Artificial Goods: Credentialism and Student Affairs Professional Development

Abstract

Artificial Goods:Credentialism and Student Affairs Professional Development Laila I. McCloud (bio) and Niki Messmore (bio) Because of ongoing pessimism and frustration with the increased work expectations that do not correlate with increased financial compensation, student affairs professionals are left wondering what the future of student affairs is (21st Century Task Force, 2020). Graduate preparation programs and professional associations that have maintained their position as significant socialization agents for the field (Duran & Allen, 2020; Perez, 2016) are also wrestling with this question. Many student affairs professionals spend several years in graduate school being socialized into ways of being, thinking, and doing that often perpetuate whiteness. This socialization shows up in the classroom where faculty position graduate Students of Color as the experts on race-related issues (Harris & Linder, 2018) while failing to encourage racial identity development among white graduate students (Briscoe & Jones, 2022). This socialization continues as educators become enmeshed in their institution's culture. When these graduate students transition into full-time employment, the positioning of particular groups of people as experts on certain issues will follow them. The presumption of expertise on certain topics (e.g., anything diversity related) carries over into the availability of professional development opportunities. In recent years, opportunities for student affairs educators to pursue professional development have increased. These opportunities include pursuing additional degrees (e.g., a master's or doctoral degree or certificates) or learning experiences sponsored by professional associations (e.g., conferences, C.E.Us., or certificates). However, these opportunities come with physical and financial costs that need to be collectively assessed and evaluated by professionals and faculty compared to their effectiveness in enhancing student affairs practice and improving the quality of life for student affairs educators. Graduate preparation programs and professional associations have pushed practitioners and faculty to think about the role of credentialism in perpetuating whiteness, neoliberalism, and labor inequity that fuel our current evolution. THE ROLE OF ARTIFICIAL GOODS For this conversation, we understand credentials as any formal education deemed necessary or helpful for career advancement and social mobility. Credentialism perpetuates inequality in that individuals in senior-level positions operate as gatekeepers by controlling who has access based upon what Collins (2019) referred to as an "artificial good" (p. 243). Certificates [End Page 246] become an artificial good as they are used to demonstrate that a student affairs professional has more education, not that they are more skilled or knowledgeable. In this case, the increasing call for more skilled workers pushes student affairs educators to obtain additional educational currencies in a highly stratified labor market. Student affairs professionals are also in a unique position because their place of employment is both a site and guarantor of information production (Walters, 2004). We exist in a system that promotes credentialism while also seeing it as tied to our own success and credibility. We will explore these credentialing initiatives from our perspectives as a Black woman faculty member in a higher education and student affairs (HESA) graduate program and a White woman, mid-level student affairs professional. WHO'S CREDENTIAL IS IT? Contemporary social issues have pulled our attention to how whiteness dictates the entry into and movement within the student affairs profession. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted many highly rejective graduate programs to eliminate their reliance on standardized testing to grant admission. The question remains whether the decision to eliminate the testing requirements was about disrupting whiteness or a response to limited opportunities to complete the test. Once students are enrolled in the program, faculty spend a significant amount of time assuaging students' concerns about their professional futures. Graduate students receive messages that they should know the functional area they want to work in for the rest of their careers. However, students who are racially marginalized often comment that they worry about having future career opportunities limited if they pursue certain functional areas. This worry is exacerbated by students' social locations and the organizational structure of student affairs divisions, which promote siloing of student identity and development. Two issues arise from this siloing as it relates to credentialing. First, the presence of certificates for particular functional areas perpetuates the idea that there is a particular way of doing the...