that guided administrators in their interactions with parents. Many participants indicated that they had few, if any polices or procedures, that guided them. Josh shared:
I wouldn’t say—policies and procedures per se in terms of like written policies or guidelines. But certainly this is an issue we talk about amongst colleagues, both within student affairs and certainly I talk about it with folks in academics. And when we talk about it, we do it in the context often of—both informal discussions and case studies.
Luke talked about an underlying institutionalphilosophy that guided him in his interactions with parents. He reflected, “So, um, do we have specific written down policies? No. But, I don’t think there’s a person on our campus that doesn’t know what our underlying philosophy and goals and guidance are.”
Nathan also acknowledged that his institution did not have policies and
procedures. He said, “I think we intuitively know where we stand on these issues, um, and have, you know, many of us have been here for quite awhile so we, we have a real sense of where we stand with parents. . . .” Frank also spoke about the guidance his institution provided without written policies and procedures:
I don’t believe there’s any written policy outside the simple fact that, uh, we kind of have a purpose statement for how we treat all people that are affiliated with the institution and that touches on sort of like the dignity of human life, respect for one another, it’s just sort of a general well being policy, but nothing that talks about, uh, let’s says the escalation of a conflict with a parent.
Ethan’s remarks expanded on the notion of institutional guidance without policies: We don’t have any policies written or procedures written. We try to relate to parents and respond to parents the way we would want to be treated. And so when we follow that as closely as we can, we usually will have a good experience and good visit with parents. But no policies.
Alan revealed another institutional expectation for administrators at his institution when working with parents:
Make them happy so they stay enrolled. We’re extremely tuition driven and it’s kind of one of those unspoken things, uh, when our endowment’s probably $20 million, uh, every student counts. And we need to make sure the parents are happy to keep the students happy.
Participants were also asked about their use of student development theory when engaging with the parents of traditional-age undergraduate students. Many participants indicated that they loosely incorporated student development theory in their interactions with parents. Alan shared:
Uh, loosely, I’ll use the framework but I won’t quote Chickering or anyone by name. I’ll talk about the developmental needs of the child, of the student and how it would be best for them to proceed and how they need to start taking
responsibility for their own actions and handle the conversation themselves but I’m not going to try and explain any student developmental theory.
Carol shared similar sentiments:
I don’t per-se, I don’t tell them you know, student development theory would say ‘x.’ But I think by virtue of just the way I deal with people and who I am I have a lot of that imbedded in myself. So, yes I do but I don’t, I guess I don’t label it. Peter also talked about loosely incorporating theory into his interactions with parents. He said, “I try as best I can and, you know, without intellectualizing it, making it, you know, more accessible.” Ian also talked about how he integrates theory into conversations with parents. “I don’t think we actually quote theory as much as, uh, talk about developmental stages the students may be going through.”
Some participants indicated that they did not use theory during their interactions with parents. Rather the participants discussed a common sense approach when working with parents. Frank revealed,
To be honest, I use a common sense approach most of the time. I’ve found that, uh, over the years, that parents, at least with what I deal with, typically don’t respond too well when I start preaching academic theory to them, they just want to know how to resolve the problem.
Luke also acknowledged that student development theory is not typically a part of his interactions with parents. He expressed, “I’m really not trying to prophesize with the parents or, you know, or get on a pedestal about policies and theories of, uh, education. It’s more like a discussion level thing and maybe some real world examples about acting like a good citizen.” Mitch commented, “Well, when it gets to me, it’s probably past that . . . I try but I don’t have much chance when, when they’re very angry.
Summary of Theme 4. Participants indicated that they are not guided by policies and procedures, nor do they rely heavily on student development theory in their
interactions with parents. Rather, participants relied on institutional philosophies and their own judgment in their interactions with parents. Additionally, it was revealed that
participants depended on their own skills and experiences in their interactions with the parents of traditional-age undergraduate students.
Theme Related to Research Question Three
The third research question asked: What effect has increased interactions between senior-level student affairs administrators and parents had on institutional services, programs and activities? This research question was explored through interview questions 18 and 19 (see Appendix L).
Theme 5: Institutional services, programs and activities for parents.