One Size Does Not Fit All: Traditional and Innovative Models of Student Affairs Practice (review)

The purpose of this book is to explore various organizational models for student affairs work by institution type and mission. The authors present an engaging read as they delineate 11 possible models for student affairs practice. The book is organized into four sections, taking the reader from the history of student affairs (Part 1), through traditional student affairs organizational models (Part 2), to innovative models based on research from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Documenting Effective Educational Practice (DEEP) project (Part 3), and concludes with a section devoted to putting all the pieces together (Part 4). The authors are experienced scholars who served as members of the DEEP project research team. As the title (One Size Does Not Fit All) suggests, the book speaks to the varieties of institutional size, mission, culture and organization. It is particularly refreshing to see the attention given to liberal arts colleges.

Beginning with The Student Personnel Point of View of 1937 (American Council on Education, 1994), Part 1 explores the history of student affairs, taking the reader through the various stages of the development of student affairs work up to the present. The evolution of different approaches to student affairs work is explored, including student services, student development, and student learning. The authors discussed a variety of ways student affairs could be organized, including the possibility of merging with academic affairs. They also considered various models for student affairs practice and presented various organizational practices that would best enhance student learning. Although reading Student Success in College (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005) will enhance your particular knowledge of the 20 DEEP schools that form the basis of One Size Does Not Fit All, it is not necessary. The authors provided a nice summary of the DEEP project to assist the reader in understanding this work.

Part 2 presents six traditional models for student affairs that begin from three distinct approaches: (a) administrative-centered models (functional silos, student services, and co-curriculars); (b) learning-centered models (seamless learning and competitive adversarial); and (c) the out-of-classroom-centered model (extracurriculars). Each model is introduced using a vignette outlining examples of programs, policies and organizational structures of student affairs. All models are clearly explained by the authors, providing the history, characteristics, philosophies, organizational configurations, theoretical foundations, strengths, and weaknesses. The model presentations are unbiased and readily understood. In Part 2, the authors also explored positioning student affairs as an independent division or as an entity within academic affairs. Although I am not a proponent of the latter, research from some of the DEEP schools provides compelling arguments for the inclusion of student affairs within academic affairs, with the effectiveness of the structure depending on institutional mission and organization. As a reader, one begins in Part 2 to think about possibilities of taking the strengths of various models and incorporating them to support current learning-centered practices. It is very clear from Part 2 that components from each of the various models identified in One Size Does Not Fit All could be utilized in a variety of ways, even at the same institution.

Following the discussion of the six traditional models, Part 3 introduces five innovative models that grew out of the DEEP research. Three of the models are student-centered: (a) student-centered ethics of care model, (b) student-driven model, and (c) student-agency model. Two additional models (the academic-student affairs collaboration model and the academic-centered model) emphasize collaboration around the academic mission and are both organized around the institution's academic core. As they compared these five models with the previous six, the authors followed a similar format of outlining the history, characteristics, philosophies, organizational configurations, theoretical foundations, strengths, and weaknesses of each. Unique insights were developed and can be applied to a variety of institutional types or particular circumstances. For example, this strength...