2007), Rosser and Javinar (2003), and Tull
(2006) suggested that these individuals and the relationships created in the profession contribute
to satisfaction with the field.
All interview participants discussed some aspect of support or the lack thereof that
contributed to their departures. However, it was more than the concept of support that required
further investigation. In addition, what support meant to each participant was more complex than
knowing that someone was available to the individual. Participants discussed how work in
student affairs can be arduous with long hours and emotionally taxing when addressing crisis
situations. Participants referenced budget cuts that contributed to departments being underfunded
and understaffed and, as a result, having to take on multiple roles and additional work. They
described having to address the needs of others before their own and foregoing their personal
lives as well as a number of important life events of friends and family for a job that did not pay
well. While all anticipated the challenges and accepted these sacrifices to serve in the best
interest of students, participants discussed experiencing isolation when learning how colleagues,
leaders, and their supervisors lacked the empathy, experience or capacity to understand and
sympathize with these challenges.

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
99
Self-Authorship
This section examines the results from the study through the lens of self-authorship.
Baxter Magolda’s (2001) theory of self-authorship was used to help understand and make
meaning of the experiences of those who have departed from the student affairs profession. Self-
authorship is a multi-layered process that includes four phases, three dimensions, and three
elements. The study found that during the process of departing from the field, participants largely
struggled in the first phase of following external formulas as well as the second phase of
crossroads. However, following departure from the profession, participants discussed
experiencing a mix of Phase 3, becoming the author of one’s life, and Phase 1, following
external formulas.
As new and mid-level professionals, participants described working to build their careers
while learning and growing in their positions. They also discussed learning to navigate both the
university hierarchy as well as relationships with colleagues and supervisors. The study found
that these experiences are closely associated with the first phase of following external formulas
(Baxter Magolda, 2001). Participants explained how multiple negative experiences challenged
their values, beliefs, and relationships with others, ultimately leading to their departure. This
breakdown in the first phase was captured in themes of (a) unsustainable expectations of the
profession and (b) a decline in self-efficacy. Participants mentioned wanting to make students’
lives better while their mental health and well-being suffered. They explained that seeing others
in better positions mentally and financially was difficult for them to realize. They did not receive
acknowledgement or affirmation from others for the long hours and hard work completed. Some
of the participants discussed being in constant disagreement with supervisors and leaders in the
division. According to Patton et al. (2016), these experiences are examples of being in conflict or
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
100
in opposition with external formulas, which led individuals to move into the crossroads phase of
self-authorship.
The study found that participants then felt drawn to prioritizing their own interests and
well-being and, as a result, began to identify other opportunities. Some participants looked for
parallel or higher positions at their institutions as well as other opportunities at other colleges or
universities. Due to limited options or, for some participants, an immediate desire to leave their
current situation, they left the student affairs profession. These experiences are characteristic of
the second phase of Baxter Magolda’s (2001) theory on self-authorship, where individuals begin
to reconsider their career choices and eventually develop the confidence to decide the direction
in which they will go (Patton et al., 2016). These experiences are also defined further in themes
of (c) prioritizing self and (d) limited options.
Most participants had just begun the early stages of Phase 3, becoming the author of
one’s life, during and following their departure. In the process of redefining themselves outside
of student affairs and defining their new career direction, many found themselves returning to
Phase 1. This was exemplified when participants discussed the realization of developing new
terms for themselves and their relationships with others. In addition, participants discussed
imposter syndrome, defined as trying to best display competency while feeling underprepared
and unqualified while in their new employment. One or two participants were further along in
the stages of self-authorship, while others were still in the process of redefining themselves and
learning to reestablish their values and beliefs. The study found that the amount of time removed
from student affairs can determine the phase of self-authorship and shape individuals’
understanding of their experiences.

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
101
Recommendations
This section includes recommendations for university leaders, student affairs leaders, and
graduate programs in student affairs. Based on the results, three recommendations offer ways to
address the challenges experienced by participants who left the profession and improve the
experience for current professionals. One resource not included in this section is mentors and
other champions to student affairs professionals. Research heavily emphasized the significance
of mentorship and relationship building in the profession (Bender, 2009; Long, 2012; Marshall et
al., 2016; Renn & Hodges, 2007; Renn & Jessup-Anger, 2008; Tull, 2006). Mentors are valuable
to new and emerging leaders and can be a vital source to retain professionals and help them
navigate higher education challenges and bureaucracy (Long, 2012; Marshall et al., 2016; Renn
& Jessup-Anger, 2008). While the recommendations listed primarily focused on addressing the
specific challenges and experiences former professionals in this study endured, it was important
to reiterate the many compelling benefits of seeking mentors in the profession and developing
meaningful relationships with colleagues both on and off campus.
Recommendation 1: Graduate Programs Should Discuss Opportunities or Transferable
Skills to Work Outside of the Field
Graduate programs are instrumental in developing professionals in student affairs. They
provide valuable knowledge and skill development by translating research and theory into
practical applications. These programs also have an important role in producing highly skilled,
educated, and productive leaders for higher education institutions. However, with over 60%
leaving the profession within 10 years, graduate programs have an obligation to be transparent
about the profession’s challenges (Holmes et al., 1983; Lorden, 1998; Marshall et al., 2016). For
those who may not remain in the field, graduate programs can help students understand that the
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
102
knowledge and skills acquired are transferable to many employment opportunities outside of
higher education.
In addition, these programs can inform students about how their knowledge and skills
translate into different lines of work and how these specialties can be found. Thus, the findings
from this study suggest that graduate programs should discuss opportunities outside the
profession and how the program will provide education, experience, learning, and skill
development valuable in any workplace. Participants explained they used the knowledge and
skills learned from their graduate programs in their new roles. They discussed examples of
knowledge and skills acquired, such as improved writing skills, creating training programs and
lesson plans, and developing outcomes and assessments that they used in their current positions.
Recommendation 2: University and Student Affairs Leaders and Department Heads
Should Invest Resources and Direct Focus to Retain New and Mid-Level Student Affairs
Professionals
Research has found that developing the whole student both academically and through co-
curricular experiences contributes to their overall success (ACE, 1937). The work produced by
student affairs professionals should be considered equally valuable and a necessary complement
to in-class learning. In addition, student affairs work contributes to the institution’s mission.
Therefore, there needs to be an interest in retaining and supporting student affairs staff at all
levels. However, because new and mid-level professionals are more likely to leave the field, the
findings suggest a need or an investment of resources focusing on these professionals (Holmes et
al., 1983; Lorden, 1998; Marshall et al., 2016).
Participants expressed their discontent for university leadership and, at times, some
student affairs leaders who did not understand the work they did or its purpose. Senior student
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
103
affairs leadership has a responsibility to advocate for and communicate the important work of
their employees to university leaders. Partnering with senior leaders representing the academic
side can aid in furthering institutions’ mission by acknowledging and supporting the work of
their student affairs counterparts.
For some mid and senior-level professions as well as department leaders, duties and
responsibilities remove them from face-to-face interactions with students. They may hear about
these challenges from their direct reports, but experiencing those challenges firsthand can be
different. These leaders should regularly remind student affairs leadership and department heads
about the physical and emotional demands required from frontline employees. In addition, a
reminder that new and mid-level professionals are also students learning to be effective
professionals and growing in the field may remind them that they were in those positions earlier
in their careers. Some participants discussed feeling underappreciated for the work they do.
While they did not expect an award, acknowledgement of the work done and the long hours it
required and a gesture of gratitude would have made the time and effort worthwhile.
The participants placed much emphasis on the volume and demands of their work in
comparison to their compensation. Lorden (1998) explained that most entering the field expect
low pay. Rosser and Javinar (2003) found that student affairs administrators were less likely to
leave when their compensation was high, even when they felt their morale was low. Senior
leaders should be the first to advocate for paying their employees appropriately. In frustration,
Ryan discussed the importance of paying employees appropriately. He explained,
I can talk all day about what the impact of lifestyle and how it translates to a person’s
ability to stick around in their job because of what they get paid or not. But I think more
importantly for the university as a business is it will crumble if you can’t build
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
104
relationships and retain students on campus because you’re hemorrhaging entry-level
professionals. So, I’m very much on a soapbox of mine, but I think it’s gross. I think it’s
gross both how little student affairs professionals are paid on the frontline and how little
perspective of that reflects about who is doing the business of retaining students
programmatically.
If compensation cannot be changed, perhaps the culture can be to improve morale. Examples
from the study regarding how the culture of work in student affairs can be changed are reshaping
perspectives on time off and volunteering. The study found that while many participants
understood their peak and slow times and expressed the importance of taking time off during the
slow times, requests for time off were denied or discouraged. Leaders should encourage
employees to take time off when they need it.
The study also found that to be seen as taking initiative, student affairs professionals were
required to add to their workload by serving on committees or volunteering in areas outside of
their usual job responsibilities. In addition, there was a perceived stigma against those who were
not able to take on more. Student affairs leaders should create balance to support both employees
who want to take on more work and volunteer for extra committees and others who cannot add
more to their plates.
Recommendation 3: Provide Tools for Student Affairs Professionals to Better Address
Crisis Situations for Both Students and Professional Staff
Research suggests the university setting creates the ideal environment to accelerate the
onset of a variety of mental health situations (Roberts, 2018). Whether it be stress from
academics, the ease and availability to experiment or abuse substances, or underlying
predisposition, any one or a combination of these examples can create challenging experiences
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
105
for students. Participants explained the challenges of being frontline employees having to
address student health issues. Participants discussed responding to students’ mental health crises,
suicides, and other everyday growing pains during their time in the profession. Those
participants voiced their frustration regarding the availability of resources and their limited
knowledge in helping students work through crisis situations. In addition, resources to help
frontline employees process these difficult situations were limited or non-existent. Even more
frustrating was the little empathy and support that came from supervisors and leaders in the
department or division.
Findings suggest that student affairs leaders require more training and tools to better
equip and prepare professionals to work through crisis situations with students. There is a need
for a crisis certification process or annual training for employees in the field. Topics may include
an introduction to counseling, review of university resources, de-escalation techniques,
recognizing common disorders, and understanding trauma (Roberts, 2018).
In addition to creating training opportunities for student affairs professionals to help
students, there is a need for processes and support opportunities directed to staff who were
directly impacted. Some examples are (a) a clearly defined and step-by-step process for support
services for staff, (b) requiring staff to participate in an intentional debrief process or counseling,
(c) allowing and encouraging employees to take a mental health day or two following crisis
situations, and (d) reminding staff of resources available to them, such as where they can go for
help and whom they can talk to.
Implications
The results have implications for the student affairs profession by highlighting the
experiences of individuals who left the field. Findings may inform university leadership about
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
106
the important work these professionals perform and how they contribute to the institution’s
overall mission. The results serve as a reminder to leaders and managers regarding the physical
and emotional demands new and mid-level professionals experience as frontline employees.
Presented herein are recommendations to graduate programs regarding the value an education
degree can offer in any employment opportunity and the need to be transparent regarding the
actual work, advancement, and making the most of time in the field. Finally, as research
regarding departure from student affairs is limited, one of the purposes of this study was to
contribute to the literature.
Future Research
Further research is required to expand on the limited body of research regarding attrition
or departure from the student affairs profession. The study sought to explore the experiences
contributing to professionals leaving the field. However, more research is required to fully
understand why people leave a profession into which they invested much time and money. What
is it about this career choice that results in more than half leaving to pursue outside
opportunities? To better understand and address this issue, further research can focus on
identifying high turnover departments, recognizing the likelihood of departure, finding ways to
better place student affairs as major contributors to student success, and understanding why
employees are not provided the same respect as the students they serve.
Research identifying where turnover is more frequent in student affairs can help better
understand why people leave. This study found that 40% of participants who left the profession
served in a role within residential education, followed by 35% who served in an activities or
student engagement position. Prior employment in cultural and advocacy positions accounted for
8% of participants, while those who worked in student conduct and support and other roles each
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
107
made up 6% of the survey respondents. Approximately 4% of participants worked in orientation
programs prior to their departure. Understanding where turnover is more frequent can provide
insight into cultural issues within functional areas and opportunities to improve specific
departments.
Participants discussed similarities in feeling undervalued, unsupported, and isolated as
experiences that contributed to departure from student affairs. They explained a realization of
feeling no longer effective in their roles and the impact on their decision to depart the profession.
Future research to help identify or detect early departure indications may help managers and
leaders create processes to support employees and improve retention in the profession.
Participants often described feeling a lack of support or disinterest from university
leaders outside of student affairs. They explained that these university partners do not respect or
understand the challenging task of supporting the students’ co-curricular development that
includes addressing their social and emotional needs. Future research to help university leaders
understand the real significance of student affairs work in student success is needed. To bolster
the importance of student affairs work and the profession overall, research should focus on the
amount of time and frequency with which students utilize student affairs and analyze the value
students receive from this area.
More research is required to better understand why managers and senior-level
professionals may be contributing to this issue. This study found that participants frequently
reflected on their discontent due to the disconnection between them, as frontline employees, and
their managers. Participants described managers as lacking empathy, being unaware, and
unqualified in their position as reasons for contention leading to an interest in departure.
Examining departure from a manager’s and student affairs leader’s perspective may provide a
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
108
holistic approach to understanding why individuals leave the profession and ways to better retain
talented employees.
Finally, additional research is required to understand the experiences of individuals
during and post-pandemic. COVID-19 has changed many processes and protocols on university
and college campuses. Research on the experiences and perspectives of current and former
professionals as a result of the pandemic would provide a well-rounded and updated
understanding of the changes and challenges student affairs professionals endure that contribute
to departure from the profession.
Conclusion
As more individuals consider a career in student affairs and invest their time and money
into this field, it becomes increasingly important to understand the reasons that contribute to 60%
departing the profession within their first 10 years (Holmes et al., 1983; Lorden, 1998; Marshall
et al., 2016). The profession has grown in complexity and volume of work due to budget cuts and
the changing student population (Schwartz & Stewart, 2017). The results from this study support
the changing demand to which these professionals are required to respond. In addition to the
usual duties, they are required to stay abreast of new policies, best practices, benchmarks, and
new research.
The study found that participants exerted substantial efforts into developing their craft to
serve students to the best of their ability while sacrificing much of themselves, their health and
well-being, relationships, family, and financial freedom. Research suggests that personal and
financial sacrifices were expected as a part of the profession (Lorden, 1998; Renn & Jessup-
Anger, 2008). However, participants unexpectedly met crises they felt unequipped to handle,
supervisors who displayed little empathy or appreciation for the effort and hours spent at work,
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
109
and leadership unaware or seemingly uninterested in the challenges frontline employees
experienced. The results of this study were that unsustainable expectations of the profession, a
combination of multiple negative experiences that caused a decline in self-efficacy, the desire to
prioritize self, and the limitation of options contributed to departure from the profession.
This study emphasizes the need for directed efforts towards new and mid-level
professionals who are talented, capable, and want to help students be successful. The
profession’s culture and, possibly, the culture of specific functional areas within it need to evolve
to support frontline employees and to help minimize the hemorrhaging of potentially talented
professionals.

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
110
REFERENCES
ACPA and NASPA Joint Task Force. (2015). Professional competency areas for student affairs
educators. NASPA.
https://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/ACPA_NASPA_Professional_
Competencies_FINAL.pdf
American Council on Education. (1937). The student personnel point of view. NASPA.
https://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/Student_Personnel_Point_of_View_1937.pd
f
Anderson, J. E., Guido-DiBrito, F., & Schober Morrell, J. (2000). Factors that influence
satisfaction for student affairs administrators. New Directions for Institutional Research,
2000(105), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.10509
Baxter Magolda, M. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher
education to promote self-development (1st ed.). Stylus.
Baxter Magolda, M. (2008). Three elements of self-authorship. Journal of College Student
Development, 49(4), 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0016
Baxter Magolda, M. (2014). Self-authorship. New Directions for Higher Education, 2014(166),
25–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20092
Bender, B. E. (1980). Job satisfaction in student affairs. NASPA Journal, 18(2), 2–9.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1980.11071773
Bender, B. E. (2009). Job satisfaction in student affairs. NASPA Journal, 46(4), 553–565.
https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.5030
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
111
Bennett, D., & Hennekam, S. (2018). Self-authorship and creative industries workers’ career
decision-making. Human Relations, 71(11), 1454–1477.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717747369
Blackhurst, A. E. (2000). Career satisfaction and perceptions of sex discrimination among
women student affairs professionals. NASPA Journal, 37(2), 399–413.
https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.1104
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018). U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/postsecondary-education-administrators.htm
Burns, M. A. (1982). Who leaves the student affairs field? NASPA Journal, 20(2), 9-12.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1982.11071837
CAS. (n.d.). Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS).
https://www.cas.edu
Clinte, K., Henning, G., Skinner, J. J., Kennedy, D., & Sloan, T. (2006). Report on the new
professional needs study. ACPA College Student Educators International.
http://www.myacpa.org/sites/default/files/NPS_Final_Survey_Report.pdf
Collay, M., & Cooper, J. (2008). Transformational learning and role of self-authorship in
developing women leaders. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 3(2), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1177/194277510800300201
Cooper, J., Mitchell, J. D., Jr., Eckerle, K., & Martin, K. (2016). Addressing perceived skill
deficiencies in student affairs graduate preparation programs. Journal of Student Affairs
Research and Practice, 53(2), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2016.1121146
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
112
Creamer, E., & Laughlin, A. (2005). Self-Authorship and women’s career decision making.
Journal of College Student Development, 46(1), 13–27.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0002
Dalton, J., & Crosby, P. (2011). A profession in search of a mission: Is there an enduring
purpose for student affairs in U.S. higher education? Journal of College and Character,
12(4). https://doi.org/10.2202/1940-1639.1862
Dube, A., Freeman, E., & Reich, M. (2010). Employee replacement costs. UC Berkeley Institute
for Research on Labor and Employment. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/
Evans, N. J. (1988). Attrition of student affairs professionals: A review of the literature. Journal
of College Student Development, 29(1), 27–35.
Fink, A. (2003). The survey handbook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986328
Forney, D. S., Wallace-Schutzman, F., & Wiggers, T. T. (1982). Burnout among career
development professionals: Preliminary findings and implications. The Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 60(7), 435–439. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2164-4918.1982.tb00793.x
Herdlein, R., Riefler, L., & Mrowka, K. (2013). An integrative literature review of student affairs
competencies: A meta-analysis. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 50(3),
250–269. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2013-0019
Hevel, M. S. (2016). Toward a history of student affairs: A synthesis of research, 1996-2015.
Journal of College Student Development, 57(7), 844–862.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2016.0082
HigherEdJobs. (n.d.). HigherEdJobs. https://www.higheredjobs.com/salary/
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
113
Holmes, D., Verrier, D., & Chisholm, P. (1983). Persistence in student affairs work: Attitudes
and job shifts among master’s program graduates. Journal of College Student Personnel,
24(5), 438–443.
Jansen, H. (2010). The logic of qualitative survey research and its position in the field of social
research methods. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 11(2).
Jo, V. (2008). Voluntary turnover and women administrators in higher education. Higher
Education, 56(5), 565–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9111-y
Johnsrud, L., Heck, R., & Rosser, V. (2000). Morale matters: Midlevel administrators and their
intent to leave. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(1), 34–59.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2000.11780815
Keeling, R. (Ed.). (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student
experience. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators & American
College Personnel Association.
Keeling, R. (Ed.). (2006). Learning reconsidered 2: A practical guide to implementing a
campus-wide focus on the student experience. National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Harvard University
Press.
Kortegast, C., & Hamrick, F. (2009). Moving on: Voluntary staff departures at small colleges
and universities. NASPA Journal, 46(2), 183–207. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-
6605.6038
Kupo, V. (2014). Becoming a scholar‐practitioner in student affairs. New Directions for Student
Services, 2014(147), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20103
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
114
Linder, C., & Simmons, C. W. (2015). Career and program choice of students of color in student
affairs programs. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 52(4), 414–426.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2015.1081601
Long, D. (2012). The foundations of student affairs: A guide to the profession. In L. J. Hinchliffe
& M. A. Wong (Eds.), Environments for student growth and development: Librarians
and student affairs in collaboration (pp. 1–39). Association of College & Research
Libraries.
Lorden, L. P. (1998). Attrition in the student affairs profession. NASPA Journal, 35(3), 207–216.
https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.1049
Marshall, S. M., Gardner, M. M., Hughes, C., & Lowery, U. (2016). Attrition from student
affairs: Perspectives from those who exited the profession. Journal of Student Affairs
Research and Practice, 53(2), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2016.1147359
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Mertz, N., Strayhorn, T., & Eckman, E. (2012). Entering student affairs: A comparative study of
graduate school choice. The College Student Affairs Journal, 30(2), 1–14.
Mullen, P. R., Malone, A., Denney, A., & Dietz, S. S. (2018). Job stress, burnout, job
satisfaction, and turnover intention among student affairs professionals. The College
Student Affairs Journal, 36(1), 94–108. https://doi.org/10.1353/csj.2018.0006
NASPA. (n.d.). Graduate program directory. http://apps.naspa.org/gradprograms/srchres.cfm
NICE Systems. (n.d.). What is Net Promoter? Nice Sametrix. https://www.netpromoter.com/
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
115
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Characteristics of degree-granting
postsecondary institutions. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_csa.asp
Nobbe, J., & Manning, S. (1997). Issues for women in student affairs with children. NASPA
Journal, 34(2), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.1014
Patton, L. D. (Ed.). (2011). Culture centers in higher education: Perspectives on identity, theory,
and practice. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Patton, L. D., Renn, K. A., Guido, F. M., & Quaye, S. J. (2016). Student development in college:
Theory, research, and practice. Jossey-Bass & Preiffer.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Renn, K., & Hodges, J. (2007). The first year on the job: Experiences of new professionals in
student affairs. NASPA Journal, 44(2), 367–391. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.1800
Renn, K., & Jessup-Anger, E. (2008). Preparing new professionals: Lessons for graduate
preparation programs from the national study of new professionals in student affairs.
Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 319–335.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0022
Richmond, J., & Sherman, K. J. (1991). Student-development preparation and placement: A
longitudinal study of graduate students’ and new professionals’ experiences. Journal of
College Student Development, 32(1), 8–16.
Roberts, L. (2018). University Student Mental Health: A guide for psychiatrists, psychologists,
and leaders serving in higher education (1st ed.). American Psychiatric Association
Publishing.
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
116
Rosser, V., & Javinar, J. (2003). Midlevel student affairs leaders’ intentions to leave: Examining
the quality of their professional and institutional work life. Journal of College Student
Development, 44(6), 813–830. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2003.0076
Rudolph, F., & Thelin, J. (1990). The American college and university: A history. University of
Georgia Press.
Schwartz, R., & Stewart, D. L. (2017). The history of student affairs. In J. H. Schuh, S. R. Jones,
& V. Torres (Eds.), Student services handbook: A handbook for the profession (6th ed.,
pp. 20–38). Jossey-Bass.
Silver, B., & Jakeman, R. (2014). Understanding intent to leave the field: A study of student
affairs master’s students’ career plans. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice,
51(2), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2014-0017
Taub, D. J., & McEwen, M. K. (2006). Decision to enter the profession of student affairs.
Journal of College Student Development, 47(2), 206–216.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.0027
Thelin, J. R., & Gasman, M. (2017). Historical overview of American higher education. In J. H.
Schuh, S. R. Jones, & V. Torres (Eds.), Student services handbook: A handbook for the
profession (6th ed., pp. 3–19). Jossey-Bass.
Tull, A. (2006). Synergistic supervision, job satisfaction, and intention to turnover of new
professionals in student affairs. Journal of College Student Development, 47(4), 465–480.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.0053
Tull, A., Hirt, J. B., & Saunders, S. (2011). Becoming socialized in student affairs
administration: A guide for new professionals and their supervisors. Stylus Publishing.
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
117
Wilson, M., Liddell, D., Hirschy, A., & Pasquesi, K. (2016). Professional identity, career
commitment, and career entrenchment of midlevel student affairs professionals. Journal
of College Student Development, 57(5), 557–572. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2016.0059
Wilson, M. E. (2017). Organizational structures and functions. In J. H. Schuh, S. R. Jones, & V.
Torres (Eds.), Student services handbook: A handbook for the profession (6th ed., pp.
288–307). Jossey-Bass.
Wood, L., Winston, R. B., Jr., & Polkosnik, M. C. (1985). Career orientations and professional
development of young student affairs professionals. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 26(6), 532–539.

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
118
APPENDIX A
Self-Authorship
Figure 1
Self-Authorship. Diagram of the three dimensions, four phases and three elements.

Baxter Magolda, M. (2001). Making their own w ay : narratives for transforming higher
education to promote self-development (1st ed.). Stylus.

Phases &
Dimensions
Phase 1: Following
formulas
Phase 2:
Crossroads
Phase 3:
Becoming and
author of one’s
life
Phase 4: Internal
foundation
Three
Elements (30s
& 40s)
Dimension 1:
Epistemological
“How do I know? “
Believe authority’s
plan; how “you”
know
Questions plans;
See need for own
vision
Choose own
belief’s; how I
know
Grounded in
internal belief
system
Trusting the
internal voice
Dimension 2:
Intrapersonal “Who
am I?”
Define self through
external others
Realize dilemma of
external definitions;
see need for
internal identity
Choose own
values, identity
in context of
external forces
Grounded in
internal
coherent sense
of self
Building an
internal
foundation
Dimension 3:
Interpersonal
“What relationships
do I want with
others?”
Act in relationships
to acquire approval
Realize dilemma of
focusing on external
approval
Act in
relationships to
be true to self
Grounded in
mutuality
Securing
internal
commitments
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
119
APPENDIX B
Recruitment Letter
Hello!
My name is Lily Chowana-Bandhu and I am a doctoral candidate in at the University of Southern
California. As a part of my dissertation, I am conducting a study focusing on student affairs
professionals who are no longer working in the field. More specifically, this study is examining
the experiences that contribute to their departure from the profession.
I am looking for volunteers to complete a survey. While the study focuses on former student
affairs professionals, I am also looking for current professionals in this field.
To participate in the survey, you must have graduated from a master’s preparation program and
have worked or are currently working in student affairs at a four-year institution. All participants
who complete the survey will be entered in a drawing to win a $50 Amazon gift card.
I am also looking to interview individuals who have left the student affairs profession and no
longer work at an institution of higher education. To be selected for interviews, you must have
worked in student affairs at a four-year institution for at least a year before leaving the
profession. All selected interview participants will receive a $25 Amazon gift card upon
completion of the interview.
To participate in this study, please begin by completing this survey [insert survey link].
If you have any questions regarding the survey or the study, please feel free to email me Lily
Chowana-Bandhu at chowanab@usc.edu.
Thank you!
Lily Chowana-Bandhu

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
120
APPENDIX C
Survey Protocol
The survey includes an initial pre-survey, a survey to request for interviewees, and a qualitative survey for
data triangulation. The pre-survey will identify whether or not individuals are currently in the field of
student affairs. Individuals who are no longer in the field will be directed to a set of question to determine
if they qualify to be selected as an interviewee for the study. Individuals who are currently in the field of
student affairs will be directed to a qualitative survey.
Survey Instructions: Please complete the survey as honestly as possible. The survey includes no more than
20 questions and may take around 25 mins to complete.
Pre-survey with Demographic Data (TF D2)
Questions Answer Type Possible Answers/Notes
1. Gender Multiple Choice –
Single Answer
(Radio Button)
Male, Female, Other
2. Race
1
Multiple Choice –
Multiple Answer
(Check Boxes)
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian or Asian American
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latina/o
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White
3. Age Range Multiple Choice –
Single Answer
(Dropdown)
18–25, 26–30, 31–35, 36–40, 41–45, 46–50, 50+
4. What is your highest
level of education?
Multiple Choice –
Single Answer
(Dropdown)
Associates Degree (AA, AS), Bachelor’s Degree
(BA, BS), Master’s (MA, MS, Med), Professional
Doctorate (MD, DDS, JD, EdD), Doctorate (PhD)
5. Did you attend a
graduate preparation
(master’s) program in
higher education,
student affairs,
postsecondary
education or similar?
Yes/No
(Radio Button)
If NO, will take them to a thank you but
respondent does not qualify page
6. What year did you
graduate from your
program?
Multiple Choice –
Single Answer
(Dropdown)
1998 – 2018
7. How long after
graduating from the
program did you begin
work in higher
education?
Multiple Choice –
Single Answer
(Dropdown)
• I started full-time work in higher education
prior to beginning my graduate program.
• I started full-time work in higher education
while in my program.
• I started full-time work in higher education
after graduating from my program.
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
121
8. Are you currently
working at an
institution of higher
education?
Yes/No
(Radio Button)
Yes – will take respondents to Qualitative Survey
for those currently in the field.
No – will take respondents to questions request
possible interviewees.

NO (No longer in in the field) – Request for Interviewees
Questions Answer Type Possible Answers/Notes
9. What was the last
position you held while
at an institution of
higher education? TF
D2
Text Entry – Single
line
Title and Functional Area (open-ended)
Example: Director, New Student Programs

10. While in this role, how
would you describe this
division or
department? TF D2
Multiple Choice –
Single Answer
(Radio Button)
• Student Affairs (Examples of functional areas
within student affairs may include Residential
Education, Student Activities, Greek letter
organization, leadership development,
volunteer services, international student
services, new student programs,
multicultural services, disability services,
recreational and intermural sports, and
judicial and case management)
• Academic Affairs (Academic Advising)
• Enrollment & Financial Services (Admissions,
Financial Aid)
• Auxiliary Services
• Athletics
• Other (development, faculty)
Answers in Bold will take them to a thank you but
respondent does not qualify page
11. While in this role, how
would you categorize
the institution? TF D2
Matrix Table –
Profile, Single
Answer
Type
• Public/Private?
• Non-profit/For Profit?
• Two-Year/Four-Year?
Answers in Bold will take them to a thank you but
respondent does not qualify page

Size of Four-Year Institution
2

• Very Small: < 1,000 students
• Small: 1,000–2,999
• Medium: 3,000–9,999
• Large: 10,000+

Location (Region & Division)
3

• Northeast: New England/Mid-Atlantic
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
122
• Midwest: East North Central/West North
Central
• South: South Atlantic/East South
Central/West South Central
• West: Mountain/Pacific
12. While in this role, what
career level would you
consider yourself to
be? TF D2
Multiple Choice –
Single Answer
(Dropdown)
New Professional (< 5 years in Student Affairs)
Mid-level Professional
Senior-Level Professional

13. Thinking back on your
time in the last position
you held in student
affairs, please rate your
satisfaction level.
Likert-Scale Matrix
1 Very dissatisfied
to 5 Very Satisfied
With comment
section
• Rate your satisfaction your professional
position. TF P3
• Rate your satisfaction your life outside of
work. TF P3
• Anything else you would like to explain?
14. Thinking back on your
time in the last position
you held in student
affairs, please rate the
following statements.

Likert-Scale Matrix
1 Strongly Disagree
to 5 Strongly Agree
With comment
section
• There were opportunities for me to advance
my career. TF P1
• My supervisor was supportive of my
professional growth. TF D3
• My supervisor was supportive of my personal
obligations. TF D3
• My salary was appropriate for my position.
• In my opinion, the merit increase process
was clearly defined. TF P3
• In my opinion, the merit increase process
was fair. TF P3
• This position enabled me to achieve a sense
of work/life balance. TF P3
• Do you have any comments regarding the
statements above or anything you would like
to explain further? [open-ended text]
15. Prior student affairs
experience.
Multiple Choice –
Single Answer
(Dropdown)
How many years did you work in student affairs?
• 1 year – 20 years
How many institutions have you worked at?
• 1 – 10 institutions
How many positions have you held?
• 1 – 10 positions

16. What year did you
leave the field?
Multiple Choice –
Single Answer
(Dropdown)
1998 – 2018
17. On a scale of 1 – 10 (1
being least likely, 10
being most likely), how
likely are you to
recommend
employment in the
Net Promoter Score
(NPS)
Least Likely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Most Likely TF P4
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
123
field of student affairs
to others?
18. Would you be willing to
be interviewed for this
study? (Selected
participants
interviewed for this
study will receive a $25
Amazon Gift Card)
Yes/No
(Radio Button)

If YES,
Contact
Information
(Text Entry)
YES/NO

If YES, May I have your contact information?
(Selected participants will receive a $25 Amazon
Gift Card)
Name:
Email:

If NO, proceed to the next question
19. Do you have any
comments you would
like to include?
Text Entry [Open-ended]
Thank you for completing this survey! Those who are interested in participating in this study will
receive an email from me within the next couple of days. If you opted to not participate in the
interview and changed your mind, please contact me using the email below. Participants selected for
interviews will receive a $25 Amazon gift card upon completion of the interview.

Because you completed this survey, you will also be included in the drawing to win a $50 Amazon gift
card.

If you have any questions regarding the survey or the study, please feel free to email me Lily Chowana-
Bandhu at chowanab@usc.edu.

YES (currently in the field) – Qualitative Survey for Triangulation
Questions Answer Type Possible Answers/Notes
20. What is your current
position? TF D2

Text Entry – Single
line
Title and Functional Area (open-ended)
Example: Director, New Student Programs
21. While in this role, how
would you describe this
division or department?
TF D2
• Student Affairs (Examples of functional areas
within student affairs may include Residential
Education, Student Activities, Greek letter
organization, leadership development,
volunteer services, international student
services, new student programs,
multicultural services, disability services,
recreational and intermural sports)
• Academic Affairs (Academic Advising)
• Enrollment & Financial Services (Admissions,
Financial Aid)
• Auxiliary Services
• Athletics
• Other (Development, faculty)
Answers in Bold will take them to a thank you but
respondent does not qualify page
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
124
22. How would you
categorize your current
institution? TF D2
Matrix Table –
Profile, Single
Answer
Type
• Public/Private?
• Non-profit/For Profit?
• Two-Year/Four-Year?
Answers in Bold will take them to a thank you but
respondent does not qualify page

Size of Four-Year Institution
2

• Very Small: < 1,000 students
• Small: 1,000–2,999
• Medium: 3,000–9,999
• Large: 10,000+

Location (Region & Division)
3

• Northeast: New England/Mid-Atlantic
• Midwest: East North Central/West North
Central
• South: South Atlantic/East South
Central/West South Central
• West: Mountain/Pacific
23. Prior student affairs
experience.TF D2
Multiple Choice –
Single Answer
(Dropdown)
How many years did you work in student affairs?
• 1 year – 20 years
How many institutions have you worked at?
• 1 – 10 institutions
How many student affairs positions have you
held?
• 1 – 10 positions

24. What career level do
you consider your
current role to be? TF D2
Multiple Choice –
Single Answer
(Dropdown)
New Professional
Mid-level Professional
Senior-Level Professional
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
125
25. Do you plan on working
in student affairs for the
remainder of your
career?
YES/NO
(Radio Button with
Text Entry option)
If YES, Please tell me more TF P3
If NO, please share some examples of what your
future goals might be? [Open-ended text option]
TF P2
26. Please rate your
satisfaction level as it
pertains to your current
position.
Likert-Scale Matrix
1 Very dissatisfied
to 5 Very Satisfied
With comment
section
• Rate your satisfaction your professional
position. TF P3
• Rate your satisfaction your life outside of
work. TF P3
• Anything else you would like to explain?
27. Please rate the following
statements as it pertains
to your current position.

Likert-Scale Matrix
1 Strongly
Disagree to 5
Strongly Agree
With comment
section
• There are opportunities for me to advance
my career. TF P1
• My supervisor is supportive of my
professional growth. TF D3
• My supervisor is supportive of my personal
obligations. TF D3
• My salary is appropriate for my position. TF
P3
• In my opinion, the merit increase process is
clearly defined. TF P3
• In my opinion, the merit increase process is
fair. TF P3
• This position enables me to achieve a sense
of work/life balance. TF P3
• Do you have any comments regarding the
statements above or anything you would like
to explain further? [open-ended text]
28. Have you ever
considered leaving the
student affairs
profession?
YES/NO
(Radio buttons
with additional
If YES,
What experience/event, if anything, made you or
would make you consider leaving the field?
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
126
Text Entry Short
Answer questions)
Why did you choose to stay?
TF P1 &P2
29. Hypothetically, if you
were to leave the field,
what are the reasons
that would contribute to
that decision?
Text Entry (Open-
ended Short
Answer
[Open-ended Short Answer text]
TF P2 & P3
30. On a scale of 1 – 10 (1
being least likely, 10
being most likely), how
likely are you to
recommend
employment in the field
of student affairs to
others?
Net Promoter
Score (NPS)
Least Likely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Most Likely TF P4
31. Do you have any
comments you would
like to include?
Text Entry [Open-ended]
Thank you for taking this survey! I truly appreciate you taking the time to complete this survey for my
study.

Would you like to be included in a chance to win a $25 Amazon gift card? If so, please click on this link
HERE [insert link] to enter your name and email. This form is separate from the survey to ensure
anonymity of responses and respondents.

If you have any questions regarding the survey or the study, please feel free to email me Lily Chowana-
Bandhu at chowanab@usc.edu.

Thank you but respondent does not qualify page
Thank you for taking the time to complete the survey. This study is looking for individuals who have or
are currently working in student affairs at a four-year, non-profit institution and have graduated from a
master’s preparation program in student affairs or similar.

1. Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/guide.asp
2. Size & Setting Classification Description Carnegie Classification (n.d). Retrieved from
http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/classification_descriptions/size_setting.php
3. Census Bureau Regions and Divisions with State FIPS Codes (2010). Retrieved from
https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
127
APPENDIX D
Interview Protocol
Research Questions:
RQ: What are the experiences of student affairs professionals that contribute to their decision to leave
the profession?
A. How do personal experiences contribute to the decision to depart from the student affairs
profession?
B. How do professional experiences contribute to the decision to depart from the student affairs
profession?
C. What other opportunities are these professionals leaving the field to pursue?

Date: _To be completed prior to interview ______________________________
Time: _To be completed prior to interview ______________________________

Participant Code: _Predetermined ______________________________________________
Selected Pseudonym: _To be completed during interview _______________________________
Graduation year: _Prepopulated from survey______________________________________
Former Title: _Prepopulated from survey______________________________________
Student Affairs Dept.: _Prepopulated from survey______________________________________

Current Title: _To be completed during interview _______________________________
Current Employer: _To be completed during interview _______________________________

Introduction
Thank you: Thank you for taking time out of your day to participation in this interview.
Overview of the study: Exploring experiences of people who departed from the student affairs profession.
Confidentiality: Confidentiality is very important to this study. Your name and identity will remain
anonymous as well as all that we discuss. It will be used for the purposes of this research only. At this
time, do you have any questions about that? Would you like to select a pseudonym for yourself?

For the interview, I will ask a series of questions relating to the experiences that contributed to your
departure from student affairs. I would like for you to take a moment and answer as honestly as possible
about your experience. I will be taking notes during this process and I would also like to record the
interview to capture your perspective as accurately as possible. Do you mind if we record the interview
for the purposes of the study? Great, let’s begin.

Phase 1: Following External Formulas
Getting into Student Affairs
Soft introduction to ease into the more challenging questions

1. To begin, can you talk a little about how you got into student affairs? Why did you
choose this profession?

Graduate Preparation Program
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
128
Brief overview of graduate program and preparation for work in student affairs.
2. Do you feel that your master’s program gave you the tools to succeed in student
affairs? Please explain.

3. Is there anything you would have liked to learn more about prior to working in this
field or wish the graduate program would have covered?

Phase 2: Crossroads
Student Affairs Journey & Last Position Held
Understanding the career path prior to departure from the field

4. Please tell me about your professional journey in student affairs? Where have you
worked and what positions have you held?

5. What was the last position you held in student affairs?
a. What was your title and can you tell me about your role.
b. Please explain your reporting structure? Who reported to you/who did
you report to?

c. What were some of the most impactful opportunities and challenges that
you encountered in this position? Please tell me more.
RQ A
d. Did you feel this position provided personal and/or professional
satisfaction? Please tell me more.
RQ A & B
e. Were you given the support from your supervisor or from peers to grow
(personally and/or professionally) in this profession? Please tell me more.
RQ A & B
f. Did you feel your salary and the compensation process was appropriate
for your role? Please tell me more.
RQ A & B

Crossroads: The defining experience
What was the experience that contributed to your decision to leave the field?
Main RQ
& TF
6. Why did you choose to leave the student affairs profession? Please tell me more.
7. Was there a defining moment that contributed to this decision? Please tell me
more.

8. What personal and/or professional concerns did you have about leaving the field?
Please tell me more.
RQ A & B
9. Thinking back on that time, what would have persuaded you to stay? Please tell
me more.

Phase 3: Becoming the Author of One’s Life
Other Opportunities
What are the opportunities that have propelled these professionals to leave the field?
RQ C
10. Can you tell me more about what you did (professionally and/or personally)
immediately after leaving the profession?
RQ A & B
a. If working: Where are you currently working and can you tell me more
about your title and role?
RQ B
b. If not working: What are you currently doing now? RQ A
11. Are you using the knowledge and skills you acquired from your master’s program
and the experiences from working in student affairs in what you are doing now?
Please tell me more.

Becoming an Author of One’s Life TF
DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
129
Making meaning of experiences.
12. How has your life changed (personally and or professionally) now that you are no
longer working in student affairs? Please tell me more.
RQ A & B
13. What have you learned about yourself (personally and/or professionally) now that
you are no longer in student affairs? Please tell me more.
RQ A & B
14. Thinking about your career journey, what, if anything, would you do differently?
Please tell me more.
RQ C
15. Would you consider going back to student affairs or working in higher education?
Please tell me more.

Closing Questions
16. Is there anything else you would like to add?
17. If I have any questions, would you mind if I connect with you again?

Closing Remarks
This concludes the formal questions for my study. Thank you so much for taking the time to meet with
me. If I have any questions or need for clarification, would you mind if I followed up with you via email?

Thank you again and I will be sending you a gift card later today.

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
130
APPENDIX E
Information Sheet

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education, 3470 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Departure from the Student Affairs Profession: A study of professionals who left the field

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Lily Chowana-Bandhu under the
supervision of Dr. Tracy Tambascia at the University of Southern California. Research studies
include only people who voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information
about this study. Please review the information and ask questions about anything that is unclear.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study aims to understand the experiences of student affairs professionals that
contribute to their decision to leave the profession. The study will be examining personal and
professional experiences that contribute to departure from the field. In addition, the study seeks
to understand the types of opportunities student affairs professionals are leaving the field to
pursue.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete a 15-minute survey. Some
select candidates will be asked to participate in a 60-minute audio-recorded interview. Should
you feel uncomfortable at any point during the survey or interview, you may move on to the next
question or end the interview or survey at any time.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
For completing the survey, you will be entered in a drawing to win a $50 Amazon gift card. The
drawing will be held at the end of the study and the winner notified via email. If selected for
interviews, you will receive a $25 Amazon gift card via email following completion of the
interview.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. All
data will be stored in a password protected cloud storage application. Your responses will be
coded with a false name (pseudonym) and stored separately. Interviews will be audio-recorded
and transcribed. The audio-recordings and original transcriptions will be destroyed after a year.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

DEPARTURE FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSION
131
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the study, please contact Lily Chowana-Bandhu
at cchowana@usc.edu or phone at (949) 231-2152 or Faculty Advisor Dr. Tracy Tambascia at
tpoon@rossier.usc.edu

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board, 1640 Marengo Street, Suite 700,
Los Angeles, CA 90033-9269. Phone (323) 442-0114 or email irb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This qualitative study sought to understand the experiences that contributed to departure from the student affairs profession from individuals who were no longer a part of the field. The study focused on one main research question: What are the experiences of student affairs professionals that contribute to their decision to leave the profession? Three subsequent questions provided insight into personal and professional experiences that contribute to that decision as well as into the type of opportunities professionals were leaving the field to pursue. Baxter Magolda’s (2001) theory of self-authorship was used as a theoretical framework to better understand participants’ experiences and decision-making process. A survey of current and former student affairs professionals as well as interviews with former student affairs professionals were conducted to answer the research question. The study found that a progression of experiences like unsustainable expectations of the profession, a combination of multiple negative experiences leading to a decline of self-efficacy, the desire to prioritize one’s self and the limitation of professional advancement options contributed to departure from student affairs for study participants. In addition, participants of this study described a feeling of isolation from supervisors and others within the institution that accelerated their desire to leave the profession. Recommendations relate to improving the experiences of new and mid-level student affairs professionals to increase support initiatives and provide knowledge and skill development as the profession evolves. Finally, future research opportunities are suggested to gain a holistic understanding of this problem to decrease attrition in the student affairs profession.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An exploration of the experiences of undergraduate adult learners in an adult degree program from the theoretical framework of self-authorship

PDF

Creating a community of practice: serving student veterans in higher education

PDF

Transfer first-generation college students: the role of academic advisors in degree completion

PDF

Coloring the pipeline: an analysis of the NASPA Undergraduate Fellows program as a path for underrepresented students into student affairs

PDF

The role of student affairs professionals: serving the needs of undocumented college students

PDF

Other duties as assigned: Black student affairs professionals navigating and learning to heal from racial battle fatigue at predominantly white institutions

PDF

Knowledge sharing among student affairs professionals at a small faith-based higher education institution

PDF

A pathway to persistence: perspectives of academic advising and first-generation undergraduate students

PDF

Online student attrition in blended learning programs

PDF

Transfer students from California community colleges: a narrative approach to understanding the social capital and institutional factors that lead to a timely transfer to a public, four-year univ...

PDF

Serving those who have served: the role of university career services in student veteran degree completion

PDF

The development and implementation of global partnerships in student affairs

PDF

Retaining and supporting BIPOC professionals in PWIs: addressing PWIs equity gap

PDF

Using cultural capital skills as a woman of color in student affairs: what does it take to get ahead?

PDF

Caring for students in crisis: the training and preparation of academic advisors

PDF

When parents become students: An examination of experiences, needs, and opportunities which contribute to student parent engagement in community college

PDF

Frontline workers serving students: a study on the well-being of student affairs professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Leadership strategies, skills, and professional approaches utilized by effective senior-level student affairs administrators at urban universities

PDF

Effective professional development strategies to support the advancement of women into senior student affairs officer positions

PDF

Attaining success: how African American college students persist, engage and graduate from a moderately selective institution: a case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Parker, Lily (author)

Core Title Departure from the student affairs profession: a study of professionals who left the field

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-12

Publication Date 12/17/2021

Defense Date 10/29/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag attrition in student affairs,departure from student affairs,former student affairs professionals,leaving student affairs,OAI-PMH Harvest,student affairs

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tambascia, Tracy Poon (committee chair), Merriman, Lynette (committee member), Tobey, Patricia (committee member)

Creator Email chowanab@usc.edu,lchowana@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC18652763

Unique identifier UC18652763

Legacy Identifier etd-ParkerLily-10305

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Parker, Lily

Type texts

Source 20211221-wayne-usctheses-batch-905-nissen (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu