My Journey to Self-Authorship Through College
The first step in applying student development theory to practice involves understanding the assumptions, limitations, commonalities, and differences within and between theories. When it comes to practice, students cannot be defined by one single identity. They have multiple identities, and these identities intersect to develop a unique student. Holistic student development requires Student Affairs professionals to understand the ways in which these theories can inform their understanding of the multiple intersecting identities of students to better serve the students’ development. Reflecting on one’s own identities and their development through college utilizing theoretical frameworks will provide “a firm foundation…for professional practice that reflects maturity and self-knowledge” (Patton et al., 2016, p. 385).
In this paper, I will reflect on my college experiences and identities through the lens of theoretical frameworks provided by Marcia’s Ego Identity Statuses (1966), Baxter Magolda’s Self-Authorship Theory (2001, 2014), Phinney’s Ethnic Identity Development (1993), and Berry’s Theory on Acculturation (2005). I will explore the ways by which these theories inform my identity development through college, the intersectionality of these identities, and my practice in Student Affairs.
Identity Development Analysis
Ego Identity Statuses
Marcia’s four ego identity statuses are developed as a result of a student’s reaction to crisis in his environment through exploration and commitment (Marcia, 1966). Foreclosure is when the student is conventional and follows authorities, they do not challenge the status quo, and are unable to handle major changes in their life. Commitment without a crisis marks this status. Moratorium is the status wherein students begin to question authority and previously set rules in facing their own crisis and begin to explore alternate ideas but have not yet committed to how they define themselves. Diffusion is the status marked by students never questioning external authorities. They do not have a crisis in identity development as they adopt external definitions and have no clear commitment to their sense of identity. Identity achievement is where in the face of an identity crisis, students explore their choices, take risks, and make a commitment to their choice and how they define themselves. These statuses do not occur in a specific order and are not permanent. Marcia focused on white males in this research and while generalizing from a non-inclusive sample may not be best practice, his findings help provide a perspective on how to better help students who may be navigating multiple options without their parents’ guidance for the first time in college (Marcia, 1966).
Drawing from my own experiences, I experienced crisis for the first time when I graduated high school and was awaiting my admission letter from my coveted Psychology program at Women’s Christian College, India (WCC). My friends and family had all agreed that it was the best college for my interests. When I did not get admission into the college along with my high school cohort, I was in a crisis. I was unsure of my next steps as this university was the only one offering Psychology. I began to explore alternate options, in other areas such as History and English Literature. I finally decided that waiting to hear back from WCC for Psychology was worth the risk over choosing an alternative option based on others opinion on what I should do. This aligns with Marcia’s identity achievement as I finally made a commitment to the program of my choice in the university of my choice even if it meant starting later than everyone else.
A second crisis I faced was during my years researching in graduate school. The changing research expectations from my graduate committee required me to constantly explore various options without being able to commit to a specific plan of action and timeline for graduation. The external stressors such as finances, and employment situations added to the crisis. This situation aligns with Marcia’s moratorium status. This was a temporary state, as I navigated my limited academic options and my personal life, and finally made the commitment to discontinue my thesis and invest in a career with Kohl’s. This is moving into Marcia’s identity achievement.
Self-Authorship Theory
Baxter Magolda’s defines self-authorship as “the internal capacity to define one’s beliefs, identity, and social relations” (2008, p. 269). To make meaning of their lives, college students explore three dimensions—epistemological (How do I know?), intrapersonal (Who am I?), and interpersonal (How do I want to construct relationships with others?). To develop self-authorship, students go from having external sources define who they are, to facing a conflict between external and internal sources, and eventually relying on internal sources to define themselves. This journey consists of 4 phases. Following formulas is the phase where students accept external definitions of themselves. They do as they are told by their family and peers. In the Crossroads phase, students have experiences where external definitions conflict with their own sense of self or their internal voice. Becoming the author of one’s life is when students develop the ability to trust their internal voice and stand up for themselves. The three dimensions of meaning making are intertwined in this phase. Finally, internal foundation is achieved when one is “grounded” in their sense of self. There is an openness to change, peace, contentment, and inner strength at this stage. The key elements that lead to self-authorship include trusting the internal voice, building an internal foundation, and securing internal commitments. The journey to self-authorship is not a linear process and achieving internal foundation depends on the students’ identity and the situations that challenge and support the students. The main limitation of the self-authorship theory is that it draws from a population in a single university. However, Magolda, Torres, Pizzolato and others have consistently researched and observed similar journeys toward self-authorship in diverse populations, in a variety of institutions demonstrating the theory’s broader applicability (Pizzolato, 2007; Torres & Baxter Magolda, 2004).
Analyzing my own experiences through the lens of the self-authorship theory, I can see my journey toward self-authorship from following external formulas to developing an internal foundation. During my transition from high school to college, I followed the ideas and suggestions of family and my group of friends. I defined myself by my social group and made everyone’s goals my goals without any critical thought. When I was challenged by the week’s delay in getting my admission and struggling to fit in with my friends who had moved on without me, I was forced to begin considering the ways I made meaning and defined who I was without my peers. I was at the crossroads phase as I reconstructed my sense of self and my goals outside of my peers and family. During this time, I moved to America and in addition to the pressures of adjusting to a new environment and culture, I was faced with various expectations from my family in the United States. Having to face friends and family members who pressured me to complete my thesis, without understanding all the issues I had to face living independently, made me realize that I could no longer control my situation with my thesis. I also could not make those who cared for me, understand the details of my situation, but I could change the ways in which I reacted to them and my situation. These challenges forced me to reflect on my situation and make meaning for myself with my own internal voice to identify what I wanted to do next. As I developed an intellectual awareness, I was able to stand up for my beliefs and pursue my career at Kohl’s irrespective of the viewpoints of my family members and friends. While extremely emotional and stressful, the result of this intense self-reflection and decision-making has made me develop a strong sense of self. I see this as Baxter Magolda’s becoming the author of one’s life phase. My professional experiences in retail while working in a leadership role with others from different backgrounds strengthened my internal voice and solidified my system of belief. At this point in my life, having a stable career, not being concerned with others’ opinions of me, being comfortable with who I am and where I am with my sense of self, my inner strength, contentment, and spirituality, I have achieved my internal foundation.
Ethnic Identity Development
Phinney’s model of ethnic identity development discusses three stages in the formation of a student’s ethnic identity built on Marcia’s ego identity statuses (1993). The first stage is an unexamined ethnic identity similar to Marcia’s diffusion and foreclosure. For students in this stage, ethnicity may be a non-issue, something they did not actively consider or explore as with Marcia’s diffusion. Alternately, they may develop a sense of their ethnicity from significant others as part of their childhood and adopted this identity without exploration as prompted by Marcia’s foreclosure. In the next stage of Phinney’s ethnic identity development, Ethnic Identity Search, students are aware of issues surrounding their ethnic identity and actively explore opportunities. This stage is marked by exploration without commitment similar to Marcia’s moratorium. The final stage in this model is Ethnic Identity Achievement where students have resolved conflicts through exploration and have committed to a bicultural identity. These students, while they identify with a minoritized ethnicity, are also open to other ethnicities and are more confident with their sense of self. While Phinney’s model of ethnic identity development focuses on commonalities, more research is needed to ensure that it is representative and applicable to the multiple ethnicities we see on American campuses.
Having lived in India for 20 years, I did not have much exposure to ethnicities other than my own. During that time, my ethnicity was a non-issue that did not require exploring. I was in Phinney’s Unidentified Ethnic Identity Diffusion stage. Moving to the United States to a public university in the Midwest introduced me to diverse populations and ethnicities. I became aware of my “Indianness” as I interacted with my classmates and host families. During this stage of Ethnic Identity Search, I explored my own identity in relation to those around me by attending various events hosted by various student organizations on campus, engaged with my host family and their friends. I have since entered the Ethnic Identity Achievement phase as I have explored and committed to my identity as an Indian but am open to all other ethnicities around me.
Acculturation
Acculturation is the process by which a person’s ethnic beliefs, values and behaviors change as a result of desired or undesired exposure to a more dominant culture (Berry, 1993). Berry’s theory of acculturation defines four strategies students from minoritized ethnicities utilize to relate to the dominant culture (2005). Assimilation is when they identify solely with the dominant culture and completely ignore their own culture; Marginalization is when they reject both the dominant and own cultures; Separation is when they separate from the dominant culture and identify solely with their own culture; and Integration, similar to Ethnic Identity Achievement is where they become bicultural, maintain aspects of their own groups while adopting some aspects of the dominant culture (Farver et al., 2007). Of these strategies, those pursuing integration have the most seamless and least stressful acculturation experiences and adapt to their new culture better (Berry, 2005).
Looking back to when I first came to this country, I recall trying to assimilate with the American culture. Having never confronted my ethnic identity in my own country, being a part of a minoritized ethnicity in my new country left me lacking a sense of belonging. My different accent, the ill-informed questions directed at me, the weariness of eating alone between classes, and not finding the food with which I grew up, were all stressors that made me recognize and understand my national and ethnic identity. I tended to slow down my speech so others would understand me better, I wore fewer ethnic clothes and more western outfits, and I spent less time with my Indian friends and attended fewer Indian events on campus as I wanted to be a part of the American culture. I did everything I could to be perceived as less Indian, so I would belong with my cohort. Finding that sense of belonging with my lab mates helped me develop more confidence. Over time, with more exploration and different cultural experiences through on-campus activities, I felt less pressured to adhere to the dominant culture and held on to my own culture. I developed a sense of balance and became bicultural. I now have a higher level of confidence in who I am and my national and ethnic identity is not something I seek to hide or by which I am embarrassed. Instead, I have focused less on assimilation and have integrated better by holding on to those parts of my culture that remain important to me, while also acquiring aspects of western culture.
Intersectionality and Context
As mentioned previously, no student is just one identity. They have multiple identities that intersect and are situated in different environmental contexts that affect their identity development. In this section, I discuss the various intersecting concepts that affected my development throughout college.
As an international transfer student, I did not attend an orientation session. I was new to the American culture, the educational systems with credit hours, and had never been to a university as large as Illinois State University. While I was trying to navigate the new culture and system, the most difficult aspect of being in this new place involved not having my social group. I did not have any friends and had to eat lunch alone. At this time, I did not have any connection to other Indian students on campus either and did not fit in anywhere. I felt very self-conscious, depressed, and began questioning my decision to immigrate to the United States. This sense of not mattering and belonging in college while handling multiple other developmental and acculturative stressors was overwhelming. The lack of a sense of mattering is critical as it leads students to feel marginalized (Schlossberg, 1989). Slowly finding my way to various campus organizations and working in my neuroscience lab provided me with a sense of validation and belonging (Ostrove, 2003). These intersecting concepts along with my ethnic identity development affected my self-esteem and confidence (Mena et al., 1987) until I found myself thriving in my neuroscience lab.
During my identity development and my journey toward self-authorship, the access to support systems on campus including mentors, host family members, and student organizations were instrumental in helping me navigate through my challenging crisis and encouraging exploration (Sanford, 1967). This allowed for self-reflection and decision-making that precipitated the successful development of my identities and sense of self.
Understanding the ways in which students define themselves with multiple identities and how these identities interact and affect their ability to make choices and thrive in college, will be critical in guiding their development. Some of these intersecting identities may challenge the students more than others. Therefore, having support systems in place that are marketed appropriately becomes critical to allow for holistic student development that is not a ‘one size fits all’ approach. Similar to my experiences, most students from a minoritized ethnicity may be overwhelmed by the size and cultural differences of their new campus. They may not be aware of resources available to them and where to access them (Parks-Yancy, 2012). As a student affairs professional who has had similar experiences, I will be better able to assist students in directing them to resources they did not know existed.
It is also important to discuss the environmental context of students in college and the ways in which certain power structures might oppress some students who are already feeling marginalized and dealing with crisis. Bronfenbrenner’s developmental ecology discusses the mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem surrounding students’ development (1997). A student’s microsystem is the immediate system in which learning takes place. This system will interact with his mesosystem comprised of immediate influences such as a job, roommates, and classes that could pose multiple challenges and support. The exosystem and macrosystem comprise of broader structures in the society that the student may not be able to control but exerts an effect on their development. For example, the exosystem could include financial aid policies, and immigration policies whereas the larger macrosystem includes pressures such as cultural expectations and social forces (Bronfenbrenner, 1997).
Theory to Practice
Understanding that students have varied experiences through high school in different countries, ethnicities, social class and race and the ways in which they interact can help student affairs professionals in their interactions with these students. Providing intentional programming and opportunities for students to explore on campus may allow them to better navigate crisis situations. On-campus resources like Counseling Services, events fostering the interactions of students with faculty, staff, and the community would provide students opportunities toward identity achievement and provide a sense of belonging. Having resources such as the International Student Services and Disability Services were useful for me as a new immigrant who is hard of hearing and never had such services offered in my home country. I would never have known to look for and utilize these resources had I not been informed of them by my host family.
Most students experience a lack of belonging when they enter a new culture. Theory informs us of some of the ways in which students react when in contact with new cultures. Universities can encourage integration over assimilation by offering various cultural programs allowing students to explore and embrace different ethnicities while learning aspects of the dominant culture. Setting up peer-to peer mentorship circles (Staroscik, 2018) and host family connections between members of the dominant culture and minoritized ethnicities will allow students to learn about the dominant culture while also sharing their culture with others. Such integration initiatives will create less acculturative stress and empower students to develop their identities in an environment that provides challenges and support.
Guiding students to author their own lives would empower them in their decision-making and development. While support systems are helpful in providing guidance for students, most campus environments are limited in what they can provide due to budgetary concerns. Focusing on the Learning Partnerships Model suggested by Baxter Magolda would assist students in their ability to control the things they can control, to better their own situation (2001). Helping them solve their problems by making them reflect on their own prior successes navigating such situations and working together towards their holistic development will promote their journey to self-authorship.
Taken together, student development theories are a useful tool in providing various lenses to understand student development in college. However, for holistic student development, multiple frameworks and intersectionality theories can help inform practice and acknowledge the lived experiences of students. While these theories can help inform student affairs programs and practices, at the individual level, understanding that each student is unique, as a student affairs professional, I would consider intersecting constructs from multiple theories over any one specific theory. Applying critical theory along with an intersectionality lens will further help me develop individual students through college.
References
Baxter Magolda, M. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-development (1st ed..). Stylus.
Baxter Magolda, M. (2008). Three Elements of Self-Authorship. Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0016
Baxter Magolda, M. (2014). Self-Authorship. New Directions for Higher Education, 2014(166), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20092
Berry, J. W. (1993). Ethnic identity in plural societies. In Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission among Hispanics and other minorities (pp. 271–296).
Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(6), 697–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.013
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1997). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and fugitive findings. College Student Development and Academic Life: Psychological, Intellectual, Social and Moral Issues.
Farver, J. M., Xu, Y., Bhadha, B. R., Narang, S., & Lieber, E. (2007). Ethnic Identity, Acculturation, Parenting Beliefs, and Adolescent Adjustment: A Comparison of Asian Indian and European American Families. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53(2), 184–215.
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023281
Mena, F. J., Padilla, A. M., & Maldonado, M. (1987). Acculturative Stress and Specific Coping Strategies among Immigrant and Later Generation College Students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9(2), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/07399863870092006
Ostrove, J. M. (2003). Belonging and Wanting: Meanings of Social Class Background for Women’s Constructions of their College Experiences. Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), 771–784. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0022-4537.2003.00089.x
Parks-Yancy, R. (2012). Interactions into opportunities: Career management for low-income, first-generation African American college students. Journal of College Student Development, 53(4), 510–523.
Patton, L. D., Renn, K. A., Guido, F. M., & Quaye, S. J. (2016). Student Development in College: Theory, Research, and Practice (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Student+Development+in+College%3A+Theory%2C+Research%2C+and+Practice%2C+3rd+Edition-p-9781118821817
Phinney, J. S. (1993). A three-stage model of ethnic identity development in adolescence. In Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission among Hispanics and other minorities (p. 79).
Pizzolato, J. E. (2007). Assessing self-authorship. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2007(109), 31–42.
Sanford, N. (1967). Where colleges fail: A study of the student as a person. Jossey-Bass.
Schlossberg, N. K. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. New Directions for Student Services, 1989(48), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.37119894803
Torres, V., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Reconstructing Latino identity: The influence of cognitive development on the ethnic identity process of Latino students. Journal of College Student Development, 45(3), 333–347.
