Aivazian-Developmental Synthesis Project

Running head: CONDUCT AND CONFLICT 1

Conduct and Conflict:

Meaning Making and Moral Development Through Institutional Conduct Processes

Russell C. Aivazian

Loyola University Chicago

CONDUCT AND CONFLICT 2

A college or university is a disciplined community, a place where individuals accept their obligations to the group and where well-defined governance procedures guide behavior of the common good (emphasis in original; Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990, p. 37)

Institutional Conduct History and Framework

Student development professionals who work with violators of an institutions code of

conduct are tasked with creating and maintaining a disciplined environment that operates in

both legal and developmental frameworks. Since changes in national and university policies

have become more stringent, the amount of conduct cases heard by conduct officers is on the rise

(Dannells, 1991). This often forces student conduct officers to make a choice between

incorporating student development theory throughout the conduct process or simply processing

student cases with formalized sanctions and processes. A universitys code of conduct reflects

not only the actions and behaviors expected from students and professionals, it also serves as the

basis for the culture and the community the institution aims to create on a college campus.

Conduct administrators, then, serve as the gatekeepers to maintaining the culture for the

institution. It is important for student conduct officers to use various student development

theories to inform their practice to create an environment where a students misconduct

(according to the campus code of conduct) has little potential to negatively impact other students

as well as the mission and values of an institution (Stimpson & Janosik, 2011).

Early colonial colleges viewed discipline through the lens of in loco parentis (in place of

the parent; Dannells, 1997). Codes of conduct and disciplinary practices were strict and enforced

a rigid structure that dictated the student bodys daily schedule. This structure was crucial to the

foundation of the colonial colleges as they were relatively new and only accommodated a

handful of students (Dannells, 1997). As student bodies increased throughout the late 1990s,

Deans of Students (originally conceived as Deans of Men) changed the disciplinary framework


of an institution from in loco parentis to a developmental approach rooted in student

development theory (Stimpson & Stimpson, 2008). Even though this new system of student

discipline requires professionals to uphold legalistic frameworks, it is quite distanced from the

framework that characterizes the formalized American judicial system. Using developmental

approaches, student conduct officers aim to address student misconduct while creating

environments where students can learn, grow, and develop (Fitch & Murry, 2001).

When looking at the student conduct process as a whole, Dannells (1991) contended:

student misconduct is a function of both the behavior and the rule (p. 169). Defined broadly,

the student conduct process consists of all interactions with students as a result of behavior that

violates an institutions code of conduct. Institutions address student misconduct using many

different systems that reflect both their campus culture and institutional mission. Looking

specifically at 4-year, doctoral granting institutions, Fitch and Murry (2001) identified three

general structures of student conduct: formal, informal, and mixed. Even though the researchers

found that the type of judicial structure did not change the overall effectiveness of the judicial

process (measured by recidivism, number of appeals, and total cases adjudicated), these

classifications provide a framework to understand how judicial processes operate. For Fitch and

Murry, student development must be the first priority when creating student codes of conduct

and judicial processes. Since judicial officers and other students in the university work to create

the environment for student development, OReilly and Evans (2007) further classified judicial

systems by the amount of involvement within the university community. University

administrators usually adjudicate administrative approaches, whereas majority-peer and

minority-peer approaches include students in the decision-making process through formalized

student conduct boards (OReilly & Evans, 2007). Even though it is not as well researched in


the literature, the inclusion of students in the decision-making of the conduct process may also

present a further level of development.

Regardless of structure or level of student or administrator involvement, there is

agreement among professionals about the purposes and learning outcomes for an institutions

judicial process. For Howell (2005), the purpose of a judicial system is to protect the academic

environment and promote citizenship education and moral and ethical development for those

involved in the judicial process (p. 374). Central to the purpose of an institutions conduct

system is the creation of the environment to provide areas of challenge and support to ethically

and morally develop students throughout their interactions in the process.

Student Developmental Characteristics

As described by Lewin (1936), an individuals behavior is a function of the interaction

between the person and the environment. Student conduct work attempts to help students

become aware of and prevent their behaviors from happening in the future. For conduct

administrators, it is important to understand both the developmental level of students as they

enter the process (person) and the ways in which the conduct process can create an environment

for further development. This paper will focus both on the literature and theory related to

students as they enter the conduct process and shift to talk about how student affairs

professionals can create an environment that is appropriate to empower developmental change in

students.

In their study focusing on the perceived outcomes of the judicial process, Stimpson and

Janosik (2011) found that the learning that occurs in the conduct process varies based on the

characteristics of the student (gender, age, race, etc.). Since data on student characteristics are

easily accessible, much research has explored the demographic makeup of those students who


enter the conduct process. Generally, student offenders are traditionally-aged sophomores

(Dannells, 1997; Stimpson & Janosik, 2011; Stimpson & Stimpson, 2008), live in large residence

halls with 600 or more students (Janosik, Davis, & Spencer, 1985; Stimpson & Stimpson, 2008),

have lower GPAs as compared to those students who do not enter the conduct process (Dannells,

1997; Janosik et al., 1985; King, 2012), and have low institutional commitment (Dannells, 1997).

Also clearly present in the literature, is the overrepresentation of males in the conduct process

(Cooper & Schwartz, 2007; Harper, Harris, & Mmeje, 2005; King, 2012; Oswalt, Shutt, English,

& Little, 2007).

Gender Identity Development

Even though males are overrepresented in the conduct system, little research exists to

explain this phenomenon. In the absence of this research, Harper, Harris, and Mmeje (2005)

synthesized the existing literature and theoretical frameworks to create a model of six variables

that help explain the factors that lead to male overrepresentation in the conduct system. Harper

et al. contended that misbehavior in college communities is a function of a male students:

precollege socialization, gender role conflict, social construction of masculinities, context-bound

gendered social norms, development of competence and self-efficacy, and environmental ethos.

Chickering and Reissers (1993) theory of identity development provides further

understanding of this model. Chickering and Reisser saw that establishing an individuals

identity is one of the main issues students grapple with during their college years (Evans, Forney,

Guido, Patton, and Renn, 2010). Consequently, the college environment acts as a catalyst that

develops students along seven vectors: developing competence, managing emotions, moving

through autonomy toward independence, developing mature interpersonal relationships,

establishing identity, developing purpose, and developing integrity (Chickering & Reisser, 1993).


Specifically for collegiate conduct systems, Harper et al. (2005) explained that the

overrepresentation of male students is the result of their internal and external struggle to develop

competence, manage emotions, and develop mature interpersonal relationships.

The behaviors brought to campus by men are often shaped by prior experiences in the

home and at school that are deemed appropriate and excusable by societal standards. This

behavior is exacerbated in the college environment as male students feel the pressure to engage

in actions that will presumably win the approval of their same-sex peers, even if these acts

violate campus rules (Harper et al., 2005, p. 576). For Chickering and Reisser (1993), there are

three types of competence students develop throughout college: intellectual, interpersonal, and

physical. Specifically for male student conduct violators, Harper et al. (2005) argued that this

behavior is a result of a students struggle to develop interpersonal competence. Interpersonal

competence is developed as students are able to successfully negotiate and build affirming

relationships with peers (Harper et al., 2005, p. 575) and learn to communicate effectively with

their peer group (Evans et al., 2010). Understanding how students come to form the culture that

defines their friend group will be important to leverage as conduct administrators have

conversations about the behaviors that lead to a students misconduct.

This conflict between a students desire to fit in and internal core of ethics may not be

entirely unique to male students, however research suggests that female students approach

decision making from a more relational, care-oriented perspective than their male peers (King,

2012). This suggests that male students also find difficulty developing along the vectors of

managing emotions and developing mature interpersonal relationships. Chickering and Reisser

(1993) argued that an individual develops along these vectors as they find appropriate channels

to express their emotions and appreciate the differences in others. These vectors intersect for


male conduct violators through the gender role conflict, social construction of masculinities, and

context-bound gendered social norms explained in Harper et al.s (2005) model.

Male students often experience a gender role conflict between their internal

understanding of their gender identity and the pressure from peers to express their gender

identity in a certain way. This pressure can be experienced as a result of various context-based

factors (previous experiences, living situation, community culture, etc.). The environment is

common for male students who seek to reinforce traditionally masculine behaviors and

suppress any form of self-expression that does not fit this mold. Harper et al. (2005) argued that

this suppression of behavior often results in violent and aggressive behavior by male students,

who are unable and unwilling to express their emotions. The implication of this analysis does

not seek to exclude the experiences of female students. Rather, it highlights the importance of

having a conversation during the conduct process with male students around healthy

interpersonal relationship building and self-expression.

Moral Development

Even though Kohlbergs (1981) theory of moral development is most often applied to

student affairs work, researchers have used Rests (1986) four component model of moral

development to describe the level of moral development for students who enter the conduct

process (Chassey, 1999; Cooper & Schwartz, 2007; King, 2012; Patton, Hamilton, & Hinton,

2006). Central to Kohlbergs theory is that moral reasoning develops through six stages as a

result of exposure to higher-stage thinking and disequilibrium (Evans et al., 2010, p. 102). In

contrast to Kohlberg, who viewed moral development as a step-by-step, Rest argued that moral

development should be understood through two elements: how rules and expectations are known

and disseminated and how interests are balanced among individuals.


Rests (1986) moral development model denies that moral development or moral

behavior is the result of a single, unitary process (p. 4). In other words, moral development is

not the function of one isolated variable or one systematic process. Rather, it is the interaction

among various factors that are unique to both the individual and the environment. Using this

framework, Rest created the four component model, which breaks up the process of moral

decision making into four parts: the ability to recognize the moral implications of a particular

situation and the stakeholders involved, the ability to make a judgment about which action is

morally right or wrong, the ability to prioritize personal values to choose a course of action,

and the ability to follow through with that course of action. It is important for administrators to

leverage the first two components in order to create the space for a conversation about the impact

of their actions. Students at earlier stages of development may not as readily understand the

impacts their actions may have on the community. Understanding how students come to make

moral decisions is important for conduct administrators to create spaces to frame their

conversation during the judicial meeting.

Rest (1986) created the Defining Issues Test (DIT) in order to measure an individuals

level of moral development along the four components. The DIT presents individuals with five

moral dilemmas that are evaluated using Likert-style questions. The questions rank the

important issues of the dilemma in terms of importance (Cooper & Schwartz, 2007). As a

common instrument used in research pertaining to the outcomes of student conduct systems

(Chassey, 1999; Cooper & Schwartz, 2007; Mullane, 1999), the DIT (and its updated

counterpart: the DIT2) has provided a basic-level understanding of a students level of moral

development. Chassey (1999) and Mullanes (1999) early research using the DIT demonstrated

that students who violated university policies were shown to have lower levels of moral


development than those students who did not violate university policies. Chassey observed that

demographic differences (age, gender, socioeconomic status, etc.) were not significant when

determining the level of moral development in student violators. Generally speaking, however,

Rest found that age and education accounted for about 30% to 50% of the variance in the DIT

results. Even though there may not be a reported variance in the level of moral development for

student violators relating to age in Chassey and Mullanes findings, Rest would argue that moral

development is a cumulative development process that becomes more complex as we age.

Within the educational environment, students progress in their moral development as they are

introduced to alternate perspectives and their approaches to moral and ethical dilemmas are

challenged (Patton et al., 2006). For student conduct officers, knowledge of a students level of

moral and cognitive development should have significant impact on the developmental

intervention taken by the institution (Chassey, 1999).

In a more recent iteration of Chassey (1999) and Mullanes (1999) work, Cooper and

Schwartz (2007) similarly found that students who violated university policies operated at a

lower level of development. Using the updated DIT2 test, Cooper and Schwartz found a

significant difference among students who reported more years of formal education. Since an

individuals behavior is a function of their personal characteristics (level of moral development)

and their environment, these results indicate that the educational environment provides students

with a pathway to further moral development. Even though students may break institutional

codes of conduct, it is important for university administrators to use the institutional environment

to help students develop their understanding of the four components. Since the DIT is a purely

quantitative measure of an individuals level of moral development, administrators and

researchers should not use the test without a qualitative understanding of their students. Cooper


and Schwartz (2007) suggested that conduct administrators should find activities that would

help students understand their responsibilities for living in an academic communitymay be

beneficial (p. 606). Even though current research related to conduct and the DIT does not

include qualitative components, the results of these studies serve as a strong reminder to conduct

administrators that students may not enter the conduct process at a level of moral development

where reflections about the impacts of their actions take place on its own. In the next section,

further analysis will explore the developmental implications of the student conduct process.

Using Theory to Inform the Outcomes of the Conduct Process

Developmental theories see human beings as constantly evolving and learning from their

experiences in order to progress through various stages of development. For the development to

occur between stages, individuals experience crisis or internal conflict that force them to think

about the various areas of their identity (Boots, 1987; Erikson, 1968). Therefore, in order for

development to happen in the conduct process, conduct administrators must create an

environment to reframe a students actions into an area where they can experience disequilibrium

and conflict. Taylor and Varner (2009) affirmed that the environment created by the conduct

process allows conduct professionals to leverage a students developmental disequilibrium as a

tool that can enable students to engage in reflection about their internal foundations. Students

have a 24-hour-a-day job mastering educational content and critical thinking while navigating

complex relationships, both within themselves and among their peers (Taylor & Varner, 2009).

Student conduct administrators work to challenge students to understand the individual and

communal impacts of their actions, while providing an equal amount of support. Patton et al.

(2006) argued that development occurs in the conduct system once the amount of challenge and

support provided is balanced. Kohlberg (1981) explained this balance through a concept known


as plus-one staging. According to the idea of plus-one staging, individuals are able to understand

and tackle challenges that exist slightly above their level of development (Evans et al., 2010).

Additionally, Erikson (1968) described that individuals move through stages of development as

they develop healthy coping mechanisms to deal with the crises presented in each stage.

Disciplinary Counseling

The role of the disciplinary counselor (or conduct administrator) is to both inform the

student about the consequences of their behavior and create a balance between the needs of the

student as a developing individual and their interaction with the environment (Gometz & Parker,

1968). Essential to the conduct process is the one-on-one or group meeting with the student(s)

involved in the alleged violation of campus policies. Since this is an optimal time for conduct

administrators to meet with students face-to-face, professionals can use theory to guide the types

of questions asked to the student and understand where a student resides in their developmental

journey. First explored by Gometz and Parker (1968), a disciplinary counselor seeks to gain

some information as to the reason for the students behavior as to become a more acceptable

and effective member of the university community and society at large (p. 440). Disciplinary

counseling represents an effort of the university to provide students with the opportunity to

explore an individuals understanding of accountability and the resulting consequences of their

behaviors (Gometz & Parker, 1968). Additionally, disciplinary counseling highlights the need

for balance between internal and external functions of behavior. In other words, disciplinary

counselors work to shift a students control over their understanding of a disciplinary situation

from subject to object.

Healy and Liddell (1998) asserted that the responsibility of student affairs professionals

is to work to remove the barriers (whether individual or institutional) to learning and


development. In this way, student affairs professionals are seen as guides for student learning.

Using developmental conversations, much like the conversations engaged by conduct

administrators around a students decision making process, students and administrators are able

to co-construct the trajectory of their interactions as they work to challenge and support each

other. Developmental conversations occur in the context of caring relationships, where each

person is willing to engage with each other and maximize their readiness to learn (Healy &

Liddell, 1998, p. 42). This ability for professionals and students to, metaphorically, walk with

each other through each of their developmental journeys, creates shared meaning making for

both parties.

In order for developmental conversations to be successful in disciplinary counseling,

conduct officers must be able to establish relationships based on trust with their students.

Meaning making in the context of the student conduct process evolves as individuals engage in a

process of reflection and understand the deeper meanings of their experiences (Lancaster, 2012;

Oswalt et al., 2007). A study conducted by Stimpson and Janosik (2011) found that student

learning in the conduct process is strongly correlated with the perception that the process was

fair. Lancaster (2012) further asserted that this perception of fairness (p. 59) between the

professional and the student serves as the framework for a meaningful experience in the conduct

process. Even if conduct administrators create well-intentioned processes, student learning can

be lost if conduct administrators do not utilize their role as a disciplinary counselor to understand

the developmental challenges and areas of developmental growth for each student (Lancaster,

2012).

Central to Baxter-Magoldas (2001) theory of self-authorship is the ability for an

individual to assess the way in which they perceive and construct their interpersonal


relationships. In a students journey to self-authorship, they move from the rigid plans and

formulas set out for them by their pre-college environmental contexts to an internal

understanding of ones sense of self (Evans et al., 2010). In the final phase of self-authorship,

internal foundation, an individuals responsibilities to othersare clearly a part of their

internal foundations (Evans et al., 2010, p. 186). For student conduct administrators, this

requires asking questions that engage students in perspective taking. Howell (2005) asserted that

perspective taking (understanding the impacts of their actions and what another person could be

experiencing) is a prerequisite to moral development. In order for students to understand the

consequences of their actions, conduct administrators must challenge students to understand the

impacts that occur outside of their own experience. Perspective taking and empathy building

allows students to understand how to process a moral dilemma and model ethical behavior

(Patton et al., 2006). Through this, students develop empathy (Howell, 2005) and seek to

redefine the internal foundations of the relationships they have with others in the community.

Theory provides this opportunity for students and administrators to reflect on where they are in

their developmental journey and administer disciplinary counseling and sanctioning that reflects

their mutual understanding (Patton et al., 2006).

Sanctioning

As a result of disciplinary counseling, conduct administrators engage students in a

conversation around their behaviors. Conduct administrators engage in this conversation by

asking questions that reflect their developmental state, while providing challenges that move

students through the various stages of development (Kompalla & McCarthy, 2001).

Administrators often apply sanctions to the violators case (if they are found responsible) that

address the impact on the community and engage in a reflection of how to prevent the behavior


from happening in the future. Sanctions can range from more passive (fines, probation, etc.) to

active (community service, reflection papers, etc.), but should be applied as a catalyst for a

students developmental journey (Kompalla & McCarthy, 2001). Sanctions should carry the

goal of impacting a students level of development (cognitive, moral, and psychosocial), while

keeping the students engaged in their learning and reflection. When done successfully, students

learn new perspectives and engage in deeper reflection about their own development. However,

when sanctioning does not properly resolve the communal harm and individual development,

students experience further disequilibrium and crisis, possibly resulting in a regression to lower

developmental stages (Patton et al., 2006).

Karp and Sacks (in press) explained: student conduct officers are not employed to find

new and more efficient ways to dismiss students. One of our primary rolesrequires keeping a

fresh and open mind to creative educational strategies (p. 2). In other words, conduct

administrators must be open to the variety of sanctioning opportunities that may be present in the

college environment. This starts with leveraging the students experiences and interests to co-

construct educational sanctions that are worthwhile for each student and have a developmental

goal in mind. The role of the conduct administrator is to create an environment where the

student has equal amounts of challenge and support in order to develop as a result of their

participation in the conduct process. Anecdotally, most students enter the conduct process and

do not intend to be asked the question: what type of sanction will prevent this behavior from

continuing? Especially for students who struggle with understanding the moral implications of

their actions, this question may offer too much challenge for the student to comprehend the ways

in which they can remedy the harm caused to the community.


As a balance to a students varying level of ethical development, conduct administrators

have created suggested sanctioning guides and sanctioning menus that provide a basic

understanding of common sanctions for various violations (Oswalt et al., 2007). Since trust,

relationship building, and engagement through educational sanctions are important factors for a

students outcomes in the conduct process, it is important to refrain from relying solely on

formalized sanctioning guides to determine the sanctions for a particular student (Karp & Sacks,

in press). Karp and Sacks (in press) explain that restorative practices are one of the most

common sanctioning frameworks used at universities nationwide. Restorative practices focus on

creating sanctions that repair the harm caused by the violator and rebuild the trust between the

university community and the individual. Specifically for student development theory,

restorative practices provide an environment where a student can reflect on their actions and

understand how to create lasting relationships with their peers and the university community.

Operating in the framework of restorative practices, conduct administrators often assign

community service as an educational sanction. Levine and Dean (2012) explain that the current

generation of college students is more interested in creating change in their local communities

rather than on a nationwide scale. When using community service as a sanction, conduct

administrators use the framework of restorative practices while leveraging the desire for college

students to become involved in the community surrounding the university.

Common in many student development theories is the role reflection plays in furthering

the development of students. Moral development cannot happen if individuals are not engaged

in a reflection of their moral and ethical decisions in order to gain a deeper understanding of the

harm their actions caused to the community and to their own development (Rest, 1986). In order

for students to develop meaningful interpersonal relationships, they must understand the role


they play in constructing the values and norms associated with their peer group. Chickering

(1993) argued that developing interpersonal and intercultural tolerance (Evans et al., 2010, p.

68) is important to creating these lasting mature and interpersonal relationships. Finally, Baxter

Magolda (2001) described the journey towards self-authorship as the shift of an individuals

capacity for meaning making from external to internal influences. Through the reflection that

takes place in restorative practices, students are urged to understand the relationship between

their actions and the impact of those actions on the larger university community (Karp & Sacks,

in press).

Implications for Practice

The role of the student conduct officer is to help make the student aware that the impact

of the students misconduct supersedes the students intent (Taylor & Varner, 2009, p. 33)

Many researchers have confirmed that, as a result of the conduct process, learning can happen on

many different levels (Howell, 2005; Stimpson & Janosik, 2011). Howells (2005) multiple case

study approach noted that students attained some sort of learning as a result of the conduct

process due to a consideration of consequences, empathy building, or becoming familiar with

judicial procedures. Even though Howell (2005) identified a handful of students that did not

immediately see the educational impact of the conduct process, they were later interviewed and

were able to identify some type of learning profiled in the three categories above. Even though

students identified that the conduct process did stimulate some sort of learning or development,

King (2012) asserted that there is a fleeting quality of the lessons delivered (p. 576). This

finding should serve as a reminder to student conduct administrators that sanctions and

disciplinary counseling should be co-constructed between the hearing officer and the student in

order to create meaningful experiences that have lasting developmental impacts on students.


King (2012) also asserted that more intentional evaluations of a students perceptions of a

particular sanction should accompany the conduct process. This can often take the form of

follow-up meetings that engage students in a reflection with the conduct administrator about the

effectiveness, learning obtained, and evaluation of the conduct process. Even though this

presents a further burden of time for conduct administrators, it is an important step in order to

continue to create meaningful experiences for students through the conduct process.

Student conduct work has the ability to guide the development of moral, cognitive, and

psychosocial development if done with intentionality (Taylor & Varner, 2009). Using

developmental theories to inform student conduct practice allows professionals to frame the

types of questions they may ask a student violator in order to help the student come to

understand the impacts of their actions. As they engage in developmental conversations with

conduct administrators, students gain knowledge and awareness of their actions and understand

how their wide array of social identities interact with the peers in their community. Howell

(2005) explains that the purpose of the judicial system is to balance this understanding of their

interactions within the campus community with the protection of the academic environment

where students reside. A students actions reflect the entire university community and have the

potential to cause great damage to the reputation and image of the institution. When we rely on

the established student learning and development theories to tailor an appropriate institutional

response to student conflict and conduct issues, we are able to advance the overall academic

mission (Taylor & Varner, 2009, p. 34).

Future Directions for Research

Much of the available literature about the theoretical foundations of student conduct work

focuses around student demographics and identifying ways to prevent students from violating


campus policies in the future (i.e., recidivism). Understanding how to leverage the experience

students have in the conduct process is important for scholars and professionals in order to find

ways to incorporate student development theory into practice. This shift in research and practice

must begin by using student input as a measure of the effectiveness of the conduct process rather

than simply looking at recidivism rates. Recidivism data provides an incomplete picture of the

student conduct process as students find new and creative ways of continuing their negative

behavior without getting caught (King, 2012). Scholars and practitioners must create an

environment where outcomes are based on a students perceptions of their own learning and

where assessment happens throughout the process.

In addition to shifting the current framework of student conduct literature, there also

appears to be a significant gap in the literature pertaining to individual student characteristics

(specifically gender and age) as well as understanding the experience of students who are

separated from the institution as a result of conduct. Out of the large literature base for this

paper, only one article (Harper et al., 2005) explored the intersections of gender identity on the

conduct process. Understanding the intersections of gender and student misconduct will help

inform practitioners about more meaningful ways to create development throughout the conduct

process and understand the unique developmental needs of each student. Additionally, more

information is needed about students who enter the conduct process and do not fit into the

traditional 18 to 24 age range. There is also a large gap in the literature surrounding the

experiences of those students who are separated from the institution. Even though this research

will be difficult to obtain, it will be crucial in understanding how to continue an individuals

development after they have been separated from the institution.


Student conduct work is unique because its purpose is to balance legalistic frameworks,

theoretical frameworks, and the intricacies of the institutional culture. Even though it requires a

significant amount of work, conduct administrators must use this unique position to create

developmental opportunities for students. Understanding the trajectory of a students

developmental journey is important for student affairs administrators as we continue to create

environments that both challenge and support students. Conduct administrators must continue to

provide these environments throughout their work and help students understand how to be good

citizens in their communities. This, in the end, transforms the what of conflict work into the so

what of student learning (emphasis in original; Taylor & Varner, 2009, p. 45).


References

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher

education to promote self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Boots, C. C. (1987). Human development theory applied to judicial affairs work. New

Directions for Student Services, 1987(39), 63-72.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, (1990). Campus life: In search of

community, Lawrenceville, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Chassey, R. A. (1999). A comparison of moral development of college student behavioral

offenders and non-offenders. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher

Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 435943).

Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Cooper, M., & Schwartz, R. (2007). Moral judgment and student discipline: What are

institutions teaching? What are students learning? Journal of College Student

Development, 48(5), 595-607.

Dannells, M. (1991). Changes in student misconduct and institutional response over 10

years. Journal of College Student Development, 32(2), 166-170.

Dannells, M. (1997). From discipline to development: Rethinking student conduct in higher

education. ASHE-ERIC higher education report, vol. 25, no. 2.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.

Evans, N., J. Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student

development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.


Fitch Jr., E. E., & Murry Jr, J. W. (2001). Classifying and assessing the effectiveness of student

judicial systems in doctoral-granting universities. NASPA Journal (National Association

of Student Personnel Administrators, Inc.), 38(2), 189-202.

Gometz, L., & Parker, C. A. (1968). Disciplinary counseling: A contradiction? The Personnel

and Guidance Journal, 46(5), 437-443.

Harper, S. R., Harris III, F., & Mmeje, K. (2005). A theoretical model to explain the

overrepresentation of college men among campus judicial offenders: Implications for

campus administrators. NASPA Journal (National Association of Student Personnel

Administrators, Inc.), 42(4), 565-588.

Healy, M. A., & Liddell, D. L. (1998). The developmental conversation: Facilitating moral and

intellectual growth in our students. New Directions for Student Services, (82), 39-48.

Howell, M. T. (2005). Students' perceived learning and anticipated future behaviors as a result

of participation in the student judicial process. Journal of College Student

Development, 46(4), 374-392.

Janosik, S. M., Davis, M. B., & Spencer, E. F. D. (1985). Characteristics of repeat student

offenders: A 6-year study. Journal of College Student Personnel, 26(5), 410-414.

Karp, D. R., & Sacks, C. (In press). Student conduct, restorative justice, and student

development: Findings from the STARR project (student accountability and restorative

research project). Contemporary Justice Review.

King, R. H. (2012). Student conduct administration: How students perceive the educational

value and procedural fairness of their disciplinary experiences. Journal of College

Student Development, 53(4), 563-580.


Kohlberg, L. (1981) Essays on moral development: Vol. I. The philosophy of moral development.

San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Kompalla, S. L., & McCarthy, M. C. (2001). The effect of judicial sanctions on recidivism and

retention. College Student Journal, 35(2), 223.

Lancaster, J. M. (2012). Conduct systems designed to promote moral learning. New Directions

for Student Services, (139), 51-61.

Levine, A. and Dean, D. R. (2012). Generation on a tightrope: A portrait of todays college

student. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mullane, S. P. (1999). Fairness, educational value, and moral development in the student

disciplinary process. NASPA Journal, 36(2), 86-95.

O'Reilly, F. L., & Evans, R. D. (2007). Community: Calling students to be

accountable. Christian Higher Education, 6(2), 119-130.

Oswalt, S. B., Shutt, M. D., English, E., & Little, S. D. (2007). Did it work? Examining the

impact of an alcohol intervention on sanctioned college students. Journal of College

Student Development, 48(5), 543-557.

Patton, L. D., Howard-Hamilton, M., & Hinton, K. G. (2006). Student development and student

conduct practice. In J. M. Lancaster, & Associates (Eds.), Exercising power with

wisdom: bridging legal and ethical practice with intention (pp. 77-96). Asheville, NC:

College Administration Publications, Inc.

Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.

Stimpson, M. T., & Janosik, S. M. (2011). Variability in reported student learning as a result of

participating in a student conduct system. College Student Affairs Journal, 30(1), 19-30.


Stimpson, M., & Stimpson, R. (2008). Twenty-seven years of student conduct literature:

Implications for practice, scholarship and ASJA. Journal of Student Conduct

Administration, 1(1), 14-31.

Taylor, S. H., & Varner, D. T. (2009). When student learning and law merge to create

educational student conflict resolution and effective conduct management programs. In J.

M. Schrage and N. G. Giacomini, (Ed.), Reframing campus conflict: Student conduct

practice through a social justice lens (pp. 22-49). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Documents

Aivazian-Developmental Synthesis Project