Editor's choice: the worklife of student service professionals at rural community colleges

Community College Review, Summer, 2003 by Joan B. Hirt, Ron Esteban, Lisa McGuire

The literature on community colleges focuses extensively on students, faculty members and the top leadership. Noticeably absent are studies about administrators such as those who provide services for students. The researchers looked at the elements of administrative worklife at two rural community colleges. Findings reveal patterns in the nature of work, rewards, and relationships that these professionals encounter.

**********

Organizational culture has emerged over the past three decades as a dominant force in the study of higher education. A number of conceptual frameworks have been proffered (Bergquist, 1992; Kuh & Whitt, 1988; Tierney, 1988). In some instances, these models are typological, identifying categories of cultures among colleges and universities (Bergquist, 1992). At other times, the frameworks describe the characteristics that can be used to study culture among institutions of higher education (Kuh & Whitt, 1988: Tierney, 1988). In either case, the focus is on the campus culture in general.

Another body of work has explored specific components of campus culture. For example, there is a wealth of literature on leaders at two-year institutions (Amey & Twombly, 1992; Bryant, 1992; Richardson & Wolvenon, 1994). In general, these works examine leadership styles and institutional contexts where leadership strategies can influence outcomes. There is an assumption that presidents influence the culture of the campus (Sobek, 1996). Leaders are exhorted to manage organizational culture by understanding it, shaping it, and reinforcing it along the lines dictated by internal and external environments (Miller, 2001).

A second culture on community college campuses, faculty members, is also well represented in the literature. In some instances, faculty perceptions of campus leadership have been explored (Moore, 1992). More often, however, faculty culture is examined. Many community college faculty (40%) attended community colleges as students (Keim, 1989), and most view themselves as teachers rather than scholars (Cohen & Brawer, 1989). This situation has led some to label community college faculty as comprising an oral culture in which publishing is not valued, and most communication, including instruction, is delivered verbally (McGrath & Spear, 1991).

These oral traditions have rendered it more difficult to capture a sense of the culture among community college faculty. A great deal of research has focused on satisfaction among teachers. The quality of students, colleagues, and the institution all influence job satisfaction (Milosheff, 1990). Teachers are generally motivated by intrinsic factors, such as student achievement and their own professional development (Diener, 1985). Similarly, faculty members are drawn to the instructional mission of the community college (McGrath & Spear, 1991); yet, this same mission, which undervalues research, makes them feel as if they work at second-class institutions (Seidman, 1985). This situation results in a faculty culture that is mired in a sense of isolation and ambivalence.

Yet another culture on the community college campus is the student culture. Student subcultures are quite varied, perhaps because they are so diverse demographically. For example, 57% of community college students are female, and 33% are minorities. Moreover, community college students are more likely to come from low-income families and to have lower high school grades than their counterparts at four-year institutions (Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac, 2002). In short, community colleges serve a varied population of students who historically have been marginalized in higher education.

Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that research has examined these student cultures in diverse ways. Shaw (1999), for example, discusses how identity emerges for different types of community college students and describes ways in which institutions respond to those students. In general, she argues that community college students are multidimensional, yet institutions frequently see them in more constricted terms, further marginalizing them.

Whatever is known about community college students, there are topics that will merit further study in the coming years. These include some areas that have long been of interest to scholars (e.g., student attitudes, financial considerations, and student groups). However, other topics are just emerging, such as the Internet culture among students and the implications of increased computer use on the issue of student isolation. It would seem that future investigations related to student subcultures in community colleges are fairly assured (Miller & Nelson, 1997).

Beyond the leadership, faculty, and student cultures, however, is another constituency on the community college campus--administrators. Unlike these other groups, the literature on administrative culture is relatively sparse. In some instances, scholars have examined the influence of academic administrators on the culture of the community college campus (Cutler, 1991: Miller, 2001). In other cases the focus has been on academic administrators and their commitment to campus culture (Smith & Hawthorne, 1993). Noticeably missing in this body of work are studies that examine student affairs administrators. Our study sought to address this gap in the literature by examining the culture of these professionals.