About five years ago, in the April 1990 issue of The Talking Stick, John H. Schuh wrote a feature article titled "Application of Student Development Theory Today." In that article, Schuh encouraged housing and other student affairs professionals to be more aware of student development theory and how it can enhance the quality of our work. My response to his article, "Student Development Theory and the Common Cold: A Response to Schuh," which appeared in the June 1990 issue of The Talking Stick, basically asserted that student affairs professionals do not need to know student development theory in order to do our jobs in an appropriate manner. Shortly after my article appeared, James J. Rhatigan wrote a response to my response which appeared in the September 1990 issue of The Talking Stick. In his response Rhatigan said, in a very articulate and civilized way, that I needed to get a clue.

Over the years I have thought a lot about the issues addressed in these three articles. I thought it would be interesting to revisit the debate over the relative importance of student development theory to our profession and see how well the various arguments have held up over the last five years. I have long felt that one of the primary characteristics lacking in student affairs is a passion for true debate on fundamental issues. Far too often, we are quick to run from anything that is even remotely "controversial." But conflict has always been a necessary prerequisite for meaningful progress. We should actively pursue conflict as opposed to avoiding it at every turn.

Since I wrote my response to Schuh five years ago, my perspective has become much more enlightened. In 1990, I was the associate director of housing at Western Kentucky University. In the ten years prior to 1990, I had been the assistant director of housing at WKU, a residence hall complex director at Northern Illinois University, a residence hall director at WKU, and an assistant head resident at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. In the fall of 1991, I became an assistant professor and the coordinator of the student affairs academic programs at Western. Ironically, one of the courses I now routinely teach is Student Development in Higher Education. Life indeed has a funny way of providing new and exciting growth opportunities.

Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to re-read my response to Schuh and see if, given my new experiences of the last five years, my views had changed substantially. To be honest, there are those who thought (at the time my response was published and probably even now) that I should have been embarrassed and/or apologetic about what I had written. After all, to "attack" such a widely-accepted notion as student development theory was deemed ludicrous by many of my colleagues. But I always strive to be intellectually honest. I write what I feel at the time and I reserve the right to change my views when and if new information warrants such a revision. But, as they say, enough about me.

When I re-consider what I had written in 1990, I am amazed at how well many of the arguments have held up over the first half of the decade. Admittedly, the language tends to be a bit sarcastic in places. In retrospect, this probably tended to distract from the points I was trying to make. To facilitate this analysis, I would like to provide a few excerpts from the original response and then provide my current thinking on the particular topic addressed.

The literature certainly abounds with a seemingly endless array of rhetoric and scholarly discourse concerning how student development theory has revolutionized the student services profession since the 1960s. This certainly hasn't changed. If anything, the literature is now even more saturated with articles on student development theory. Any yet it is not altogether clear that we are significantly closer to achieving a coherent and universally accepted understanding of the concept or its various implications for student affairs practice.

It is still my contention that there are a number of fundamentally erroneous assumptions out there concerning what student development theories can accomplish within the context of sound administrative management in higher education. As mentioned previously, we have made some progress, but the fact remains that it is still not a given among many practitioners that student development theory should form the basis for everything we do in attempting to fulfill our professional duties and responsibilities. Being theory-based does not necessarily mean that we are driven by the appropriate motivational concerns.

It is often taken for granted that student development is a well-defined, somewhat linear process that can be explicitly categorized and understood in terms of concrete stages or phases through which students pass on the road to maturity and social adjustment. The more I have learned about student development theory, the more I tend to agree that there are broad generalizations that we can make about the maturation processes that students experience within the context of postsecondary education. There does seem to be a commonality with respect to key developmental dimensions. However, there remains considerable disagreement regarding what those processes actually entail given the recent arguments articulated by advocates of multicultural education. Is there a common experience and a general developmental scheme common to all students? Maybe. Maybe not. As far as I am see, the jury is still out.

Another rather dubious conclusion reached by many professionals in the field is that student development theories have their basis in, and are supported by, research studies that are, for all practical intents and purposes, conclusive. I noted in 1990 that research into student development constructs tended to be somewhat disjointed and undermined by the fact that comprehensive studies were almost nonexistent. For the most part, I find that this is still somewhat true. For the record, I personally feel that the theoretical constructs developed by many researchers are indeed meaningful. But saying that the theory seems to ring true to experience is only a first step. It is not the same as saying that it is supported by empirical findings. We are probably getting closer to where we need to be, but we are simply not there yet. I still have a problem whenever professionals are encouraged to simply "choose which one you want to use." Maybe I'm operating at Kohlberg's lowest level here, but I yearn for definitive answers and I will not be fully satisfied until I have them.

Another misconception prevalent among the student development set these days is the notion that these theories have an innate and self-evident practicality with respect to the individual. This is still where student development theory can be very dangerous. In attempting to teach the value of diversity in the classroom (yes, I believe we should be teaching values in higher education), it quickly becomes apparent that there is a paradox which must be addressed. In teaching about other cultures, we must always stress that generalizations about a group do not translate into meaningful insights about individual members of that group. If a student is African-American, do we deal with him/her as an African-American individual or as an individual who happens to be African American? There is a difference. In our interactions with individual students, do we deal with them as individuals or as members of a group who are at a particular developmental stage? I believe it is possible to do both. In our efforts to be "theory-based," however, there is always the possibility that we will do more harm than good.

Finally, many of those who advocate student development theory as a means of enhancing administrative practice tend to believe that the developmental process can be positively manipulated by personnel engaged in proactive intervention strategies. The more I learn about the translation of student development theory into practice, the more I am convinced that we do have tremendous power to positively affect the developmental processes of our students and thus enhance their educational experience. So, with respect to this assertion, I have to admit that programming does play an increasingly important role within the profession. Although l do think that we sometimes go overboard and tend to provide too much structure for the students we serve. Sure, we need to provide opportunities for growth and enhancement, and these opportunities should be "theory-based." However, as far as possible, these experiences should be strictly optional. We must always respect the student who just wants to sit in his/her room and study with minimal distraction. Perhaps more than for any previous generation, students desperately need the skills that will allow them to succeed in life. As student affairs professionals, we are obligated to provide opportunities which will allow them to develop these skills. Yet sometimes failure is ultimately the best teacher.

In the original article, after exposing what I called student development "myths," I proceeded to explain exactly what we should be doing as student affairs professionals. Rhatigan, in his response to my response, had an interesting insight that I have thought a lot about over they last five years: "I did observe that Mr. Hughey, who demonstrates his dissatisfaction of those who promulgate theories that are of no use on the job, goes ahead and offers his won." I have come to the conclusion that Rhatigan is right. That's exactly what I did. Although I have come to believe that my ideas are useful on the job and therefore not in the same category as what I was arguing against (at least in my self-deluded way of thinking).

In short, I feel that much of what I said in my original article is still applicable today.

First and foremost, we should be working to develop and maintain an environment that is free from unnecessary and unwarranted distraction. I believed then, and I still believe, that this is one of our most important responsibilities as student affairs professionals. Students continue to be faced with tremendous, stress-inducing challenges on an almost daily basis. We are obligated to do whatever we can to help them cope with these pressures in a way which seeks to minimize anxiety. We need to be ever-cognizant of the realities of their lives and give them adequate space whenever it is needed. As I said in 1990, the last thing they need is to be confronted at every turn by administrators who have a preconceived notion of what is "best" for them.

Within this same line of reasoning, we need to be more active in promoting services and programs which tend to give our students' a personal sense of responsibility for their own destiny. Far too often, in our efforts to provide students with "direction", we fail to allow them the freedom necessary to explore various problem-solving strategies on their own. When professional staff try to assume too much of an active role in student development, the net result is often counterproductive--actual growth and maturation are significantly inhibited. It is important that various programs and services be available for students; it is markedly less important that they be coerced into utilizing those programs and services. This is just as true today as it was in 1990. Tom Peters, the best-selling business author and management consultant, has made a fortune preaching just this philosophy. Why? Because it works!

Another key role of the student services administrator, like it or not, is to see that the institution's policies and procedures are consistently and equitably enforced throughout the collegiate population. In essence, this has always constituted a large part of our role as student affairs professionals. Unfortunately, and I have experienced this myself, there are those both within and outside academe who see this as our only true role within the higher education enterprise. Sure, there is a natural tendency to want to expand our jurisdiction into other realms that are more educationally-oriented. This is both natural and appropriate. But it is primarily up to us to maintain a collegiate environment that is first and foremost conducive to learning. Facilitating the disciplinary process affords the student affairs professional with a unique opportunity to acclimate students to the reality that a civilized society has certain behavioral expectations. By striving to create and maintain order through the humanistic enforcement of policies and procedures (realizing, of course, that is not a mortal sin to make exceptions from time-to-time), we are helping to prepare students for a more satisfying, meaningful, and ultimately successful life on the "outside". True then...true now. I can't say it any better that I did in 1990.

Sadly, opinion and speculation seem to constitute the majority of all material published in the student services professions. The data needed to lend support for all the theorizing is simply not there. The good news is that this is indeed changing. The theorists do seem to be relying on more comprehensive databases than they were five years ago and this is a noteworthy accomplishment. Although a lot of theoretical work continues to be supported by marginal and/or incomplete data, we are also beginning to see more comprehensive studies that are carefully designed and conscientiously executed. And as the data become more reliable, the conclusions that are derived from them become more compelling.

Furthermore, it is also my belief that the literature currently available to student services administrators is almost unilaterally ignored by most of the practitioners in the field. I also feel that this is changing for the better, a phenomenon which has as much to do with necessity as it does with desire. Given recent economic developments and the implications of the global marketplace for higher education, student affairs professionals simply cannot afford not to know what's out there. Those who will survive and flourish must keep up with ongoing developments in the profession. We no longer have the luxury, financially or otherwise, to reinvent the wheel every time we are faced with challenges on campus. Knowledge will truly be the key to success in the coming century.

As a practitioner, I want something I can easily translate into concrete administrative practice. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be a primary motivation for many of those contributing to our journals. Over the last five years, the quality of many student affairs publications (including The Talking Stick) has gotten noticeably better. I now regularly use many articles from our professional publications in my classes at Western. This was not true five years ago. And although there continues to be a great deal of unwarranted homage paid to the prevailing paradigms, a lot of the information available through our journals, magazines, and newsletters is interesting and, more importantly, useful. But has the quality really gotten all that better or have I just started to appreciate it more? I'll have to think about that one.

In sum, I believe our profession is moving in the right direction. I now have a greater resect for student development theory and its practical applications than I did in 1990. In December of 1993, my Student Development class, in conjunction with the Student Affairs Graduate Association, sponsored a conference at Western in which we explored the value of student development theory to actual practice in student affairs. It was a resounding success and everyone who attended (including me) learned a great deal. So in closing, I would like to thank John Schuh and James J. Rhatigan for their insights and for helping me to gain a greater appreciation for student development theory. Although I remain skeptical (and yes, even cynical) on a few points, I am keeping an open mind. It'll be interesting to see how things are going in another five years!