Student Affairs - Criticism

Criticism

The field of Student Affairs has been criticized for its emphasis on formal, professional training, calling into question whether the field is theoretical or practical. Complicating this criticism is the question of the role of student development theories in student affairs practice. It is claimed that student development theories are used to “proactively identify and address student needs, design programs, develop policies, and create healthy...environments that encourage positive growth in students.” Yet, often student affairs practices often bear little resemblance or connection to student development theories. As Paul Bloland (1979) wrote in an article in the NASPA Journal, “We have cultivated an expertise that was not requested, is not sought out, and for which there is little recognition or demand. Many entry-level and (many) seasoned professionals know little of student development theory and practice and, in fact, do not really need such expertise to meet the role expectations of their supervisors or, in too many instances, their institutions.”

Another debate has centered on the degree to which available postgraduate programs actually represent a distinct discipline. While the field bears a resemblance to psychology, counseling, and other general concentrations, debate and criticism of the field's major foundations are virtually nonexistent in theoretical discourse, calling into question the academic credibility of the field. As Bloland, Stamatakos, and Russell wrote, while student development theory “...has been widely distributed through the literature, in preparation programs, at workshops and conventions,” academics and professionals in the field have, “...failed to exercise their critical faculties to raise questions about student development, to slow down the head-long pace of its engulfment of the field of student affairs, and to examine alternatives and opinions as they presented themselves.”