Conclusion to the Series: A Look Back at Influential Books in Student Development

To commemorate the 60th anniversary of The Journal of College Student Development, we revisited several books that significantly influenced student development theory and practice. Members of the editorial staff each had their own criteria for what influential might mean, but we collectively agreed that an essential work should be one that was both groundbreaking and that appreciably contributed to the advancement of student development. As noted in the introduction to this series, Editor Debora Liddell described these works as having "stood the test of time" by becoming scholarship "upon whose shoulders much of our work rests." John Braxton captured this notion in his rereview of Tinto's Leaving College, identifying certain works as having attained a "paradigmatic status" by achieving consensus among scholars.

After creating and debating over an extensive list, we selected six works representing a depth and diversity of prominent topics. Next, it was equally important to match reviewers. Each individual selected was charged with the challenging task of rereading and reconsidering legacy, rigor, and relevancy. Each reviewer was provided with six guiding prompts: initial value, enduring value, gaps, who has extended or revised the book, how we have moved the evidence forward, and whether the text should continue to be considered fundamental. Notably, each of our first choices agreed to review the works we selected for them.

As I read the reviews, some of the most enjoyable and unanticipated aspects that emerged were the stories—both contextual and personal—the reviewers shared. Examples include Bowman's reminder that advanced statistical software did not exist when Astin first analyzed his large-scale datasets, so the analysis for the first I-E-O model involved massive basement computers that required punch cards for entering variables. More personal examples are the reflections Renn gave on the influence of Rhoads's work on her own development as a scholar and the connections Stewart made between his experiences in college and Tatum's work.

The reviewers in this series revealed how and why these texts became the language of our field. Each reviewer provided an excellent overview, while also challenging common assumptions both arising and resulting from the texts. They considered scholarship that followed and questioned how the works may have been underappreciated (as well as overappreciated) and the basis for those judgments. This series demonstrates the evolution of research, theory, and practice in the field. Reviewers tackled the question of which books should still be considered fundamental while perhaps also differentiating their places as either still relevant or more historically important.

When reflecting on the works selected, one overall theme I noted that reviewers also highlighted in different ways is how the contributions of each work have advanced our conceptions of student development. Prior to the publication of these works, the theory and practice of student development had not advanced much further beyond calls for different ways to support students. While some laudable and noteworthy campus practices existed, there were very few organizing principles linking work across the profession. For example, prior to Astin's and Tinto's works, the operationalization of involvement and engagement as influences on educational outcomes were neither demonstrated nor codified as common practices. In the midst of intensified calls for accountability in the last decade, higher education owes a great debt to these contributions.

As the reviewers pointed out, these works are not without their flaws; some have aged better than others. The field has advanced beyond many of their conceptions, yet without these initial foundations advancement would have been much more challenging. For example, for much of the history of higher education we undervalued women, underserved underrepresented groups, and further marginalized students based on hetero-normative values. It would be nearly impossible to find ways our work toward advancing these areas has not been influenced by the groundwork laid by Gilligan, Tatum, and Rhoads. Similarly, Chickering's theory gave an easily accessible voice to the developmental processes college students face. His seven vectors were used for decades as the basis for building student development programs, and the students and researchers influenced by his work...