The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 1 - 48

Maureen E. Wilson * Amy S. Hirschy * John M. Braxton

response to violations of admonitory norms
is more varied. Professionals deemed them
inappropriate but not deserving of severe
sanctions. Jeopardizing students' welfare
and damaging one's personal and professional reputation are two potential outcomes
of transgressing admonitory norms; this can
lead to other consequences such as harming
students and losing career advancement opportunities within the ﬁeld.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
There are two research questions for the
study. First, does a normative structure exist
for college HRLPs? If so, what are the admonitory norms that comprise this normative
structure? Second, if a normative structure
exists, does the level of objection expressed
for the admonitory norms differ based on
HRLPs' personal characteristics (i.e., gender,
race, education level, years in the profession)
and/or institutional type (four year private, all
others)?

METHODS
Survey Instrument
We used a cross-sectional, quantitative research design in which members of ACUHO-I
completed a 10-15 minute, 98-item, web-based
survey we developed, The Housing and Residence Life Behaviors Inventory (HRLBI).
To inform the construction of survey items,
we drew upon professional documents (i.e.,
ACUHO-I, 2008, 2010; CAS, 2012; Porter,
2011). For example, "The training and development of staff uses assessment and evaluation practices" (ACUHO-I, 2010, p. 9) led to
this survey item: "The staff member responsible for training does not assess the needs

of staff." Additionally, we sought feedback
on the survey draft regarding item clarity
and missing or unnecessary items the from a
member of the ACUHO-I executive board who
was also a chief housing ofﬁcer (CHO), three
additional CHOs, three midlevel administrators, and one entry-level hall director. Reviewers were from three ACUHO-I regions and
worked at small private colleges, mid-sized
and large public institutions, and a private
housing company. Based on their recommendations, we deleted 22 items to shorten the
survey and edited items to improve clarity.
Durkheim (1995 [1912]) maintained that
norms are best recognized when they are
violated. Therefore, the ﬁnal survey included
a list of potentially inappropriate behaviors
(e.g., a staff member dates an undergraduate
student), and participants rated their reaction
to each item using this scale: 1 = Behavior is
appropriate; 2 = Behavior is neither inappropriate nor appropriate; 3 = Behavior is mildly
inappropriate, generally not confronted; 4 =
Behavior is inappropriate, to be handled informally by an administrator suggesting change
or improvement; 5 = Behavior is inappropriate, requires formal administrative intervention. The HRLBI only identiﬁes behaviors that
respondents may view as inappropriate; these
speciﬁc behaviors may or may not ﬁt into a
broader pattern of normative orientations of
other professional groups.

Data Collection
ACUHO-I sent an email to all members inviting them to participate in the survey. The
email and two reminders contained a link to
an electronic survey. Of 11,286 invitations
sent, 1,294 surveys were submitted. Two

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 1