The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 38, No. 2 & Volume 39, No. 1 - 42

Cliff Haynes • Steven M. Janosik

grams. Some institutions did not have updated information listed with the ACUHO-I central office, so it is possible that not all the institutions offering LLPs were listed in the database. Additionally, campus contacts were asked to identify faculty and staff involved in LLPs at their institutions. They may not have contacted all the faculty and staff involved or may not have contacted those with a marginal level of involvement in the LLPs. Finally, since this was a quantitative study, the data collected were responses to predetermined options on the instrument. A study that allowed participants more flexibility in their responses might provide different results. In addition, the limitations of self-reported data are well known. While it could be that respondents may have been less than candid with their responses or tried to anticipate the preferred response, there was no indication that this occurred. Despite these potential limitations, the results of the study expand the body of literature on benefits for faculty and staff involved in LLPs.

state of practice. The results provide a frequency count of the intrinsic and extrinsic benefits that faculty and staff gain by being involved in LLPs. Campus administrators developing LLPs can use this data when identifying the benefits that faculty and staff at their institutions might receive for being involved in LLPs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The present study also has implications for future research. For example, this study explores the intrinsic and extrinsic benefits that faculty and staff gain by being involved in LLPs. It is possible that these benefits differ by the type of LLP in which the faculty or staff member participates. Future studies might fill a gap in the literature by exploring the benefits based on type of LLP. Future research might also address whether the benefits differ based on the depth, quality, and intensity of the faculty or staff member’s level of participation in the LLP. For instance, future studies might compare those who are involved in the creation and administration aspects of the LLP to those who only present occasional programs to LLP students. Such a study would broaden the information available about faculty and staff involvement in LLPs. Future researchers might wish to investigate the characteristics of faculty who are more likely to become involved in LLPs. This study focused on the benefits that faculty gain by being involved, but a future study could focus on the demographics of faculty involved in LLPs. The study could use a disciplinary model (i.e., hard sciences versus soft sciences, peopleoriented disciplines versus data-oriented disciplines) to explore the disciplines of the faculty

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE PRACTICE
The present study has implications for future practice. The results provide information on the intrinsic and extrinsic benefits gained by faculty and staff involved in LLPs, which may aid others in deciding whether to become involved with LLPs. In addition, coordinators recruiting faculty and staff might use the possible benefits from being involved in the LLP in recruitment literature. Campus administrators developing LLPs might also benefit from the results of this study because it provides a description of the current
42

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 38, No. 2 & Volume 39, No. 1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 38, No. 2 & Volume 39, No. 1