NASPA JOURNAL,VOL.37, NO.4, SUMMER2000

Skills, Knowledge, and PersonalTraits Necessary for Success as a

Student Affairs Administrator:Mets-Analysis of Thirty Years of

Research

Cheryl D. LovellLinda A. Kosten

This study synthesized 30 years of research relating to success-ful student aflairs administration using meta-analysis tech-niques. The findings suggest a successful student afiairs admin-istrator has skills such as administ~ation, management, andhuma~~ facilitation; knowledge of student development theoryand filnctional res~onsibilities; and traits of personal integrityand cooperation. The researchers noted possible additionalskills, knowledge bases, and personal traits for continued suc-cess as a student affairs administrator relating to technology,assessment, political skills, and postsecondary public policyknowledge.

“Mat characteristics are necessary for success as a stident affairsadministrator?” This seems to be a fairly simple, straight-forward,and important question. Any profession with an extensive historyought to be able to identify traits, qualities, stills, and howledgebases necessary for success. In the field of student affairs, it wouldseem an easy question to answer since numerous article titles relatingto this topic exist in several prominent peer-review journals pub-lished durjng the last three decades.

Cke~l D. Lovell, PkD is an assistant professor of Education and Coordinator of tkeMaster’s Program in Higher Education and Adult Studies, Universi@ of Denver.

Linda A. Kosten, MA is a budget and marketing coordinator for tke Department ojResidence, UniversiQ of Denver.

553

NASPA JOURNAL,VOL. 37, NO.4, SUMMER2000

Many studies have been conducted regarding the kinds of skills, com-

petencies, and traits necessary for success as a student affairs admin-istrator. However, little synthesis of these studies has been conduct-

ed. This study attempted to ascertain the success factors reported

most often in the student affairs literature by conducting an analysis

of the literature on success in student affairs published since 1967. By

isolating the traits, qualities, skills, and knowledge bases under study,

a clear picture emerged of the characteristics for success as a student

affairs administrator.

The outcomes of this study are important to the field of student affairs

not only in directing future avenues for research, but also in identify-

ing what makes student affairs professionals successful. The answers

will provide direction to individuals who educate, train, and mentor

individuals entering the profession. The knowledge gained from this

study can also serve as a benchmark or personal goal for graduate stu-

dents, and new and seasoned professionals.

Problem Statement

The prima~ focus of this study was to integrate the results of the lit-

erature relating to the skills, personal traits, and knowledge bases of

successful student affairs administrators using meta-analysis tech-niques, and to systematically summarize the findings.

This study identified literature that suggests traits that are needed to

be a successful student affairs administrator. “Success” can be defined

in many ways. At a minimum, “success” means identifying the skills,

traits, or knowledge bases necessary to work as a student affairs

administrator. Mile this is a very liberal application of the term, it

does provide a broad framework from which to identify and select

related literature. This definition of success provides the opportitity

to focus on the variety of studies that identify one or more important

elements that could encourage or ensure success as a student affairs

administrator. This was a useful approach, since studies rarely point-ed to one skill or personal trait needed for success. The studiesreviewed typically looked at the various skills or traits of student

affairs administrators, and indicated which were most important tocertain student affairs populations (e.g., seniors, new professionals).

554

Lovell, Kosten

Methods and design: What is Mets-Analysis?.“...,,.Mets-analysis is a meth@*cal tool used to combine the results of

several related studies. !If is an appropriate approach when address-

ing questions related to’~.ticcess as a student affairs administrator,

since there is a body of research already published on this topic.

Mets-analytical techniques allow researchers to summarize the find-

ings of empirically based studies, and to make general conclusions

about the findings, themes, and ideas presented. Glass (1981 ) stated,,, . . . recording of the pr~~~~ties of studies and their findings in quan-t..titative terms, the meta-analysis of research invites one who would

integrate numerous and diverse findings to apply the full power of

statistical methods to tie tas~ (p. 21). Glass (1981) goes on to note..-_.. ,.that meta-analysis uses ,~y:~bers for organizing and codifying infor-

mation so that researchers}~~n make meaning of related studies. This

methodology allows for, .$: array of options for statistical analysis

once the findings have been codified. Relationships among variables

can be explored in addition to simple descriptive analyses of the

quantitatively derived data of a meta-analysis, According to Glass,

McGaw, and Smith (1981), “A meta-analysis seeks a full, meaningful

statistical description of the findings of a collection of studies, and this

goal typically entails not only a description of the findings in generalbut also a description of how the findings vary from one type of study

to the next” (p. 79). This type of secondary data analysis has been an

accepted methodological procedure in the social sciences for some

time (Cook., 1974, 1992; Glass, 1976, 1981; Hedges & Olkin, 1985).

Collecting the Studies

The researchers agreed on a set of keywords to guide the literaturesearch, which are listed in Table 1. Several combinations of keywords

were used to provide the broadest possible framework for identifyingtopical studies. The identification of studies to be used in the meta-

. analysis began with computer searches of the Educational ResourcesInformation Center, a database of articles, theses, dissertations, andbooks that are educationally related; Uncover, a search system thatallows the user to access articles on a wide range of subject areas,including a limited number of education-related articles; andWorldCat, i~ database of 36 million records of materials and books fromlibraries worldwide from the 12th century to present. These databases

555

NASPA JOURNAL,VOL. 37, NO. 4, SUMMER2000

Tablel ;.;,l~.;... ,.

Keywords Used to ldentify,~~hlications

Student Affairs PersonnelHigher Education Student Development PersonqelStudent Affairs Personnel ProfessionCollege Student Affairs PersonnelUniversity Student Services StaffStudent Affairs ProfessionalStudent Affairs Professional SuccessHiringStudentAffairsStaffCharacteristics of Successful Student Affairs PersonnelTraining of Student Affairs PersonnelDevelopment of Student Affairs ProfessionalsPreparation of Student Affairs Professionals ,,

were selected because they provide the most comprehensive coverageand retrieval of education-related publications. The researchers usedvarious combinations of the keywords noted in Table 1. The search

was then expanded by manually tracking citations from study tostudy. The search was limited to studies published during the last 30

years (1967-1997).

The initial pool of publications included 106 studies. To determine ifthe articles were empirically based studies, the resear~ers reviewedeach publication. Each publication had to meet two criteria to beincluded. First, it had to be related to the topics of competencies,skills, or knowledge bases required of student affairs professionals.Second, it had to be an empirically based study i.e., a study eitherquantitative or qualitative in design that tested and/or answered aresearch question(s). This second criterion was the most difficult tomeet because of the large number of articles based on author opinionand /or personal experience, excluding most publications. The pool

of publications was subsequently reduced to 23. It is important tonote that exclusion from this meta-analysis was in no way a state-ment that the publication did not contain valuable information, orthat it did not address important aspects to work in student affairs. Itsimply meant the publication was related to the topic but was not a‘study; therefore, it was not suitable for inclusion in this analysis.

One example of an excluded article is Stamatakos’s 1978 article onadvice to new professionals. The article provides insights to help newprofessionals “hit the ground running,” but it was not an empirical-ly based study. Equally important is the work by Carpenter, Miller,

and Winston (1980), who offered evidence to indicate that student

556

affairs is a

Lovell, Kosten

growing profession with its own theory base. However, ittoo was not an empirically based study. A final example of an article

that provided a valuable contribution to the literature in the field ofstudent affairs, but that had to be excluded from this meta-analysis,was the article by Creamer and Shelton (1988) on staff development.This article contained insight on the different types of professionaldevelopment programs available in student affairs, but was a reviewof the literature, rather than an empirically based study. The com-

plete list of publications determined to be empirically based studiesrelating to skills, knowledge bases, and personal traits necessary forsuccess as a student affairs professional, and appropriate for inclu-

sion in this meta-analysis, are noted with an asterisk in the referencelist.

Coding the Studies

A coding scheme was developed by the researchers toables of interest from the selected publications, as notedestablish inter-rater agreement, 10 publications were

identify vari-in Table 2. To

selected andcoded by each researcher. According to Frick and Semmel (1978),

observer tigreement is derived by comparing the records of twoobservers who categorize the data according to the same coding

scheme. They note that the percent agreement between the raters isimportant in order to have confidence in the consistency of the cod-ing process (Frick & Semmel, 1978). For this study, an overall inter-rater agreement of 90% was established with the per item agreementproportion ranging from 80 to 100%, The researchers discussed theitems where different coding occurred, and identified mutuallyagreeable corrections to these items. Each of the remaining publica-tions was then coded.

With the primary focus of this study on what skills, knowledge bases,

and personal traits are necessary for success in student affairs, theresearchers also sought to determine if these varied by institutionaltype or by population. Reducing the data to the quantitative formallowed exploration of these secondary questions. The coding struc-ture focused on several variables, such as institutional type, institu-tional control, and population stidied. These variables were usefulin determining if certain competencies were more helpful for certainlevels of student affairs administrators (e.g., new professionals vs.senior student affairs officers), and in certain kinds of institutions

(e.g., private liberal arts colleges vs. community colleges). Each of

557

NASPA JOURNAL,VOL.37, NO.4, SUMMER2000

the variables noted in Table 2 was considered independently with

success as a student affairs administrator (as defined by the individ-ual studies) as the dependent variable.

Table 2

Independent Variables Included in Mets-Analysis

Population of Study

Year of Publication

Institutional TypeInstitutional ControlRegion of CountryType of PublicationMethodology and Analytical ToolsTheoretical Base/Conceptual FrameworkType of Characteristic (Skill, Knowledge Base, or Personal Trait)

Results

The demographic variables presented in Table 3 provide an overview

of the characteristics of articles included in this meta-analysis. Thisinformation is useful in understanding the population studied,where and from what types of institutions the samples for studieswere drawn, and when and in what format the studies were present-ed. In addition, these data were helpful in determining if there wasa relationship between the population and the types of characteris-tics.

Twenty-six percent of the studies focused on senior student affairsofficers, as noted in Table 3. New professionals, on the other hand,were the focus of only 9~0 of the studies. Most studies (43~0) con-ducted during the last 30 years were completed in the early to mid-1980s. While only four studies (17%) were conducted during the lat-ter part of the 1960s through the mid-1970s. Table 3 also displays thedata relating to types of institutions, with baccalaureate institutions

(52%) as the most frequent type of institution. No studies looked atthe skills, knowledge bases, or personal traits for success as a studentaffairs administrator specifically in a community college setting.However, some studies included both two- and four-year institu-tions. Several studies (35% ) did not indicate the type of institution.

558

Lovell, Kosten

No studies in this analysis looked at what it took to be a successfulstudent affairs administrator at a private institution only; however,several of the studies (43Y0) did include a combination of public andprivate institutions in their samples. As Table 3 shows, 39% of thestudies included in this analysis did not indicate the institutionalcontrol. Forty-three percent of the studies indicated that nationalsamples were used and 26% indicated institutional samples drawnfrom one state were used. Finally 56% of the manuscripts included

Table 3

Demographic Information of Articles

Demographic n ‘/0

Population for StudyGraduate Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 22NewProfessionals,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9MiddleManagers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3SeniorStudentAffairsOfficers. . . . . . . . . 6 ;;Colnbination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 30

Year1969 -1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41960 -1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...10 :;1990 - 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 39

Institutional TypeFouryear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...12 52Two Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 0Coknbination of Four Year

and Two Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Not Given . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ;;

Institutional ControlPublic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 17Private . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 0Combination of Public

and Private . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..10 43Not Given . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 39

institution SampleNational 10 43Regional .:::::::::::::::::::: ::: 3State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ;:Not Given . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 17

Type of P’ublicationJournal Article . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...13 56Conference Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Dissetiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ;?

559

NASPA JOURNAL,VOL. 37, NO.4, SUMMER2000

in this analysis were published in journals, 32~0 were dissertations,and 13~0 were presented as conference papers.

In terms of methodology, the data summarized in Table 4 indicate amajority (78Y0) of the studies used the quantitative domain, 4% useda combination of quantitative and qualitative, and 17~o used a quali-tative design. The most used analytical technique was frequencies.

All of the quantitative and mixed design studies used frequencies. Ofthe four qualitative studies, three used the Delphi technique, makingit the most popular technique in the qualitative studies. While the useof analytical tools was fairly homogeneous, the theories used toframe the studies were more diverse.

Table 4

Methodology, Analytical Tools,and Theoretical Basis Used in Articles

Category n Y.

MethodologyQuantitative 18 78Qualitative 4 17Combination 1 4

Analytical ToolsFrequencies 19Chi-Square

834 17

AN OVA 3Delphi 3 ;:Other 8 35

theoretical BasisStudenUHuman Development

Theories 14 61Other Theoretical Frameworks 6Not Given 7 $;

Note: Percentages exceed 100Y. since variables could berecorded in more than one category.

Theoretical Bases

As indicated in Table 4, the studies included in these analyses used avariety of theoretical bases and conceptual frameworks. Theresearchers developed two categories in which to cluster the manydifferent types of theoretical frameworks. The first category was

“student /human development theories.” As shown in Table 4, 61 ~.of the articles included a theoretical basis in student/human devel-

560

Lovell, Kosten

opment theory. The second category, “other theoretical frameworks,”

included frameworks that did not originate in or involve develop-ment theory (26Y0). For example, Kane’s (1982) article, which usedKatz’s midmanager model (1955), originated in the business commu-nity and was classified as an “other theoretical framework.” Severalstudies (3070 ) did not use or report any theoretical framework.

The theories discussed by more than one author included those byHanson (1977), Kane (1982), Katz (1955), and Miller and Prince (1976).

Hanson used Tomorrow’s Higher Education (T.H.E.) conceptualframework, developed by Miller and Prince to study “goal setting,assessment, consultation, instruction, milieu management, and evalu-ation” (p. 3). Miller and Prince applied that information to developHanson’s “Tentative Taxonomy of Student Development Staff Skillsand Competencies” (Hanson, 1977, p. 3). Hanson’s work was subse-quently used as a theoretical framework in research by Ostroth (1981)and Cox and Ivy (1984). A similar situation occurred when Kane usedKatz’s conceptual framework of “technical, human, and conceptual

skills” to create and conduct a study of midlevel student affairs pro-fessionals and the “perceived professional skill attainment and needfor further skill development” (Kane, 1982, p. ii). Kane’s 1982 studywas then used in research conducted by Fey (1991); Gordon, Strode,and Mann (1993); and Tillotson (1995). This interchange of theoriesand ideas to study similar concepts proved useful in building uponpreviously developed theoretical frameworks.

Characteristics: Skills, Knowledge, and Personal Traits

The researchers sought to create a picture of a successful studentaffairs administrator by focusing on characteristics that included spe-

cific skills, knowledge, and personal traits. These characteristics aredisplayed j.n Table 5.

Skills for success as a student affairs administrator

Skills, as shown in Table 5, were discussed in 91% of the articles. Theskills studied most, namely administration and management (83%)and human facilitation (7870 ) (e.g., counseling skills, staff supervi-sion), appeared to be critical to the success of a student affairs pro-fessional. For example, Cox and Ivy’s 1984 study of staff develop-ment needs ranked “milieu management” as the most important skillfor development (p. 31), and Wade’s 1993 study ranked “communi-cation skills” and “supervisory ability” as two of the three mostimportant professional competencies needed to advance in student

561

NASPA JOURNAL,VOL.37,NO.4,SUMMER2000

Table 5

Characteristics of Student Affairs Professionals Studied in Articles

Characteristic n “/.

Skill 21 91Administration and Management 19 83Human Facilitation 18 7aResearch, Evaluation, and Assessment 13 57Communication 11 48Leadership 10 43Student Enrollment and Participation 7 17Role of Educator 4 17Entrepreneurial 14

Knowledge 16 70Student Development Theory 5 22Functional Unit Responsibilities 13Academic Background : 13Organizational Development/Behavior 29Federal Policies/Regulations 2Student Needs, Values, and Behaviors 1 i

Personal Trait / Quali~ 11 48Interactive Quality (e.g. work cooperatively) 35Individual Trait (e.g. enthusiasm) ; 26

Note: Percentages exceed 100Y, since variables could be recorded inmore than one category.

affairs. Lunsfords 1984 study classified “staff supervision” and

“budget administration” as essential areas of expertise for senior stu-dent affairs administrators (p. 50). And Tillotson (1995) showed thatadditional human facilitation skills, such as “interpersonal relation-

ship skills, organizational skills, communication skills, and directiveskills necessary for working with others” were also foundationalskills for student affairs administrators (p. 96).

Other studies emphasized a broader set of skills. In Hyman’s 1985study, directors of housing, student affairs faculty, and senior studentaffairs officers stressed the importance of having a range of skill=“goal setting, consultation, communication, assessment and evalua-tion, and environmental and organizational management” (pp. 5-6).Hanson (1977) stressed the importance of similar skills, including

“goal setting, assessment, consultation, and milieu management” (p.3). Kane (1982) and Fey (1991) ranked “leadership, persomel man-agement, and communication” as the most important skills for stu-

562

Lovell, Kosten

dent affairs administrators; subsequently, Gordon, Strode, and Mann

(1993), who used Kane’s framework, ranked “leadership, student

contact, and communication”, as the most important skills (p. 293).Roe (1981) emphasized communication and leadership as important

skills for student affairs administrators.

Other studies took a more specific approach and emphasized skillssuch as “retention of students” as the most important area of exper-

tise for a senior student affairs officer (Kinnick & Bolheimer, 1984;

Smeaton, 1!)82; and Valerie, 1980). It is important to understand the

emphasis on this particular skill within its historical context. All threeof these studies were conducted in the early 1980s when enrollment

studies showed a drop in 18-to 22-year-old students. Although reten-tion is still vital, it is not currently viewed as the most important area

of expertise. Remarkably, few articles mentioned the need for studentaffairs administrators to have writing and computer technology

skills. Beatty and Stamatakos (1990) included these skills in their

study; however, they did not stress the importance of these skills for

success as a student affairs administrator.

Knowledge for success as a student affairs administrator

More than two-thirds (70%) of the studies referred to knowledge

bases. With regard to knowledge, student development theory was

the most (22%) desired knowledge base. OBanion’s 1969 studyemphasized the “study of psychology as necessary for the under-

standing of individual behavior, growth and development, interper-sonal relations, and personality development” (p. 251).

Psychologically related theory has been valued in student affairs. For

example, Strange and Contomanolis (1983) focused solely on the

development theory knowledge levels of student affairs Master’s stu-

dents. Beatty and Stamatakos (1990), however, advocated the devel-

opment of more general knowledge-based competencies. They sug-

gested a “theoretical competence,” as well as “scholarly competence”

(Beatty & Stamatakos, 1990, p. 227). Baier (1992), on the other hand,discussed specific student needs such as substance abuse prevention

and childcare, and specific functional areas such as financial aid andfood service management. Another approach was taken by Brown,Podolske, Kohles, and Sonnenberg (1992), emphasizing knowledge

of the thinking processes necessary to become a “reflective practi-tioner” (pp. 312-313). McEwen and Roper (1994) pointed to thenecessity of overlapping skills, knowledge, and experience to high-

light the needs of diverse students as vital skills for success.

563

NASPA JOURNAL,VOL.37,NO.4,SUMMER2000

Personal traits for success as a student affairs administrator

The final characteristic grouping (personal traits), although discussedin fewer articles than skills and knowledge bases, are central to suc-cess in student affairs and beyond. Close to one-half (48Yo) of the

studies referred to personal traits. One example is in OstrotNs 1981

study, where the highest rated competency presented is “working

cooperatively with others” (p. 7). Newton and Richardson (1976)also stressed the “ability to work cooperatively with others” and“developing skills in interpersonal relationships” as expected entry-level skills for student affairs professionals (p. 428). As for individ-ual traits for college presidents, Randall and Globett~s 1992 articleranked “integrity” as the most important competency (p. 57).Gordon, Strode, and Mann’s 1993 study also emphasized “personalintegrity, “ “interest in students,” and a “sense of humor” as vital

characteristics.

Relationships Among Variables

The primary focus of this analysis was to determine the traits andskills needed to be successful as a student affairs administrator. Inaddition, the researchers wanted to determine if the skills, knowl-edge bases, or personal traits varied depending on the populationstudied. Table 6 displays the data relating to the population of the

study juxtaposed with the type of characteristic. The data indicatethat for the graduate students and new professionals, characteristicsrelating to knowledge (71Y0) and skills (89%) were more frequentlyinvestigated than personal traits (29Y0). In fact, for all populationsstudied, personal traits were the least investigated characteristicinvestigated (29Y0 for graduate students/new professionals; 33% for

Table 6

Characteristics in Relationship to Population Studied

CharacteristicKnowledge Skill Personal Trait

Population n 0/0 n 70 n ‘/0

Graduate StudenVNew Professional 5 71 6 89 2 29

Middle Level/Senior Level 7 78 9 100 3 33Combination of Levels 4 57 6 86 2 29

Note: Percentages are of the population type that discussed a particularcharacteristic.

564

Lovell, Kosten

middle /senior level administrators; and 29% for a combination oflevels).

The data displayed in Table 7 indicate the relationship between the

population of the study and the year in which the study was pub-lished. Graduate students and new professionals were more oftenthe focus of study during the early- to mid-1980s. Studies thatfocused on the success of middle level or senior level administratorsdid not appear until the 1980s. During the last five years, a majority(44%) of the studies focused on middle or senior level administrators.This may indicate the evolutionary nature of a growing profession

where the focus was initially on establishing and defining the profes-sion, but tl~en broadened to include further exploration of higherlevel administrators and their important functions and contributionson campuses.

Table 7

Year in Relationship to Population

Year1969-1977 1980-1985 1990-1995

Population n YO n “/0 n 70

Graduate Student/New Professional 2 29 3 43 2 29Middle Level/Senior Level 00 5 56 4 44Combination of Levels 2 29 2 29 3 43

Note: Percentages are of the population type published in a paflicular year.

Limitations of this Research

It is important to note the limitations of this study to encourage thereader to interpret the findings with some caution. In conducting this

study, the first step of identifying publications with the keywordscould have unintentionally biased the findings. Some related studiesmay have been excluded from this analysis based on the selection ofkeywords. Second, the research methodology or lack thereof, usedin previously published studies could have biased the findings. Thiswould be especially true for those studies where a complete method-ology was not provided. Moreover, the inconsistent and limited ana-lytical tools used in the previous studies prohibited the use of ana-lytical techniques beyond simple descriptive for this meta-analysis.Finally the number of publications included in the meta-analysis was

565

NASPA JOURNAL,VOL.37, NO. 4, SUMMER2000

small. This small sample size, due to the lack of empirically basedstudies on this topic, restricts the statistical analysis as well as theability of the researchers to make generalizations on the data. In spiteof the potential shortcomings, a great deal was learned from thisresearch.

Implications for Professional Practice

The required skills, knowledge bases, and personal traits summa-

rized from the literature provide a clearer picture of a strong founda-

tion of characteristics for student affairs administration. A synthesis

of the literature from the last 30 years indicates that to be successful

as a student affairs administrator, well-developed administration,

management, and human facilitation skills are key. Knowledge bases

in student development theory and higher education are required.

Personal traits that allow one to work cooperatively and display

integrity are basic foundations for success, according to the literature.

Equally important for success is to identify skill gaps. All of the

skills, competencies, and traits uncovered by this analysis were

expected. They are the skills and competencies that have been in

demand during the last 30 years; but an important question is

whether these same skills and competencies will contribute to the

success of student affairs administrators in the next century. Today’s

postsecondary educational environments have changed since the

1960s, and tomorrow’s environments may be even more different.

For example, the ability to maintain the quality of student develop-

ment programs and services may be threatened by declining

resources for higher education. Calls for increased accountability

from students, parents, and policymakers are expected to grow in the

future. This meta-analysis provided an overview of the skills, knowl-

edge bases, and personal traits noted in previous research; however,where the profession goes from here has yet to be determined.

This study also identified gaps in the literature. These gaps might

provide some insight for today’s student affairs administrators as towhich skills and competencies might be necessary for continued suc-

cess. Some of the more obvious gaps included skills, knowledgebases, and personal traits in technology assessment, politics, and

postsecondary public policy. It is unlikely these skills are the onlyones necessary to sustain the student affairs profession in this

566

Lovell, Kosten

increasingly competitive postsecondary environment; however, it islikely that these may be among the most frequently noted in future

studies.

Technology is one of the most discussed topics in postsecondary edu-cation literature. An infusion of technology into the campus infra-structure is one of the marks of a competitive institution. What kind

of computer-aided instruction is necessary, what level of digitaliza-tion will be sufficient, how much access to online resources should,can, or must a campus have for students, faculty, and staff are ques-

tions for today’s campus leaders. What level of stills are necessaryfor student affairs administrators to be successful in this technologi-cally driven environment has yet to be determined. The mention oftechnology was absent from this meta-analysis of published litera-ture from the last 30 years. This may not be surprising given recentadvances in technology; however, it will be interesting to monitorthis point to see if more studies will investigate the role of technolo-gy in providing student services. The only certainty about technolo-gy is that its demand and interest will grow and student affairs

administrators will most likely need to be more technically compe-tent. How technology will affect human relationships in the educa-tional milieu is also still unclear.

The need to demonstrate the effectiveness of student affairs pro-grams and services is not new (Upcraft & Schuh, 1996); however, thelevel of sophistication required to demonstrate this effectiveness isincreasing. Assessment knowledge is becoming a common staple fortoday’s student affairs administrators. Written and verbal communi-cation on tlie positive impacts of student affairs work also warrantsmore attention. As competition for resources increases, additionalfunding for student development programs could hinge on a proper-ly conducted assessment program that is well written.

A successful student affairs administrator must possess politicalskills that allow for integration of the student affairs division with thecampus. The abilities to work quicMy to see potential points of col-laboration and to manage the forces require that successful studentaffairs administrators understand the political aspects of the campusenvironment and how to work effectively within that environment.With limited resources, a politically skilled student affairs adminis-trator is pojsed for success in tomorrow’s more competitive environ-ments.

567

NASPA JOURNAL,VOL.37,NO.4,SUMMER2000

Postsecondary public policy is recognized as an important knowl-

edge base required of today’s higher education administrators(Lovell & Gill, 1997). It is important for student affairs administra-tors to be aware of such issues and to understand the implicationsand ramifications of policy at the local, state, and national levels. The

success of a student affairs administrator may require greater partic-ipation in the decision-making processes and an active role to repre-

sent the voice of students and campuses. A keen understanding ofthe policy mahng process and important issues can keep studentaffairs professionals involved in local, state, and national issues thatimpact college students and institutions. Active involvement in thepublic policy arena keeps student affairs administrators focused onthe importance of student services. Federal financial aid regulations,the Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, and the HigherEducation Cost Commission are just a few examples of the manyimportant policy issues and groups that have been discussed recent-

ly in Washington, D. C., that have direct implications for postsec-

ondary students and institutions. Increasing one’s awareness ofpostsecondary public policy issues will help student affairs adminis-trators to be more effective.

Implications for Research

Much can be gained from a systematic analysis of previously pub-lished research. The data from a meta-analysis can reveal importanttrends, themes, and gaps in the literature that might otherwise goundetected. This type of analytical work allows greater understand-ing of the literature and helps researchers make the findings moremeaningful. These are important aspects of continuing a profession’s

heritage. Increased research allows a profession to understand itspast while charting its future.

However, when the data are inconsistently reported and /or the pub-lications do not explain variables critical to the study (e.g., sampleselection, respondent identification, theoretical framework, and ana-lytical tools), it is impossible to make inferences from the data. Thelack of key information limits the power of a meta-analysis andrestricts the statistical tools available to a researcher. Thus, it mightbe helpful to encourage more complete reporting of studies’ method-ologies. It might also be helpful to encourage minimal reporting ofspecific data elements such as those noted above.

568

Lovell, Kosten

From the simple frequencies reported in this analysis, it is clear more

empirically based research, both quantitative and qualitative, isneeded to explore what is necessary for success as a student affairsprofessional. An additional implication of this research may be toencourage the profession to rethink the research training for gradu-ate stidents in higher education and student affairs. It might also behelpful to encourage administrators who want to contribute to the lit-

erature to be more careful in reporting so that new findhgs can beexplored in multiple ways. It is clear from this meta-analysis that

there are no consistent reporting requirements within the student

affairs literature. Thus it might be helpful for future researchers tothink about their research with attention paid to the user of theirresearch.

Conclusions

This study provided an overview of what it takes to be successful asa student affairs administrator by synthesizing the empirically basedliterature, both qualitative and quantitative, published during thelast 30 years. There are skills, knowledge bases, and personal traits

such as administration, management, and human facilitation skills;knowledge of student development theory and functional arearesponsibilities; and traits of personal integrity and cooperationrequired for one to be successful. However, it is not as clear howthese skills, knowledge bases, and personal traits differ among posi-tion levels or institutional types since limited reported data wereavailable. It is clear from this study that more should be done toencourage systematic presentation of future research. It is also clearthat more can be done by student affairs administrators to ensuretheir success for the future. Campus environments are changing. Tobe tomorrow’s successful student affairs administrator, more and dif-ferent skills, knowledge bases, and personal traits will most likely berequired. I!jsues relating to technology assessment, political skills,and public policy are a few such issues noticeably absent from thepast literature on success as a stident affairs administrator.

569

NASPA JOURNAL,VOL.37, NO. 4, SUMMER2000

ReferencesReferences marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the

meta-analysis.

* Baier, J. L. (1992). A study of student affairs functions and adminis-trative responsibilities within university system offices. NASPA Journal 29 (3),189-198.

* Beatty, D. L., & Stamatakos, L. C, (1990). Faculty and administratorperceptions of knowledge, skills, and competencies as standards for doctor-al preparation programs in student affairs administration. Journal of CollegeStudent Development 31 (3), 221-229.

* Brown, R. D., Podolske, D. L., Kohles, R. D., & Sonnenber~ R. L.(1992). Becoming a reflective student affairs administrator. NASPA Journal 29(4), 307-314.

Carpenter, D. S., Miller, T. K., & Winston, Jr., R. B. (1980). Toward theprofessionalization of student affairs. NASPA Journal 18 (2), 16-22.

Cook, T. (1974). The potential and limitations of secondary evaluations.In M. Apple, (Ed.), Educational evaluation: Analysis and responsibilities.

Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.Cook, T. (1992). Mets-analysis fo~ explanation: A casebook. New York

Sage.* Cox. D. W., & Ivy, W. A. (1984). Staff development needs of student

afftirs professionals. NASPA Journal 22 (1), 26-33.

Creamer, D., & Shelton, M. (1988). Staff development: A literaturereview of graduate preparation and in-service education of students. Journalof College Student Development 29 (5), 407414.

* Domeier, P. (1977). A study to examine the training of student afiairsadministrators for specified competency tasks. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

* Fey C. (1991). Mid-1evel student aflairs administ~ators: A study of man-

agement skills and professional development needs, Unpublished doctoral disser-tation, Texas A&M University, College Station.

Frick, T., & Semmel, M. (1978). Observer agreement and reliabilities ofclassroom observational measures. Reviewof Educational Research, 48 (l),157-184.

Glass, G. (1976). Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research.Educational Researcke~, 5 (10), 3-8.

Glass, G. (1981). Mets-analysis in social researck. Beverly Hills, CA Sage.Glass, G., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. (1981). Mets-analysis in social research.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.* Gordon, S. E., Strode, C. B., & Mann, B.A. (1993). The mid-manager

in student affairs: What are CSAOS looking for? NASPA Journal 30 (4), 290-297.

* Hanson, G. (1977). Stop the bandwagon . . . ACPA wants to get on! Paperpresented to American College Personnel Association Executive Council.

Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis.Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

570

Lovell, Kosten

* Hyman, R. E. (1985, April). Do graduate prqaration programs addresscompetencies important to student afairs practice? Paper presented at NationalAssociation of Student Personnel Administrators Conference, Portland, OR.

* Kane, N. E. (1982). A comparative study of student afiairs mid-level pro-fessionals: Characteristics, perceived skill attainment and need for continued devel-opment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University,Tallahassee.

Katz, R. L. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard BusinessReview 33,33-42.

* Kinnick, B. C., & Bolbeimer, R. L. (1984). College presidents’ percep-tions of student affairs issues and development needs of chief stident affairsofficers. NASPA Journal 22 (2), 2-9.

Lovell, C. D., & Gill, J. I. (1997). Current issues in public policy andhigher education. In L. Goodchild, C. D. Lovell, E. Hines, & J. Gill (Eds.).Public policy and kigker education: A reader for tke associationfor tke study of kigh-er education (pp. xxxi-xxxv). Old Tappan, NJ: Simon & Schuster.

* Lunsford, L. W. (19U). Chief student affairs officec The ladder to thetop. NASPA Journal 22 (l), 48-56.

* McEwen, M. K., & Roper, L. D. (1994). Interracial experiences, knowl-edge, and skills of master’s degree students in graduate programs in studentaffairs. Journal of College Student Development 35 (2), 81-87.

Miller, T., & Prince, J. (1976). Tkefuture of student affairs. San Francisco:Jossey Bass.

* Newton, F. B., & Richardson, R. L. (1976). Expected entry-level com-petencies of student personnel workers. Journal of College Student Personnel 17(5), 426-430.

* OBelnion, T. (1969). Program proposal for preparing college studentpersomel workers. Journal of College Student Personnel 10 (4), 249-253.

* Ostroth, D. D. (1981). Competencies for entry-level professionals:What do employers look for when hiring new staff? Journal of College StudentPersonnel 22 (l), 5-11.

* Randall, K., & Globetti, E. (1992). Desired competendes of the chiefstudent affairs officer as perceived by college presidents. College StudentAflairs Journal 11 (3), 54-61.

* Roe, B. B. (1981, March). An analysis of career enrichment needs and pro-grams for student affairs personnel. Paper presented at the Annual Conventionof the American Personnel and Guidance Association, Detroit, MI.

Stamatakos, L. C. (1978). Unsolicited advice to new professionals.journal of College Student Personnel 19 (4), 325-330.

* Smeaton, J. W. (1982), Professional development needs of ckief studenta~airs administrators as a function of selected personal and institutional variables.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus.

* Strange, C. C., & Contomanolis, E. (1983). Knowledge perceptions ofhuman development theory among student affairs Master’s students. Journalof College Student Personnel 24 (3), 197-201.

* Tillotson, E. A. (1995). An analysis of tecknical, kuman and conceptualskills among student affairs administrators in kigker education. Unpublished doc-toral dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station.

571

NASPA JOURNAL,VOL.37,NO.4,SUMMER2000

Upcraft, L., & Schuh, J. (1996). Assessment in student afluirs: A guide forpractitioners. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

* Valerie, V. R. (1980). Perceptions of chief student affairs oficers regardingtheir professional development needs for the 1980s. Unpublished doctoral disser-tation, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley.

* Wade, R. W. (1993). An analysis of beliefs of ckief student affairs oflcersand student affairs professionals regarding perceived importance of selected person-al characteristics and professional competencies for advancement in tke field of stu-dent afiairs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio University Athens.

572