While in the library looking for Identity Development of College Students: Advancing Frameworks for Multiple Dimensions of Identity by Susan R. Jones, I stumbled across Sociology of Higher Education: Contributions and their Contexts. This piqued my interest because I hadn’t thought about specific domains within higher education research; instead I focused on books and other resources which were recommended and had high reviews. This particular book is about the publications of Burton Clark, and instead of being original publications of Clark, it is a series of examinations from Patricia Gumport and other “leading scholars.” It was rather difficult to read as it utilizes Clark’s assessments during a time when the topic was still new, as it only emerged after World War II, when admissions to college skyrocketed in numbers; so the resources were rather outdated. However, some are still relevant, which I will describe later.
The topics in this book range, but mainly it seems to be about Clark’s disappointment in the lack of research in this field and the focuses Clark hopes to see develop in the future as well as the comparison of current research trends in this field to his advice. He also described the importance of sociology in a higher education context in working with disadvantaged students. He described how public access to schools were still “new” and faculty and researchers weren’t focusing enough on the changing, diverse culture of schools and continued with the old ways. Despite this being written when higher education was just building as an option for a larger population of students, I feel this still remains, despite more literature being done. Still, at the time he described the field as “young and unformed” with the potential to contribute greatly to institutions. Clark also described a need for two different analyses of future contribution to the field. These are socio-psychological analyses and organizational analyses. Despite this, most current research in the field focuses on analytical analysis; financial aid, socioeconomic status (SES) and college attainability, and “student choices.”
According to the editor, Clark also described how these topics within the field should center around “liberal sensibility” surrounding student life, attitudes, political beliefs and protests, with examples, from the editor, like civil rights, free speech, anti-Vietnam war, women’s liberation and lgbt rights. When I was left wondering if he meant “liberal” in a political way or an educational way (briefly assuming the two had to be mutually exclusive, like I’ve been told by others), Clark furthered this idea by describing how the “Left” are more often addressing issues of student inequality than conservatives within higher education institutions.
This made a lot of sense to me, as I had always wondered why I had been mocked for being a liberal college student who would “learn” once I get into the “real world.” I now understand how this stems from the emergence and popularity of higher education, and how real change was needed to adapt to the changes made within the institution, but mostly those with liberal (with the political definition of being open to change and adaptation at the cost of traditional methods) mindsets were able to see this and act on this, as Clark described.
I thought of this during Stress and Wellness when my instructor described how, in the media, the older generation openly mocks the millennial generation for its use of “safe spaces” and stress-relieving activities, like playing with Legos or coloring in the library, to ensure student wellness, despite studies which describe its importance. As these methods weren’t available while they were in school, these shouldn’t be available now. This, I feel, is an example of the changing times and resistance to it, as Clark was describing.